RSS
 

Archive for the ‘The Frontline’ Category

Sugar and Salt

13 Jan

kirk-monaby Kirk Carter Mona

“Can I use this sugar?”

I looked up from playing with my son as my mother-in-law poked her head through the dark, wood-framed doorway to the kitchen in my 1925-vintage home. She was holding a handmade stoneware container that had been a gift from my grandmother. It was the morning of Thanksgiving and she needed a large amount of sugar to sweeten the pumpkin pie.

I contemplated the container in her hands for a few seconds before I replied. It was a beautiful brown-glazed piece of pottery with a large cork stopper in the top. My grandmother bought it from her favorite potter Ken Olson back in the 1970s. It was roughly as old as I was. The potter had sculpted it with his caring hands and it had sat on my grandmother’s kitchen counter in her 100-plus-year-old farm house for years. It came into my hands when my grandmother finally moved out of her home this year and into an assisted living community where she no longer has to do her own cooking.
I wasn’t sure what its purpose was when I first saw it. It isn’t all that big—about the volume of a grapefruit—and it holds only about two cups. My mom explained it was to set next to the stove for when you need a pinch of the contents to add a little flavor to the cooking. I do most of the cooking around the house and I feel free to create or improvise recipes as I go, so the little family heirloom fits perfectly next to my stove where my mother-in-law found it.

The opening is just the right size to stick your fingers in and get a pinch. I think my mother-in-law was looking to add more than just a pinch of the white granular powder to her pie. I told her she was free to use as much as she wanted, but she might want to reconsider, as the container is used for holding salt.

This made me think of a dinner party at a friend’s house years ago when I was starting out in the field of interpretive natural history. No one at the dinner knew anyone else, so we went around and introduced ourselves saying what we do. I said I was an interpretive naturalist, and that seemed to immediately raise the ire of one of the guests. “Why do I need someone to interpret nature?” she asked.  She seemed offended that I would dare to mediate her direct experience of the natural world. Of course, this isn’t always a fair description of what we do, but sometimes it is. We do mediate people’s experience of the resource and that can be an overwhelmingly positive thing. People mistake salt for sugar. People mistake oak trees for maples. People mistake poison ivy for toilet paper. People bring all kinds of misconceptions with them and, as a person who studies the natural world more than the average person, it’s my job to know as much as possible about the true nature of the resource so I can help the visitor more fully understand and appreciate it.

There is surely something to be said for direct, uninterpreted experience of a resource, but if that’s the only true way to experience nature, as the woman insisted, then we might as well throw away all the field guides. People cannot learn from them as they are interpretation. People can’t learn anything from their elders either, that’s interpretation. People really can’t even trust what their eyes show them, their ears tell them, or their fingers feel because, after all, their brains are merely interpreting the data. Most of all, they certainly cannot trust their sense of taste to tell them what is salty and what is sweet. Their tongue is merely interpreting flavor and getting in the way of their direct experience of the molecular structure of sodium or sucrose. This is clearly going too far, but so is thinking that there is no room for the interpretation of nature.

People are almost always free to experience nature or any other resource on their own terms. Sometimes they want our input, sometimes they do not. Sometimes, all we can do is sit back and wait for them to come to us wondering why their pumpkin pie tastes overwhelmingly salty.

Kirk Mona is the outreach coordinator for the Lee and Rose Warner Nature Center in Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota. He has been an NAI member since 1996. Kirk welcomes your comments at kmona@smm.org.

 
 

Connecting People and Parks: The PAIR Model

25 Nov

by Allyson Mathis

Author Allyson Mathis interprets geology at Grand Canyon National Park using the PAIR model. Photo by National Park Service / Michael Quinn.

Author Allyson Mathis interprets geology at Grand Canyon National Park using the PAIR model. Photo by National Park Service / Michael Quinn.

According to Freeman Tilden’s classic 1957 definition, interpretation is “an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information.” As the profession evolved, definitions of interpretation also changed to highlight the purpose of interpretation and describe its outcome. The NAI Definitions Project defines interpretation as “a mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and meanings inherent in the resource.”

Regardless of the definitions they use for interpretation, most interpreters agree that facilitating connections between people and parks (or resources) is at the very heart of successful interpretation. Interpreters facilitate these connections through a variety of media, ranging from informal contacts through exhibits or guided walks to multimedia presentations. Interpreters must use effective presentation techniques, have awareness of audience characteristics, use interpretive methods, and incorporate resource information. These four components can be put together to make up the acronym

PAIR:
Presentation Techniques/Style
Audience Characteristics
Interpretive Methods
Resource Information

The PAIR model: P (Presentation Techniques/Style), A (Audience Characteristics), I (Interpretive Methods), R (Resource Information). Photo illustration by Maddie Tighe.

The PAIR model: P (Presentation Techniques/Style), A (Audience Characteristics), I (Interpretive Methods), R (Resource Information). Photo illustration by Maddie Tighe.

Successful interpretation can be described as PAIRing people with parks, using the definition of pair: “to become associated with one another.” Visitors who become associated with park resources and significances to develop stronger stewardship ethics. Interpretive activities and media build those associations and make park resources more accessible and meaningful to the public.

The PAIR model utilizes the characteristics of a chain to illustrate the outcome of successful interpretation: strong, durable, and long-lasting connections between visitors and resources. In addition to being strong, chains are versatile and flexible. Chains are used with anchors, and an ultimate goal of interpretation is to anchor people and their parks together.

Another important characteristic of a chain with implications for this model is that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Therefore, all links or components in the PAIR model have equal value. A weakness, or lack of knowledge or skill, in any of the links is enough to break the interpretive chain and prevent the facilitation of meaningful relationships between people and parks.  

P: Presentation Techniques/Style
Presentation techniques or style are essential in any interpretive program or product. Presentation techniques include choosing the appropriate technique to present the interpretive product in the first place, and then effectively using that method. The presentation techniques link is applicable to both personal and nonpersonal services.

Effective presentation techniques vary depending on the type of interpretive service. In the case of an interpretive talk, presentation techniques should include good communication skills and effective delivery techniques. To be effectively presented, a piece of interpretive writing must be written at an appropriate comprehension level, use attractive and engaging design and good grammar, and not have any typographical errors. Exhibits must be visually engaging, easy to read, universally accessible to all audiences, and replaced when worn or damaged.

Even if all other links in the PAIR model are present, poor presentation can prevent the facilitation of connections between people and parks. With ineffective presentation, the audience will not receive the message(s) that the interpreter is trying to communicate.

A: Audience Characteristics
Knowledge of audience characteristics is necessary for an interpreter to focus an interpretive service toward a particular audience or audiences. Different audiences have different needs and characteristics and will establish connections to park resources through different channels. For example, children are different from adults and an interpretive activity that may be successful with adults may completely fail with children. Understanding audience characteristics enables an interpreter to choose from the range of interpretive methods available and to determine what aspects of the resource information to incorporate into an interpretive activity for particular audiences.

Knowledge of audience characteristics includes an awareness of potential visitor groups and an understanding of what significances they may or may not already ascribe to park resources. It includes an insight to various demographic visitor groups, including those who may visit only electronically or through mass media.

I:  Interpretive Methods
Interpretive methods are used to link the interests of the visitors to resource information. The use of interpretive methods is the revelation step in the PAIR model. As Tilden wrote in his principles, interpretation is “revelation based on information.” Interpretive methods include the use of thematic interpretation, tangible/intangible links, compelling stories, and other tools and techniques.

The skilled interpreter uses knowledge of audience characteristics and chooses what resource information to relate in an interpretive activity or product. Interpretive methods help make that information meaningful, relevant, and significant to the audience. An interpreter should also attempt to expand the range of relevance for the visitor and to promote new relationships between the visitor and the resource.

R:  Resource Information
Accurate resource information is essential in interpretation. A program product lacking in accurate resource information will not facilitate meaningful connections between visitors and resources. In other words, resource information must be accurate in order for visitors to form a true bond with park resources. Accurately interpreted resource information also promotes public understanding of scientific, natural, and historical resources of park areas. Since interpretive programs and media have the potential to reach large audiences, incorporating accurate resource information in interpretation may increase the public’s scientific and historic literacy.

Resource information includes a vast array of information about park resources at a variety of technical levels that can relate to a wide spectrum of visitors. Resource information includes knowledge of a site’s significance as identified in enabling legislation, administrative history, current management plan, and the ecologic, geologic, historic, and/or ethnographic context of the park.

Using the PAIR Model
The PAIR model can be used to present interpretive concepts in training situations and as a tool to evaluate interpretive programs and media. One of the strengths of the PAIR model as a training tool is that it identifies the four necessary components of an interpretive product, demonstrates that the components are equally important, and illustrates the outcome of successful interpretation—a connection between people and parks.

Evaluations of interpretive programs and media can also incorporate the PAIR model. It can be used to identify the strong and weak components, or links, in an interpretive program or product. Identifying the weak link can help evaluators and interpreters determine components that most need improvement.

While the PAIR model contains the same elements of interpretive programs and products as other models, including the National Park Service’s Interpretive Equation, it separates the “appropriate technique” component into two distinct ones: presentation techniques/style and interpretive methods. These two components are, in fact, independent. A program can use effective presentation techniques, yet not include interpretive methods, and vice versa. Separating these two components allows further insight into what ingredients an interpretive program or product must incorporate in order to promote the interpretive outcome of increased resource stewardship.

Each component in the PAIR model is essential in the interpretive process. In a good interpretive program, all four links will be strong. Learning resource information, utilizing interpretive methods, recognizing and relating to different audiences, and presenting effective interpretive products all are difficult to learn and master. It takes a great deal of effort to make the chain illustrated in the PAIR model strong. The PAIR model is presented as a tool that interpreters can use in their efforts to protect park and heritage area resources, promote resource stewardship, and anchor people and parks.

For More Information
Tilden, Freeman. (1957). Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Acknowledgements
Roger Riolo and Bob Lillie both provided encouragement to me to publish the PAIR model. Roger Riolo and Jan Balsom provided helpful reviews of the manuscript. Discussions with numerous NPS interpreters, including Bob Roney, Kathy Brown, Laura Illige, and Kim Sikoryak, were helpful in the development of the PAIR model.

Allyson Mathis is the science and education outreach coordinator for the Division of Science and Resource Management at Grand Canyon National Park. Her background is in geology and prior to her current position, she worked as a field interpreter for a total of 15 years in four national park sites. With her expertise in the interpretation of geology, she has presented many sessions on interpreting geology to interpreters and scientists. She may be reached at allyson_mathis@nps.gov.

 
 

Two Bibson Geefeaters

11 Sep

kirk-monaby Kirk Carter Mona

Sixteen years ago, I sat in a windowless high school literature classroom digesting the best short stories of American authors. After a thorough examination of all the subtleties of John Updike’s A&P, we turned to the John Cheever short story “Reunion.” It features a son and father reconnecting for lunch after years of separation. Our teacher was very excited to expose us to the work and when we finished reading it, she somehow brought the conversation around to the dad in the story being an alcoholic. We all sat there with blanker-than-normal looks on our teenage faces. Not a single kid in the class had a clue what she was talking about. We were wondering how on earth she knew he was an alcoholic when the text said nothing of the sort and she was wondering how we couldn’t see something so obviously woven into the narrative of the story.

My teacher incredulously pointed out to us 16-year-olds that the dad ordered “two Bibson Geefeaters.” She looked at us expectantly. We returned more blank stares. “You know,” she said by way of explanation, “instead of two Beefeater Gibsons.”

It apparently never occurred to my teacher that a bunch of 16-year-olds didn’t have enough experience in the realm of drinking to know what a Beefeater Gibson was or to notice he was drunk because he flubbed the name of the drink. I’m left with the conclusion that either this was the first time she had used the story in class or all of the 16-year-olds before us had been much larger consumers of quality English gin.

Because we’d never heard of a Beefeater Gibson, we had no reference point for the social cue that the father was drunk and mangling the language. Our Italian language skills being weak to non-existent, we also didn’t understand what he said to the waiter when he ordered his cocktail with, “Molto gin, poco vermut.” Going back and reading the story again as an adult, it is clear that almost every paragraph hints at the father’s alcoholism, but to us kids, he just seemed like a strange guy.

Finding the right words so audiences of every age will understand your message is one of the most difficult tasks we face as interpreters. This is interpretation in the classic sense of the word (i.e., making something understandable to another person). Freeman Tilden specifically pointed out that interpretation for children should not be a watered-down version of adult programs. In this respect, choosing your language is key to being successful. Your audience should dictate your choices. This is especially important when it comes to the analogies and explanations we use for challenging new concepts. Kids won’t understand the same cultural references adults will.

Not to be too hard on my high school teacher, just today while teaching a digital nature photography class, I made a similar mistake. I was trying to explain a little about the history of photography and how people used to enjoy collecting photos back when they first became available. It is hard for us to imagine what a sensation photographs were. Collecting photos was a genuine craze. I made a reference to Pokémon cards and was met with those same blank stares. When I began teaching this class four years ago, the Pokémon reference worked great. What kind of cards do kids collect these days? Yugioh? Apparently not. Even baseball cards drew a borderline confused look to their faces. These references, which were timely and hot just a few years ago, are now lost on my audience. I quickly realized with some math in my head that Pokémon cards first came out in 1999, which also happens to be the year most of my students were born.

Not only is it important to have different ways to explain concepts to audiences of different ages, but our references must be current. What works one year may not work next year. This is even more true with youth and kids, as they have a shorter cultural experience timeline from which to draw. I always used to explain to groups that my name is Kirk, as in Captain Kirk. Not only was this memorable, it prevented me from being mistaken for a Curt. About 10 years ago, I realized that no one in my audiences had any idea who Captain Kirk was. Oddly, with the new Star Trek movie out, fifth graders have begun calling me “Captain” all on their own. Some cultural references come back in style.

In the end, the advice for programs is the same as for a proper Beefeater Gibson. Don’t water it down, make it right. We need neither confused audiences nor Bibson Geefeaters.

Kirk Mona is the outreach coordinator for the Lee and Rose Warner Nature Center in Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota. He has been an NAI member since 1996. Kirk welcomes your comments at kmona@smm.org.

 
 

The Woodland Archives: Interpretive Uses of Arborglyphs

13 Jul

by Chris Worrell

Arborglyphs in a western aspen grove, including Miguel Carrika’s elegant signature. Courtesy of Hadlock & Potashin

Arborglyphs in a western aspen grove, including Miguel Carrika’s elegant signature. Courtesy of Hadlock & Potashin

Historical interpretation calls to mind costly costumes, elaborate demonstrations, and expensive tools and props. However, among the trees exists a form of history that is as simple and inexpensive as a walk in the woods. Arborglyphs are—as the name implies—names, dates, symbols, messages, and designs etched into the bark of a variety of trees, most notably aspens and beeches. The notion of celebrating glyphs may seem quite foreign to readers who have long equated tree carving with vandalism. However, many historical glyphs were created prior to widespread adoption of tree care standards, and in fact the carvings often predate area public land preservation initiatives. A number of programmers now recognize arborglyphs as valuable interpretive tools. Behind each carving is a story that can entertain and inspire, but also teach valuable lessons.

Whether created by explorers, surveyors, Native Americans, travelers, soldiers, or lovers, arborglyphs—historic and modern—are an expression of man’s relationship to the environment. Contemporary glyphs reflect a discomfort with long periods in nature. Such carvings are typically poorly planned, quickly rendered, and brutally hacked into the tree. (In many areas, tree “artists” have abandoned carving altogether, instead covering the bark with spray paint).

In contrast, carvers of old often worked their entire lives outdoors, maintained a familiarity with natural materials, and exhibited great skill with knives and other tools, and therefore, such carvers planned carefully, labored patiently, and used proper form. Historic carvers employed the scratch technique, which involves thin incisions that expand to reveal an artist’s intent over time. The use of the scratch technique helps distinguish historic arborglyphs from heavy-handed modern graffiti, which can, according to historian Andrew Gulliford, “damage or even destroy trees.” Because historic carvers relied on the environment in a direct manner, they understood that tree health was integral to the survival of the carving and possibly the survival of themselves and their families.

While arborglyphs are intriguing to most people, they also afford interpreters an opportunity to introduce other topics, including stewardship, threats to trees, environmental and historic preservation, and the legacies of various groups of people. Manzanar National Historic Site rangers Richard Potashin and Nancy Hadlock educate patrons about arborglyphs created by Basque herders during off-site programs that they offer on a volunteer basis at Mono Lake in California. The programs address immigration, aspen ecology, the overlooked role of sheepherders in Western history, the effects of grazing on the environment, and an array of other subjects. Above all, Potashin and Hadlock emphasize that the glyphs represent not just a carved name, but an actual person. Careful research allows the pair of glyphers to piece together stories of individuals who lived much of the year in solitude, but still managed to make friends, raise families, and leave a lasting mark on the landscape.

Like Hadlock and Potashin, Carol Pedersen works with aspen arborglyphs created by sheepherders. However, the herders Pedersen chronicles in southern Oregon are not only Basque, but also Irish. Pedersen became hooked on arborglyphs in 1997 when she participated in a documentation project as a Passport in Time (PIT) volunteer for the United States Forest Service. In the years since, she has published a biographical account of an Irish herder and won a Malcolm & Louise Loring grant to document carvings on Steens Mountain, while also presenting annual interpretive hikes that explore the historic glyphs. As an interpreter, Pedersen focuses on cultural aspects and individual lives, noting that the aspens constitute an outdoor library that contains data on men who may not appear in public records.

No single person has done more to document arborglyphs than Joxe Mallea-Olaetxe, who has photographed over 27,000 historic aspen carvings. However, he admits that his arborglyph images represent merely the tip of the iceberg. In 2000, Mallea released Speaking Through the Aspens: Basque Tree Carvings in California and Nevada. While a number of earlier writers surveyed arborglyphs, Mallea’s effort signified a turning point because he addressed tree carvings as a legitimate subject for in-depth historical inquiry.

Each year Mallea leads arborglyph hikes at a variety of locations in the Sierra Nevada range. While introducing program participants to arborglyphs, Mallea discusses Basque culture and history, and he describes the role that sheepherders played in sustaining miners (meat) and eastern industry (wool). He also notes that the names of most sheepherders do not appear on census schedules. Thus, the arborglyphs may be the only source that reveals information about the location and status of specific individuals at a certain point in history. Mallea estimates that 80 percent of the carvings he encounters include both a name and a date, and they often contain further information, along with symbols and artwork. While some of the glyphs are lighthearted, the herders also left serious messages about the Spanish Civil War, area law enforcement, and predators of sheep. Mallea has even discovered carvings related to killings, such as Nevada’s infamous Indian Massacre of 1911.

An LOL tree at Hach-Otis Nature Preserve in Ohio. This carving is a bit more ornate than was typical for trapper Lawrence Orr Linton. Photo by Chris Worrell

An LOL tree at Hach-Otis Nature Preserve in Ohio. This carving is a bit more ornate than was typical for trapper Lawrence Orr Linton. Photo by Chris Worrell

Far from the Sierra Nevada, Lake Metroparks in Ohio regularly features an interpretive program about an early 20th-century tree-carving trapper named Lawrence Orr Linton, whose initials (LOL) appear on more than a dozen area beech trees. Interpreters leading tours of “LOL trees” discuss not only Linton and his carvings, but also trapping, westward expansion, furbearers, beech-maple woodlands, and the relationship between man and nature. Linton created the glyphs as directionals and indicators of cached equipment and, like most historic carvers, he employed the scratch technique. Linton may have learned the technique from his mother who was, according to some sources, of Cherokee ancestry. Cherokee Indians are known for being the creators of countless tree carvings in the Southeast, particularly during the period in which Native Americans were forced west along the Trail of Tears.

Robert Shankland—renowned physicist, Einstein biographer, and former Linton trapping protégé—provided much of the information about Linton. Using Shankland’s memories and basic genealogical research, Lake Metroparks developed a profile of an outdoorsman who once enjoyed a life of relative privilege on the family farm near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but who left behind that life to eke out a bare-bones existence as a trapper in Ohio. Linton’s mysterious death (on the same day as his brother) only adds to the already intriguing tale. Nevertheless, interpreters in general should not feel compelled to invest an inordinate amount of time into research for an arborglyph program. Because historic tree carvings speak to the relationship between man and nature, and because they provide a wonderful opportunity to introduce related topics, research for arborglyph programs can be molded to meet time and budget considerations.

A fairly thorough knowledge of arborglyphs in general can be attained by simply reading works by Pedersen, Mallea, Gulliford, and James DeKorne. A bit of genealogical research can add color to a program. No matter the intended amount of research, libraries and the Internet both provide solid starting points.

“T.G.S. Hell’s Delight, July 4th, 1877” reads this Yosemite pine tree blaze. Smooth-barked trees were not always available, and therefore bark was sometimes removed prior to etching the wood. Courtesy of James Snyder

“T.G.S. Hell’s Delight, July 4th, 1877” reads this Yosemite pine tree blaze. Smooth-barked trees were not always available, and therefore bark was sometimes removed prior to etching the wood. Courtesy of James Snyder

Any program about arborglyphs should, of course, dissuade modern carvers. There are a number of arguments against contemporary tree carving. First, the rules of public lands generally dictate against carving. Second, while carvers of years past may not have even enjoyed easy access to paper, today we possess myriad outlets for creativity and communication. Third, trees now contend with a number of imported threats, and therefore we should avoid creating wounds that can be exploited by pests and pathogens. Finally, there are simply too many of us for everyone to carve a tree in our already diminished woodlands. Through education we can not only discourage modern carvings, but also encourage documentation and preservation of historic glyphs.

Arborglyphs provide a valuable material link to past lives, a link that cannot be experienced through mere words in a book. Historical figures who have created glyphs include Henry David Thoreau, Kit Carson, Ronald Reagan, and William Clark, while arborglyphs have been documented by Ansel Adams, 18th-century Moravian missionaries, and the Roman poet Virgil. Such tree carvings exist at the juncture of nature and history, thereby affording nearly limitless opportunities for interpretation. The woodland archives await; explore, document, learn, and teach.

For More Information
Gulliford, Andrew. (2007). Reading the Trees: Colorado’s Endangered Arborglyphs and Aspen Art. Colorado Heritage, Autumn.

Mallea-Olaetxe, Joxe. (2000). Speaking Through the Aspens: Basque Tree Carvings in California and Nevada. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Chris Worrell works in interpretation for the National Park Service. Reach him at uitdenworrell@oh.rr.com.

 
 

Slowing Down

26 Jun

by Kirk Mona

kirk-monaI recently went on vacation to Arizona and had the pleasure of the company of my 16-month-old son. He’s been cooped up all winter long, wrapped up in cozy layers of fleece jackets and flannel-lined overalls. Any explorations outside have been short, cold, and mostly about snow. He’d never really had the chance to do any exploring outside, as he was just starting to walk as autumn approached. He had been out in a stroller, but he had never truly interacted with nature. Going to Arizona in 80-degree heat wearing his new, brightly colored, wide-brimmed hat and shorts, free to walk and run—compared to passive summertime “walks” in a stroller—was the difference between watching TV and stepping into the picture. He was enchanted.

When we would bring him back inside, he would stand at the door and cry. He wanted to be exploring outside as much as possible, every minute of the day. He touched and smelled every flower he could find. He picked up leaves from bauhinia orchid trees as we walked and handed them to me. Every leaf was picked up. Everything was touched, explored, studied. He found hidden treasures. He somehow avoided the cactus. He followed a duck down a path, between tight bushes and around corners and then was surprised when it suddenly took flight. Children are naturally naturalists. They love to explore the natural world.

I found myself wanting at times to push him on. This was mainly because I knew of things I wanted to see just ahead, or because I was frankly getting tired of sitting in one spot while he played in pea gravel, letting it slip through his fingers. He was content to take it slowly. There was no point in seeing something new when he did not yet fully understand what was before him. My family likely felt the same way when they went bird watching with me a few days later. They don’t have the patience I do for looking at and studying a single, far-off, nondescript brown bird until I am sure of the identification. My son and I are a lot alike.

Life is always pushing us ahead. How often do we have time to slow down to a natural pace and study things? How often do we sit in a field of flowers as long as we wish or brush leaves against our skin just to see what they feel like? How many petals are on a daisy? What color is the iris of a garter snake? There is so much to absorb around us, yet we are given by others—and we give ourselves—so little time.

We all, I hope, interpret a resource we love. We make it part of ourselves and we want visitors to understand it on a deep, universal level. In order to be successful, we need to be sure we provide a space where people can slow down, shed the constraints and restraints that push them ever onward, while personally holding back their deep, childlike desire to simply understand. At the center where I work, participants in programs arrive by car and bus, but all must come down our driveway. They pull off the paved road and onto a long, curving, crushed-limestone driveway lined with paper birch. A small speed limit sign hints that they should slow down; it usually goes unnoticed, but the unpaved driveway forces them to slow down. Take the corner too fast and the loose gravel will gently glide you off the road. They slow down.

They park, walk down a long path to the building, and we hope that by the time they enter our doors, they have slowed down to at least a walk. You must go on a walk through the woods to come into the building. Our site is structured to slow people down to a natural human pace.

So, too, in programs can we create a space where people can slow down and simply be in nature. We’re creating emotional bookmarks for participants and remembering the scientific name Ardea herodias is not nearly as important as remembering the feeling of awe as you hide in the tall lakeside grasses watching a great blue heron silently hunt for food.

It is bitter cold out as I write this. Spring is trying to come, but cold, arctic air masses keep finding their way out of Canada. What I remember, though, on days like today was a moment I created last summer on a beautiful day. I had all the kids in my summer camp lie back in the prairie and watch the little white cumulous clouds float past the impossibly blue sky of summer. We all let the image sink in and we soaked up the heat of the sun so that we could remember this moment in the cold of the winter.

Back in Arizona, I let my son play in the gravel and pick up leaves as long as he was content. He was building emotional bookmarks that will serve him well.

Kirk Mona is the outreach coordinator for the Lee and Rose Warner Nature Center in Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota. He has been an NAI member since 1996. Kirk welcomes your comments at kmona@smm.org.