Forests are outdoor classrooms.
This simple, yet powerful, statement drives home the U.S. Forest Service’s decades-long commitment to get kids outdoors, educate them about our natural resources and instill in them a life-long passion as future stewards of public lands. The vitality of these outdoor classrooms is behind the Forest Service’s investment of $1 million to leverage its current conservation education programs to increase More Kids in the Woods and Children’s Forests projects across the country.
With this funding, the Forest Service is able to designate and support the Tongass National Forest as a Children’s Forest. Kids in Southeast Alaska will have more opportunities to experience the great outdoors and gain first-hand knowledge and skill development about natural resources. This connection to conservation is vitally important for the future of our public lands and for the educational development of our youth — and it may even lead to future careers as forest stewardship leaders.
Tongass Children’s Forest programs will include more than 20 interpretive and educational programs and projects already being conducted, and add a new project linking audiences in small towns and villages with Alaska Native peoples; a bridging activity celebrating the International Year of Forests called the Forest of Words, which solicits literature and art from young people about the woods that are their “backyard.”
In addition, as a Children’s Forest the Tongass will continue partnering with the Alaska Teen Media Institute to train youth engaged in outdoor and environmental education programs in developing audio and video productions of their experiences in Alaska’s National Forests. The training not only enhances each youth’s experience by exposing them to new technologies and career opportunities, but harnesses youthful energy and creativity to increase broader public awareness, understanding of the benefits of Alaska’s forests. To allow efficient use of resources and sustainability over the long-term as wel1 as reaching the maximum number of youth, the training will be integrated with existing programs in Alaska, primarily through the Children’s Forest initiative and its existing emphasis areas, budget direction and staff commitments.
Kids that live in Southeast Alaska are familiar with the outdoors; they also appreciate the value of technology, and its ability to span great distances. They are also deeply bound by family and community traditions. To instill a value for these experiences is at the core of the Tongass Children’s Forest.
Nationally, more than 4 million young people participated in Forest Service conservation education programs last year. The Chugach Children’s Forest has been in existence in Southcentral Alaska since 2009, and it is encouraging to know that Southeast Alaska’s kids can now benefit from the Tongass Children’s Forest as well.
The Forest Service’s investment for this effort is enhanced by strong partner involvement. For the Tongass Children’s Forest, our partners include youth groups, school districts, state agencies, cities, environmental organizations, tourism companies, and Native organizations.
We are part of a growing national movement to bring kids to nature and nature to kids, an emphasis that requires much work to ensure that we are reaching as many children as possible with the best resources at our fingertips.
We are doing it for the kids. We are doing it for our great outdoors. We are doing it for our future.
• Pendleton has the overall responsibility for managing national forests in Alaska, including the Tongass National Forest — the nation’s largest.
Comments (16)
Add commentKids can still learn from the Hundreds of millions of acres
I agree the co-corricular aspects of outdoor programs are beneficial for the education of our youth and they are great concepts and I support them 100%. I myself LOVE the outdoors and hike and photograph nature and enjoy spending time with my kids in the outdoors. I believe in conserving the environment and cutting down an entire forest is poor land management.
BUt You know what? I can STILL do ALL those things and ALL those outdoor programs WILL STILL happen because the lands bill is only representative of .05% of the Tongass-NOT THE WHOLE TONGASS FOREST! Pendletons intentions are well and good enough but she is also smart enough to know that the Tongass is in NO threat from the lands bill. MY analysis is that she has other motives and biases; not so much having the kids best interests at heart. I think of kids whose parents employment is dependent on jobs on the SE and other kids whose parents jobs are dependent on spending of businesses in the SE who work in the Tongass.
Fact is people that only a paltry sum of the Tongass is harvested- nearly 90% of the Tongass will never be touched-millions and millions and millions of acres will be left in tact-thats PLENTY of forest for people-kids included-to learn, play, live, hunt, in.
Im real sick of the fear mongering that the ENTIRE Tongass is being threatened when its an infinitesimal speck that is being asked for.
No Children Left
Nice thought Beth -- the only problem is at this rate no children will be left. Maybe the rich kids from San Francisco are who you are referring to. They can come up in the summer months and kayak and then go home in the fall when the rains really get going.
p.s. will you be introducing monkeys and giraffes for the Kids? Here is a suggested logo "Tongass are US."
When I was growing up, there
When I was growing up, there was a cul-de-sac at the end of Wood Duck Ave. that was entirely forested, and another at the end of Deborah Dr. (where my grandparents lived). I used to LOVE exploring those patches of forest, which to me seemed huge and expansive. I ate berries, played games with my friends, climbed trees, and let my imagination run wild with what wonder I might find if I gathered up the courage to venture further into its depths.
Now there are houses where the woods used to be. Kids who grow up on those streets now (and all other streets like them) will never know what it was like to have your very own forest.
My point is this: maybe to you it seems to be an "infinitesimal speck," but someone else it could be an entire world. Maybe instead of developing more land, we should be improving the developments we already have.
Conservation education necessary for wise choices
Improving our kids' knowledge of natural resources is an important first step in making sure they will have the tools to make good choices in the future. The second step is to ensure they understand the relationship between our lives and and the living we make from those same natural resources. How many young people (or older people for that matter) understand that the printed circuits in their cell phones or their flat-screen televisions depend on gold and silver? Do they know or care if those metals are mined locally or in some third world country? Have they ever compared the photos of the Kensington or Greens Creek mines with mines in South America and their thousand of acres of denuded lands? This is the equivalent of teaching kids the alphabet first, then how letter are strung together to make words, and finally, the meaning of many words strung together. If this conservation education effort leads to better understanding of our lives in relationship to our natural resources, then this is a good thing.
Your against housing for kids Kevin?
So you say there are houses there now... well I guess kids would rather have a house than a private forest to live in. Not sure when the last time you were in Juneau but there is a huge housing problem here; not enough homes and the apartments are expensive and hard to come by. Also, when you grew up the house you lived in-it was all clear cut to build the home you lived in. That WHOLE are was clear cut-now you see 50 foot trees there- it grows back.
Again... .05% is a small
Again... .05% is a small speck compared to the 85% of the virgin Tongass that will never be touched. Millions and millions of acres to play in... I dont see kids trapsing up and down millions and millions of acres... lets be real here
@ravenhouse: the valley is
@ravenhouse: the valley is essentially a big suburb--very inefficiently developed, with low-density housing and houses that are too big for what people use them for. Were it developed more like downtown or Douglas, there wouldn't be housing issues at all. And given Juneau's population hasn't been increasing, I sincerely doubt the housing problem is a product of shortage--more likely a product of delusional affluence resulting in a number of houses "worth" more than most people can afford.
And FYI, the last time I was in Juneau is now. I've kinda lived here all my life. Fun fact: "Waterworld" was filmed in Lynn Canal.
Subjective
I value your point that is is low density and perhaps not proportionate to use but that is all subjective and open to endless debate. I see quiet a few zero lots with modular homes; hardly excessive in lifestyle. I see many MANY homes on Douglas (Blueberry Hill? 6th Street?) that could be viewed as egregious and beyond appropriate use; not so sure Mendenhaven is a sole culprit. Sure you really live here Kevin? Or maybe you do; you just dont get out much.
I do agree with you on the hyperinflated housing costs; mostly due to celebrities driving up the costs- you wouldnt know anything about that would you?
I know your not really Kevin though... Waterworld was filmed in Hawaii.... had you said "Guardian" I might have believed you. HAHA.. good one!
Douglas has a lot of
Douglas has a lot of condo/apartment complexes on it as well, and downtown Douglas is filled with smaller houses on small lots, packed together fairly densely. The valley has more traditional suburban neighborhoods, which are wrong in so many ways. Trailer parks are actually a good idea, though. And pocket neighborhoods. Really, a person only needs 400-500 sq. ft. of space to live in. Less if they don't own as many things. Even better if everything is situated so you can walk to the store or movie theatre or other places (especially to bars).
My point being this: we don't need to chop down more trees to make more room. We have all the room we need. I'm very wary of allowing more destruction of habitat, because it always starts as "just a little bit," and then a little more, and a little more, and then you end up with what happened to most of the East Coast.
Well the fact is this:
Well the fact is this: Sealaska is trading current selections (productive old growth) for lands that have already been cut or are already roaded with 2nd growth. Furthermore they dont want to cut all of it; only parts; other areas will be preserved. Either way they are entitled to their .05% and the rest is Federally protected.
Also, my argument was never to cut for housing-although I think they should on Douglas-but thats my opinion. Also, you cant MAKE people live in trailers or apartments- thats a personal preference and not everyone wants that.
Apartments are terrible places to live-noisy neighbors- no privacy- cramped-dark- if it works for you it doesnt mean everyone else has to.
But I agree we need to live more modest lives-huge mansions and "castles" on huge lots is a waste; but apartment complexes and trailers? No thanks-lived in those all my life and I love living in a 3 br 1 bath house with a small yard. But again, those arguments are far away and off topic with the Tongass.
Well, I hope they're
Well, I hope they're responsible with it. I know there was a big thing about Sealaska being some corrupt organization or something on another article, but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion. Hopefully it's not.
I think they have been
I think they have been responsible up to this point..... they have clear cut less than 30% of the land they were given 40 years ago....the rest has been selectively cut or not cut at all. I found out that in the early 1900's downtown Juneau, Douglas, and mendenhall value were clear cut... it all grows back.
Yes, it does all grow back,
Yes, it does all grow back, and there are certain uses for clear-cutting, but it often causes more problems, such as excessive erosion, flooding, and loss of habitat. The areas near glaciers are probably less affected by clearcutting since up until fairly recently, the land was covered in ice, but in old growth forest, clearcuts are devastating.
Good management , now more than ever!
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors , we improve it for our children! We have a lot of work to do in many areas , the proper use of our resources is critical , back to the basics, water, food , shelter , percentage of growth , sustainability , real answers to real problems are only found in true sincerity , not in laziness and greed , eyes wide open and the ones who have earned it will be robbed no more!
Ravenhouse - Sealaska bill not a threat?
The percentage game is one that is often used by the Alaska Forest Association to defend clear cutting. Since you live in the Tongass, I'm sure you understand that huge swaths of the Tongass are covered by ice fields, glaciers and largely inaccessible mountain tops.
The areas of large timber are relatively small in comparsion and are valuable habitat. Those areas are threatened by Sealaska, since our corporation (yes, I am a shareholder) is adept at locating the most valuable timberland for harvest.
Kudos to Beth Pendleton for encouraging local kids to appreciate the Tongass. Maybe if we could pry them away from their computer and video games they would be future advocates for not clearcutting their future.