Do today's kids have "nature-deficit disorder"?

Do today's kids have "nature-deficit disorder"?

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/featu...ouv/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/g7lk9

A new book argues that children desperately need to be able to play in
the woods -- and that our culture's sterile rejection of nature is
harming them in body and soul.

By Sarah Karnasiewicz
June 2, 2005

In the not-so-distant past, kids ruled the country's woods and valleys
-- running in packs, building secret forts and treehouses, hunting
frogs and fish, playing hide-and-seek behind tall grasses. But in the
last 30 years, says journalist Richard Louv, children of the digital
age have become increasingly alienated from the natural world, with
disastrous implications, not only for their physical fitness, but also
for their long-term mental and spiritual heath.

In his new book, "Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From
Nature-Deficit Disorder," Louv argues that sensationalist media
coverage and paranoid parents have literally "scared children straight
out of the woods and fields," while promoting a litigious culture of
fear that favors "safe" regimented sports over imaginative play.
Well-meaning elementary school curricula may teach students everything
there is to know about the Amazon rain forest's endangered species, but
do little to encourage kids' personal relationship with the world
outside their own doors. And advances in technology, while opening up a
wealth of "virtual" experiences to the young, have made it easier and
easier for children to spend less time outside.

Louv spent 10 years traveling around the country reporting and speaking
to parents and children, in both rural and urban areas, about their
experiences in nature. In "Last Child in the Woods," he pairs their
anecdotes with a growing body of scientific research that suggests
children who are given early and ongoing positive exposure to nature
thrive in intellectual, spiritual and physical ways that their
"shut-in" peers do not. By reducing stress, sharpening concentration,
and promoting creative problem solving, "nature-play" is also emerging
as a promising therapy for attention-deficit disorder and other
childhood maladies. Indeed Louv, in both the book's title and content,
suggests that while increased exposure to nature may prove a salve for
many of the childhood disorders that now run rampant, the very ubiquity
of those disorders is evidence that two generations of alienation from
nature may have already resulted in considerable harm to our kids.

Louv recently visited Salon's New York office to discuss the
correlation between the decline in kids' contact with nature and the
rising obesity epidemic; the criminalization of old-fashioned play; and
the simple pleasure of having dirty hands and wet feet.

What is nature-deficit disorder?

It's the cumulative effect of withdrawing nature from children's
experiences, but not just individual children. Families too can show
the symptoms -- increased feelings of stress, trouble paying attention,
feelings of not being rooted in the world. So can communities, so can
whole cities. Really, what I'm talking about is a disorder of society
-- and children are victimized by it.

Why, in the age of ADHD, did you choose such a loaded name?

Because I do think it is a disorder, just one of society. I am very
careful in the book not to give the suggestion that this is some kind
of clinical diagnosis. Maybe someday it will be, but until the
scientists come up with a better name, that's the one I'm using.

Is this just an urban problem, or does it affect children in suburban
and rural areas as well?

For my research, I tried to cross every barrier I could think of -- for
instance, I did interviews in more rural areas and suburban areas, like
the one I grew up in outside Kansas City, which still has a lot of
nature. I went in there thinking, Well, certainly if you have woods
next to you, kids will be out in them. But that simply wasn't true. The
parents and the kids there were saying the same things as kids in more
urban areas. In fact, the amount of nature you have in New York City is
actually better than some of the newer suburbs; imagine, today, a city
building a Central Park.

A major study came out a few months ago that said that the rate of
obesity in children is growing faster in rural areas than it is in
cities and suburbs. Again, it seems counterintuitive. But it's not so
counterintuitive when you think about the fact that the family farm is
fairly nonexistent now. Kids in rural areas are playing the same video
games, watching the same television, and they're on longer car rides.

Certainly the explosion of technology over the last 25 years -- from
cable TV, to video games, home computers and the Internet -- has
curtailed the amount of time kids spend playing outside each day. But
during that same time, hasn't society as a whole become much more aware
of environmental issues?

I say early in the book that it's more like the polarity has reversed.
When I was a kid I had an intimate knowledge of woods and fields, to
the extent that I pulled up hundreds of survey stakes to protect them
from bulldozers. I really had a sense of ownership -- I had no clue
that my woods were connected to other woods ecologically. It's the
reverse now. Kids today can tell you lots of things about the Amazon
rain forest; they can't usually tell you the last time they lay out in
the woods and watched the leaves move. It's not that learning about the
Amazon is bad -- it's great, and I'm glad it's happening -- the problem
is, it becomes an intellectualized relationship with nature. And I
don't think there's much that can replace wet feet and dirty hands.
It's one thing to read about a frog, it's another to hold it in your
hand and feel its life.

By now, we've all heard the reports that two out of 10 American
children are clinically obese -- four times the number reported in the
late 1960s. And you note that this obesity epidemic has coincided with
the greatest increase in organized sports for children in history. So,
what can unstructured outdoor play offer kids that soccer and little
league can't?

First, I'm not against soccer, and it's not a 1-to-1 ratio in terms of
cause and effect. In the book, I'm cautious when talking about obesity
-- it's complex. But I think it is a striking fact that the two
[statistics] have grown alongside one another. One factor is just
frequency of movement -- it's one thing to go to soccer practice once a
week, or even three times a week -- compared to the way kids used to
come home from school and just head out. Sometimes I played free-form
pick-up baseball, but most of the time, I was just gone, in the woods,
and I was moving, I was racing my collie. That was constant. And I was
so skinny I had to run around in the shower to get wet.

But there's something going on here that's more mysterious, and frankly
the lack of study on it means any answer to your question will be
incomplete. There is the "biophilia" hypothesis, which in some quarters
is controversial, but that suggests we are still hunters and gatherers
and biologically we have not changed. That hypothesis says there is
something in us that needs natural forms, that needs association with
nature in ways that we don't fully understand. I think we instinctively
understand that there is something about being in nature that you
cannot get on a soccer field.

At one point you quote research that says children playing in parks are
naturally drawn, not to the landscaped fields, but to the rocky borders
where there are natural plants and ravines. But parents seem to spend a
lot more time these days looking for spaces that are "child-friendly."
By building super-structured suburban communities dominated by gates
and playing fields, are we actually making kids' imaginative worlds
smaller?

What we usually design is really more "lawyer-friendly" than
"child-friendly." This is a litigious society, and a lot of the places
you are talking about have been designed by attorneys, not park
designers. But there is interplay between the fear of lawsuits and
[parents'] fear of a "bogeyman" that is going to hurt their children --
indeed, they almost have become one and the same.

In the book I write about natural tort reform, and the idea that we
will have to confront this problem sooner or later. For instance, I
bring up the idea of the "criminalization" of natural play, where if
you take all the state regulations, the well-intended and often needed
environmental restrictions, and add those to the covenants and
restrictions that now cover almost any new development that has been
built in the last 20 years -- things that control everything to whether
you can plant rosebushes in the front to what color your curtains --
well, the idea of a freewheeling, tree-house-building, nature-loving
kid doesn't fit that. So if all of [these restrictions] were to be
enforced, playing outdoors by kids would be essentially illegal. It's
not all enforced, but the message still gets through -- kids get a
sense that there's something unsavory about playing outdoors. And it's
too easy to blame this on lazy parents who let the TV do the baby
sitting, when the truth is there is a matrix of forces that have come
together to create this problem, and those forces are hard to stand up
against as an individual and as a people.

You say that parents' anxious attitude about the world -- what you call
"stranger danger" -- a nebulous paranoia about violent criminals and
sexual predators, kidnappers, traffic accidents, lawsuits and freak
disease is one of many factors, including increased technology, that
has alienated kids from nature.

It's not good for human beings to live with fear all the time. In this
society we are increasingly living in fear, whether it's of terrorism
or "stranger danger" -- and statistically, most of that fear is not
warranted. Child abductions by strangers are, in fact, rare, and
criminologists and others report that the number of them may have
decreased in recent years. A 1988 report by the National Incidence
Study on Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway Children in America,
stated that there were between 200 and 300 children abducted by
strangers in 1988. The most recent such National Incidence Study, found
115 children kidnapped by strangers in 1999. A relatively few child
abductions are amplified into the appearance of an epidemic through
nonstop coverage by the media. All of this is not to say that child
abductions are a small matter, but fear of them must be weighed against
the effects of that fear on our daily lives -- including children's
ability to find joy in nature. However, if you live next door to
somebody whose child was kidnapped, it doesn't matter what the
statistics are, and I understand that fear and I've felt it myself as a
parent.

According to the 2005 Duke University Child Well Being Index, American
kids are safer now than they have been at any time since 1975.
Specifically, violent victimization of children has dropped more than
38 percent. So why do we feel that so much has changed?

Now, to play devil's advocate to my own theory, if kids are safer now
it may well be because we're holding them inside. But what we don't
measure is the danger of what happens to their imaginations and inner
lives because of it -- those other repercussions aren't measured at
all.

In terms of where it all comes from -- well, there's a story I mention
in my book about a little girl who was stolen from her bedroom and
killed, one of these cases that was 'round the clock on CNN for a long
time. That happened right over the hill from where I live in
California. It's an important story, I don't mean to dismiss it -- but
weeks of it, around the clock? We're being conditioned to be fearful
all the time. So a lot of it is the media.

That said, the name you chose for your book -- "Nature-Deficit
Disorder" -- probably plays directly into the fears of many parents.

I knew that would come up and made a conscious decision to accept the
criticism, because I am confident this issue is important enough to
deserve attention.

That said, I don't want to dwell on the negative; I'm hopeful that as
this change becomes more visible to everyone, and the detriments of
this shift begin to be discussed, that we also start to discuss the
good news -- the wonderful things that nature play can do for kids,
like reducing the symptoms of ADHD, stress reduction, increased
creativity, cognitive skills, and full use of the senses. "Last Child
in the Woods" may be the first place all this research has come
together outside of academia, but there have already been some very
brave researchers working on these ideas. I call them brave because
most of them are not winning big grants -- since as one of them
explained to me, "Who's going to pay for a toy you can't sell?" For
instance, at the University of Illinois, there is remarkable study
happening that suggests that nature play might be a therapy for kids
with ADHD. Well, I would also flip that around and ask if there is
something missing in kids' lives that is actually contributing to or
aggravating their symptoms? I'm skeptical about a lot of the diagnoses
of ADHD, really.

You repeatedly refer to a 1991 study that found that the radius
children are allowed to roam outside their homes has shrunk to a ninth
of what it was 20 years ago. I remember being a young teenager and
sneaking off into the woods to tell stories and smoke cigarettes with
my girlfriends. This didn't necessarily promote good health, but it did
give me a feeling of independence and the knowledge that I had a life
-- a kid's world -- that existed separate from my parents. Maybe what
is hurting kids is not just that they have been given less freedom to
interact with nature, but that they have been allowed less freedom and
independence in general?

Well, there have been a lot of cigarettes smoked in tree houses.
(Laughs) Seriously, it's true that not only nature can give the feeling
of autonomy. But then when you think about where could kids be getting
that instinctual self-confidence and independence -- where could they
go -- it's hard to think of a lot of positive places. Nature often
provides an atmosphere you can't get anywhere else, a sensation of
being solitary. And again, I think there are mysterious things that
happen, a lot of which have to do with the full use of our senses. I
can't think of many places, other than maybe the New York subways, in
which we have our senses going full cylinder. And I make the case in
the book -- though I am very careful to say that I am speculating about
this -- that letting your kids have some independence in nature, where
they can use all their senses, in the long run makes them safer.

Usually hyper-vigilance -- behavior manifested by always being on guard
and ready to fight or flee -- is associated with trauma in childhood.
But the hyper-awareness gained from early experience in nature may be
the flip side of hyper-vigilance a positive way to pay attention, and,
when it's appropriate, to be on guard. We're familiar with the term
"street smart." Perhaps another, wider, adaptive intelligence is
available to the young? Call it "nature smart." One father I spoke to
said he believes that a child in nature is required to make decisions
not often encountered in a more constricted, planned environment --
ones that not only present danger, but opportunity. Organized sports,
with its finite set of rules, is said to build character. If that is
true, and of course it can be, nature experience must do the same, in
ways we do not fully understand. A natural environment is far more
complex than any playing field. Nature does offer rules and risk, and
subtly informs all the senses.

And certainly, the other aspects you mention -- that give a child
self-confidence, independence and the sense that they can exist in the
world and are somewhere bigger than their parents and their problems --
are all a part of the healing possibilities of nature that I hope
people will explore.

Another refrain that surfaces in your book is kids who say, "I don't
really have time to play," because they are always being carted off to
some kind of lesson or "enrichment" activity. In this context you speak
of both the "criminalization" and "commercialization" of play -- that
unless play takes the form of a competitive, structured activity,
parents and kids think of it as just "wasted time" -- a lazy afternoon
of daydreaming. When do you think this shift began?

The shift has been happening for several decades with increasing
rapidity. But the essential thing to realize is that we can do
something about it. If you think about the phrase "nature-deficit
disorder" -- all you really have to do to deal with the disorder is get
your kid out in nature now and then -- it's not brain surgery. It's
actually fun, and it's fun for parents.

The key is that as long as nature experiences are considered an
extracurricular activity, nothing will change. There are folks out
there who are hungry for it, who want an alternative to what is going
on in terms of organized sports and over-structured lives. The minute
it begins to be seen as a health issue, truly a mental health issue --
that wonderful things can happen for your child if you give them direct
experiences with nature -- then it's no longer an extracurricular
activity and really, it's no longer even leisure. When that kind of
conceptual shift happens, I think a lot of parents will be relieved --
they'll have a logical reason to do what their instincts tell them to
do anyhow.

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Do today's kids have "nature-deficit disorder"?

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/featu...ouv/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/g7lk9

I"m curious, Fred. What do YOU think about this? Do you think that
this is a real problem? Do you think that the children interviewed are
typical? Do you think that parents of this generation are more
protective of their children than were previous generations? Do you
think that's justified by changes in modern society? Do you think its
a consequence of the post-WW2 suburabanization of America? An effect of
more women in the workplace (so fewer kids are out and about alone
after school)?

And, on a slightly different topic, how do you feel about the copyright
laws in the US? Do you think its fair to repeatedly copy articles that
other people wrote and copy them willy-nilly to newsgroups, without so
much as a comment or explanation?

By the way, my kid is at daycamp right now, where he'll be swimming
(both in a lake and a swimming pool), boating, and playing baseball,
basketball, soccer and volleyball (among other things). Just about
every Saturday, we take him to the park where he plays in pick-up
baseball or basketball games for several hours. And that's pretty
typical for the kids *I* know.

Barbara

Barbara wrote:
snip


And, on a slightly different topic, how do you feel about the copyright
laws in the US? Do you think its fair to repeatedly copy articles that
other people wrote and copy them willy-nilly to newsgroups, without so
much as a comment or explanation?

He provides the link so technically he's not infringing on copyright
law.


By the way, my kid is at daycamp right now, where he'll be swimming
(both in a lake and a swimming pool), boating, and playing baseball,
basketball, soccer and volleyball (among other things). Just about
every Saturday, we take him to the park where he plays in pick-up
baseball or basketball games for several hours. And that's pretty
typical for the kids *I* know.

That's not what the book addresses. What it's talking about more is
the free play of children in wild places such as open fields, woods,
etc. I think the main reason parents don't allow such play is the fact
that allowing your kids such freedom appears to be unsafe as compared
to 30 or 40 years ago. Parents are more worried about kidnappings and
pervs than they were in the 50's, 60's and even 70's. Also, such free
and open spaces don't exist to the extent they used to, due to
development of open spaces. What used to be acres of woods are now
housing complexes, shopping cneters or if you are lucky, a developed
greenway.

We were just talking about this the other day. We do have open woods
here similar to those I played in as a kid (in a much more rural
setting). We were discussing if and when we would let DS play there
with his neighborhood friends. My one neighbor says "No way, not ever"
and I feel there is safety in numbers and if they are together in a
pack, that they'd be ok once they reasch a certain age (9, 10 or so).
The difference between the way we feel about it and the way I grew up
is I played in the nearby woods almost every day with one other female
friend from the time I was about 6 until I graduated highschool.
Parents nowdays simply don't allow their children - particularly female
children - that same sort of latitude. And they don't have the open
spaces like that available. I know there are very few places here in
SW corridor of Portlandd that afford that same sort of open space for
play. We looked a long time for a home that had it.

-L.

L. wrote:
Barbara wrote:
snip


And, on a slightly different topic, how do you feel about the copyright
laws in the US? Do you think its fair to repeatedly copy articles that
other people wrote and copy them willy-nilly to newsgroups, without so
much as a comment or explanation?

He provides the link so technically he's not infringing on copyright
law.

Completely and utterly false. This guy took the entire article and
reproduced it without permission. Giving a source is irrelevant to
that. What he *could* do legally is quote a short portion of the
article, comment on it, and give a link to the full article. (Caveat
-- this is not intended as legal advice. If you have a question
regarding copyright law, you should seek the advice of counsel. More
general information regarding US copyright law can be found at the US
Copyright Office website, located at
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html )


By the way, my kid is at daycamp right now, where he'll be swimming
(both in a lake and a swimming pool), boating, and playing baseball,
basketball, soccer and volleyball (among other things). Just about
every Saturday, we take him to the park where he plays in pick-up
baseball or basketball games for several hours. And that's pretty
typical for the kids *I* know.

That's not what the book addresses. What it's talking about more is
the free play of children in wild places such as open fields, woods,
etc. I think the main reason parents don't allow such play is the fact
that allowing your kids such freedom appears to be unsafe as compared
to 30 or 40 years ago. Parents are more worried about kidnappings and
pervs than they were in the 50's, 60's and even 70's. Also, such free
and open spaces don't exist to the extent they used to, due to
development of open spaces. What used to be acres of woods are now
housing complexes, shopping cneters or if you are lucky, a developed
greenway.

[Rest of interesting comments snipped]

Well, as I skimmed it, it was talking about both -- wasn't there a
reference to the lack of pick-up sports games? But my real complaint
is that this guy constantly spams this newsgroup by copying articles
without commenting on them. For some reason, that bothers me. You,
OTOH, raise some interesting points that merit discussion.

Barbara

L. wrote:
Barbara wrote:
snip


And, on a slightly different topic, how do you feel about the copyright
laws in the US? Do you think its fair to repeatedly copy articles that
other people wrote and copy them willy-nilly to newsgroups, without so
much as a comment or explanation?

He provides the link so technically he's not infringing on copyright
law.


By the way, my kid is at daycamp right now, where he'll be swimming
(both in a lake and a swimming pool), boating, and playing baseball,
basketball, soccer and volleyball (among other things). Just about
every Saturday, we take him to the park where he plays in pick-up
baseball or basketball games for several hours. And that's pretty
typical for the kids *I* know.

That's not what the book addresses. What it's talking about more is
the free play of children in wild places such as open fields, woods,
etc. I think the main reason parents don't allow such play is the fact
that allowing your kids such freedom appears to be unsafe as compared
to 30 or 40 years ago. Parents are more worried about kidnappings and
pervs than they were in the 50's, 60's and even 70's. Also, such free
and open spaces don't exist to the extent they used to, due to
development of open spaces. What used to be acres of woods are now
housing complexes, shopping cneters or if you are lucky, a developed
greenway.

You raise some interesting points -- I think, for me at this time and
place, there's a very strong perception that parents who allow their
kids to play unmonitored in the woods are being negligent, coupled with
a heightened awareness of sexual predators. There's oodles of open
space here, yet parents seemingly monitor kids' explorations (okay, my
eldest is almost 7) All The Time, which is a drag on the parents, and I
think leads to parents selecting more structured activities for their
kids. Which I think in turn leads to believing that kids must be
Entertained All The Time. Which just makes me crazy.

Right now, many kids from town congregate at the pond for hours every
day, and the parents or childcare providers hang out and talk while the
kids swim and make mindless sand structures. It's my favorite time of
year -- not so much for talking with other parents, but for watching
the fluidity of the kids' games and the general 'unstructured' aspect
of it all. Some kids catch tadpoles, others pretend to be fish, build
castles, fight wars with plastic figures in the sand, or are
'firefighter unicorns' (DD2, age 3), or practice their handstands in
the water. There are no formal rules for any of these games, and the
games seemingly evolve day-to-day with a rotating cast of players.
Groups form and break up within the half-hour, and adult supervision of
school-aged children is pretty minimal (beyond that provided by the
life guards). Arguments are intermediated by the kids (within reason),
and because the pond is open to town residents only, the kids who are
there are the same kids that my children see, day in and day out,
during the school year, or their older/younger siblings. It's a truly
delightful time of year -- and it lasts a whopping 2 months, then it's
back to All Supervision.

We were just talking about this the other day. We do have open woods
here similar to those I played in as a kid (in a much more rural
setting). We were discussing if and when we would let DS play there
with his neighborhood friends. My one neighbor says "No way, not ever"
and I feel there is safety in numbers and if they are together in a
pack, that they'd be ok once they reasch a certain age (9, 10 or so).

I'm with you on the safety in numbers, and have found about 20 parents
who bemoan the lack of freedom that their kids have yet feel
uncomfortable with taking the first step of just letting their kids
roam. (Oddly, the majority of the aforementioned parents grew up in
far less 'safe' environments than we now find ourselves in). The
mindful mindlessness of the kids' games during the summer -- the big
boulder is a fort, a castle, first base, the thing you have to have the
ball bounce off of before you catch it, the bedroom for the babydolls
-- is something I remember from my own childhood, and wish could exist
the other 10 months of the year.

The difference between the way we feel about it and the way I grew up
is I played in the nearby woods almost every day with one other female
friend from the time I was about 6 until I graduated highschool.
Parents nowdays simply don't allow their children - particularly female
children - that same sort of latitude. And they don't have the open
spaces like that available. I know there are very few places here in
SW corridor of Portlandd that afford that same sort of open space for
play. We looked a long time for a home that had it.

But once you have the open space and the other kids, how to take the
first step? I ask in all sincerity, as I truly do believe that this is
a wildly safe space, and despite having met with agreement from other
parents, no one is willing to 'let their kids go' unsupervised.

Caledonia

Caledonia wrote:
snip


But once you have the open space and the other kids, how to take the
first step? I ask in all sincerity, as I truly do believe that this is
a wildly safe space, and despite having met with agreement from other
parents, no one is willing to 'let their kids go' unsupervised.


I think it depends on the area. If there were water of any kind I
probably would be more hesitant (despite the fact that I grew up on a
substantial river and often visited it alone as a child). I think you
have to explore the area (woods or whatever) with your kids and help
them identify places to go if they did get in trouble. They need to
know to stay on trails, how to get back to trails if they don't, and
what to do if they get lost. In other words, educate them about hiking
and survival and make them familiar with the area. Then you just let
them go the next time they want to, and give them a time period when
they have to check back in.

For us, the local area is a no-brainer. It's a fairly large wooded
area with informal trails, within two blocks of our home. We often
hike there as a family now, and so allowing DS and friends (and dog) to
go when he is older to play seems af if it will be easy for me. On
the other hand, there is another wooded area not too far away that is
close to the highway, much more densely wooded and the trails are
convoluted. I suspect that set of woods will be off-limits as the
potential for kidnapping is greater with the highway being so
accessible.

Honestly, I don't think it's ever easy because as you stated, people
tend to think unattended kids playing = neglect. And I think *that*
is the main reason why kids don't play openly in the wild much, any
more. That makes me sad because 90% of my childhood memories were
playing in the fields and woods by the river where I grew up. I'd like
DS to have some similar memories when he is an adult.

-L.

Barbara wrote:
Completely and utterly false. This guy took the entire article and
reproduced it without permission.

Ok, understood. but I highly doubt the source is going to sue him for
posting it with a link on Usenet.

snip

ut my real complaint
is that this guy constantly spams this newsgroup by copying articles
without commenting on them. For some reason, that bothers me.

Killfile him?

-L.

"L." wrote in
oups.com:

Honestly, I don't think it's ever easy because as you
stated, people tend to think unattended kids playing =
neglect. And I think *that* is the main reason why kids
don't play openly in the wild much, any more. That makes
me sad because 90% of my childhood memories were playing in
the fields and woods by the river where I grew up. I'd
like DS to have some similar memories when he is an adult.

i think you are roughly my age (well, you're younger), & when
we were young there was no child services to threaten to take
your kids for neglect. those particular agencies were started
in the late 60s/early 70s.
so, between that threat & the highly oversensationallized
news accounts of kidnappings, people live in fear of letting
thier kids out of sight.
my son will be 6 in August. i've been kicking him outside to
play without direct supervision since he was 18 months. at
first he was only allowed to play in the upper garden &
driveway where he was visible when i looked out the window.
now he is only restricted from going to the pond without an
adult because he's a bit too scatterbrained to be safe around
the pond yet (that rule is easily enforced because the pond is
in the pasture & the goats are very pushy). i have 62 acres.
he's frequently out of sight. shrug
lee
--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

I suspect that set of woods will be off-limits as the
potential for kidnapping is greater with the highway being so
accessible.

Kidnapping? Are you delusional or paranoid?

LaTreen Washington wrote:
"L." wrote in message
oups.com...

I suspect that set of woods will be off-limits as the
potential for kidnapping is greater with the highway being so
accessible.

Kidnapping? Are you delusional or paranoid?

Neither. I have a very attractive chid who could easily be fodder for
porn. My best friend's child was almost kidnapped from a in front of
house three doors away in broad daylight. It happens.

-L.