ADHD

    What is the problem with our society? Have we become entirely dependant on synthetic solutions? Even I cannot count on one hand the number of people who choose not to take medication each day. Not only am I talking about simple over-the-counter drugs, but medication for common disorders that ail thousands of U.S. citizens. Disorders can range from life-threatening to just being “uncomfortable”. One common disorder prevalent in the U.S. is called Attention Deficit Disorder, which ails not only children, but adults as well. Its more serious counterpart is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, in which diagnosis is rapidly increasing. Jonathon Williams and Peter Hill state in an article titled “Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” that “the World Health Organization has named Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD) one of its priority mental disorders of children and adolescents on basis of prevalence, degree of impairment, and treatability.”

    The controversy I would like to bring to your attention is what is the best way to treat this familiar disorder? Who is to blame for the outburst of prescriptions to treat AD/HD in children? According to Kathy Koch in “Rethinking Ritalin,” 90% of Ritalin in the world is consumed within the United States alone, which means that teachers, parents, and doctors are all to blame. Society cannot point the finger at one specific aspect in a child’s life that influences AD/HD, as there are several factors that play a role. Several ways are used to treat children and adolescents other than throwing them on medication, as I believe that medication should only be used as a last resort.

    Growing up with a sister who has ADD has helped me to shape the opinion of “the less medication, the better.” She was your typical nine year old girl, playing in the mud and calling her big sister names. However, there was one slight problem, she could never seem to remember what was taught in school. Regardless of the subject or how hard she studied, she could never remember the facts straight, nor could she sit through an entire movie, dinner, or game. There was always something she “had to do,” whether it was going to the bathroom, checking something in her bedroom, or petting our cat. As long as she was up and moving around, she was fine. After observing how my sister acted, and after receiving a recommendation from her teacher, my parents decided to take her in to see the doctor. After simply talking to her, the doctor refrained from prescribing Ritalin as the common AD/HD treatment, and suggested that we try different learning methods and change her diet. My sister eventually learned how to effectively use her energy for productivity, rather than using that energy to jump off the walls. She tried different learning methods, which kept her in normal rate classes. Six years later, she overcame her learning “hindrance,” and continues to work on her patience, all without the aid of medication. Sherlyn Ezell Powell wrote in her article titled “Should children receive medication for symptoms of AD/HD” even brings up a good point. “AD/HD is difficult to diagnose because it coexists with other disorders, such as mood swings, learning disabilities, or oppositional defiant disorders,” which means that perhaps my sister never did have ADD to begin with. I think she simply showed signs of ADD symptoms because of her learning disability, which has been conquered with time.

    I agree with what my family’s doctor suggested simply because a prescription was not needed for such a small degree of ADD, if she was even considered to have ADD to begin with. I feel that medication can alter the chemical properties in our bodies, and it can change our hormones, emotions, thought processes, and immunity. Not to mention the countless known side effects of Ritalin, not including the several other stimulants that are used to treat AD/HD. A study done by Dr. Peter Breggin in Powell’s article revealed several side effects caused by Ritalin such as memory loss, addiction, sleep disruption, decreased learning abilities, nausea, loss of appetite and much more.

I like to compare our bodies to an aquarium, it sounds funny at first but makes sense. A fish tank is a miniature ecosystem meant to support all kinds of life ranging from bacteria to snails to large fish. Whether the organism is noticeable or not, there are thousands of living creatures living in a tiny tank to create a natural balance. If someone happened to pour a can of soda into that fish tank, the entire ecosystem crashes because that balance was disrupted. Same thing happens to our body in a sense. A virus, for instance, disrupts our natural cycle and causes us to be sick. Drugs or pills that have no use in our body can upset our balance, especially for children who are still developing.

This is why I firmly believe that the less medication in our bodies, the better. We survived for centuries before drugs and pills arrived.

    Another reason why I believe that medication for AD/HD should only be used as a last resort is perhaps because parents are not looking at all available options. Williams and Hill point out that perhaps “imperfect” parenting could increase AD/HD symptoms. “Hyperactivity and impulsivity can emerge due to boredom, lack of exercise, finding school unchallenging, or extreme tiredness.” Again, just like our doctor suggested, changing the diet of the child can affect behavior. Even Roya Nikkhah wrote in her article titled “Alarm as prescriptions of Ritalin to children…” stated that a change of diet or behavior therapy can modify the AD/HD like symptoms. Common sense tells us that too much sugar in a child’s diet, will result in hyperactivity. As I stated earlier, too much of something can disrupt the body’s natural balance, causing it to react respectively.

    However, simply changing the child’s diet and learning techniques is not all that is needed to modify AD/HD behavior. A close look at parenting techniques is crucial to determine if the symptoms are a disorder, or simply the kid not knowing any better. It is too easy for parents to notice something wrong and point the finger at someone else to blame for their child’s behavior. Occasionally that finger is pointed at their child’s school. An overcrowded classroom or an impatient teacher can result in notes sent home or doctor recommendations. Again, I believe it is crucial to look at all aspects of a child’s life in order to accurately diagnose AD/HD. Kate Holmquist’s article titled “Calming the AD/HD disruption” says that “higher rates of separation and divorce among parents of AD/HD children are partly due to parents accusing each other of mishandling a disruptive child.” A parent losing their temper or even letting their child get away with actions can increase symptoms of AD/HD. Not only is it limited to poor interactions between parent and child, but between spouses as well. Fights regarding how the child is reared can increase tension and stress in a kid according to Holmquist. Parents need to look at themselves and determine if how they are bringing up their child is the best for that personality.

    However, I must clarify that AD/HD is not the cause of bad parenting, poor classrooms, or a poor diet. AD/HD is strictly genetic. All the points I have mentioned thus far simply bring out symptoms that are similar to AD/HD, and therefore can result in a misdiagnosis. Kathy Koch urges Americans to “read books that help us to rethink the practice of labeling (kids some of whom are overly squirmy) with brain disorders and medicating them with potent, mind altering drugs.”

    On the contrary, Powell’s article also looks on the flip side of medicating children with Ritalin. “Children with AD/HD tend to score lower on IQ tests, are more likely to drop out of school, and face higher risks of substance abuse or stealing. Unless children with AD/HD receive adequate and appropriate treatment.” This argument that supports Ritalin is weak simply because it sounds like a statistic taken from nowhere. I have not seen any studies conducted on substance abusers to determine if they have AD/HD or not.

    In conclusion, I believe that medication should only be used as a last resort, whether it is for disorders or common colds. Adding synthetic pills can only disrupt a person’s body, unless their body is imbalanced to begin with. A fish tank that is imbalanced also needs chemicals in order to maintain its stability as an ecosystem. Children are still developing, and I feel that adding harmful chemicals to their bodies, will only negatively affect their growth. Unless it can somehow be prevented or fixed, medication should only be as a last resort.

Trees that I remember

The trees that I remember haven’t been trees that I have encountered, embraced, or visited. The trees that I remember have been cut down, burned, or long forgotten. The trees that I remember are simply trees that photographers have captured forever on film and each picture tells a different story.

There is a photograph hanging in my room that I bought at an Irish Festival in Denver and I got it for only $60. This photograph captured my heart the minute I looked at it and I just had to have it. This photograph is of a tree hanging vicariously by its roots over a raging river. This tree has nothing to support itself except a few blocks of compacted soil keeping it in place. It overlooks a river rushing and gushing and flowing beneath it, surely if the rains washed the soil away it would be eaten by the hunger of the river. The winds of the South American climate have shaped and molded this tree. When I look closely, it looks as if it the winds shaped it to face the river head-on, unafraid of what will happen. The tree is facing one way, the river is flowing another way. I mean, yeah, most people would love the picture because it represents strength and endurance. However, I love this photograph because I begin to think what the tree has endured to simply survive. I think about the winds that have changed it throughout the years and the mighty roots holding it in place. I wonder if the tree even realizes its peril and is therefore hatching a plan to escape its fate. It’s almost like a drama series. How long has it been there? Will it fall into the river or will it still be there 10 years from now? Will a group of people come to rescue it? Oh, the suspense! Tune in next time to see if a woodpecker lands on it and makes it collapse into the water!
Another photograph I thoroughly enjoy is one where a lone tree is standing atop a hill or in an open field. It doesn’t matter the tree, because this type of photo is so popular that there are several variations. There are snow covered hills with one lone oak tree, or a prairie filled meadow with some kind of green leafy tree, or simply a single tree on a cattle filled ranch. What does one think when they see this type of photo? Do they think of solitude, perseverance, or are simply in wonder of the size of the tree? Well, my first thought of these lone trees is one of wisdom. Especially in children’s stories, trees are portrayed as wise old beings who know all the answers. Trees are some of the oldest beings on earth, so they must know all the answers, right? There is just something hidden and mysterious that those lonely trees are hiding, will we ever find out?

Louv Book Review

Book Review: Last Child in the Woods

Author: Richard Louv

Richard Louv sums up his book, Last Child in the Woods, by saying, “better to be an untutored savage for a while, to not know the names or anatomical detail. Better to spend long stretches of time just searching and dreaming”. Louv emphasizes that children and adults alike need (and crave) time outdoors. To be able to explore, wonder, sense, and be a part of nature, rather than apart from it. How will children appreciate and want to conserve nature, if they are not exposed to it? People rarely value what they cannot name or experience. Last Child in the Woods points out that studies show that “thoughtful exposure” of children to nature can be a form of therapy for Attention-Deficit disorders and other maladies. Nature calms, inspires creativity, and excites the senses all at the same time. Louv provides examples of how to get children to focus in nature by playing “nature games”. Games that get children to interact with nature by listening, smelling, seeing, touching; things that excite the senses.

    Louv explains that there are several reasons why children are not going outside, which include apprehensive parents, school curriculum, over structured lifestyles, fear, or cultural reasons. “Increasingly, nature is something to watch, to consume, to wear – to ignore.” Nature is perceived as dangerous, alien, cute, off-limits, or televised. Nature is something that kids watch from a car window as they drive through a national park while listening to their iPods. Louv illustrates that nature does not have to be a park or a “destination”. Nature for him was a ditch by his house. It was there that he explored, played, built tree houses, and learned valuable lessons that are essential for development and growth. Louv states that children are more likely to develop psychological survival skills when they have time to explore nature.

    I feel that it is essential as parents and peer figures to be role models for our children. Louv says that if children sense genuine adult interest, then they will want to emulate that interest. It is our duty to break the typical “old and white” environmentalist mold and get our children outdoors. Let them play, explore, wonder, learn, and be on their own. I think it is great that children have the freedom to be off trail in most of our Jefferson County Parks, and while they cannot build a tree house, they are able to break free from structure and rules and explore.

Safety should supercede the right to bear arms

 

 

Safety should supersede the right to bear arms

 

 

Audience analysis:

Gun activists and people who represent the National Rifle Association would be interested in reading my paper. Some park managers or rangers may also be undecided about this topic and may actually support the bill that would allow loaded firearms into national parks. Ranchers may also be interested in this article because their land may back up to national park boundaries, they also tend to be gun supporters in order to protect their livestock.

 

 

 

 

Jen

Colorado State University

College of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources

CO300 – Section 01 – Convincing argument

04/18/2008

 

Will allowing loaded firearms into National Parks affect the way people recreate? Will visitor safety be compromised by allowing a weapon that can also be used as personal protection within a park? This recent development in changing our firearm regulations has sparked a debate between gun activists, national park conservation groups, and park rangers. The proposed bill to allow loaded guns in national parks could change the way parks are managed and how visitors enjoy the great outdoors. Safety is a primary concern for both interest groups; however safety can be viewed from two separate perspectives. Conservation groups fear for wildlife and visitor safety from other people carrying firearms. Gun activists fear for safety of visitors, especially women, as well as wildlife attacks. Safety is a common theme occurring in both arguments from the conservationists and the gun activists; however, the consequences of allowing loaded firearms into National parks greatly outweigh the minimal benefits. Gun activists are failing to look at other perspectives, such as law enforcement safety, regulating confusing firearm laws, and even terrorism opportunities.

    Gun activists are proposing a bill that would merge National Park regulations with state laws. Since state laws all vary, National Park regulations would also be different, depending on what state they were located in. Currently the Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees National Parks, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and wildlife service lands. National parks manage more than forest and back-country land, they are also responsible for managing Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument, and the Statue of Liberty (Bunch, 2207). Currently all National park regulations state that all firearms must be unloaded, cased, and out of sight when visiting their parks. Gun activists are fighting to loosen the current regulations in National Parks for safety and equality reasons. Since the creation of National Parks in 1916 (Encarta 2007) only qualified park rangers and law enforcement officials have been allowed to carry a loaded weapon. It has always been in the interest of wildlife and visitor safety to keep loaded weapons out of parks. The ban to keep loaded firearms out of parks began in 1983 when DOI Secretary James Watt and President Reagan signed a partial ban to protect wildlife (Scripps, 2008). As a park ranger, I fear for my safety out in the wilderness under the current regulations. Being unarmed can be dangerous and even fatal when contacting visitors who are unpredictable and may be angry. Loosening gun restrictions in national parks will decrease any creditability I have as an unarmed park ranger and force me to become a full time law enforcement official and not a wilderness protector.

    It would be detrimental for parks to allow this proposal to pass because of the very reason why gun activists proposed this bill: safety. National parks are viewed as a safe haven by visitors and allowing loaded guns will alter that perception (NPCA 2007). Crime is still a minor problem in National Parks (USA Today2008), and allowing loaded firearms would increase vandalism and potential for terrorism attacks. (Zinck 2008). A few states have loose firearms laws and therefore any one can bring a semi-automatic weapon to a populated park. A park during a summer holiday is just like a shopping center the day before Christmas, which is usually busy with families, couples, and children. It would not be difficult for a legal and licensed individual to carry a small rifle or handgun into a crowded park. What could the park rangers do to protect the visitors considering the person is licensed and legal? Imagine visiting Mount Rushmore in South Dakota or Golden Gate park in California during a busy July 4^th holiday and seeing an angry visitor waving a rifle around. A nice holiday trip could take a drastic turn for the worse all because of an unstable or upset visitor.

Another safety concern park conservationists and park rangers have is about the wildlife. National parks also manage backcountry areas to help protect the wildlife and their ecosystems. If firearms are allowed it would increase poaching problems, which are already a continuing problem in backcountry areas (Zinck, 2008). Park rangers will not be able to identify poachers as easily when firearm regulations are loosened. The only way a park ranger could prevent a poacher is to check to see if they are licensed to carry a firearm, which may not be enough to protect a species. Black bears, for example, are hunted illegally because their gall bladders are used in traditional Asian medicines and sold over the black market. Black bears could soon be on the endangered species list if loaded firearms are allowed in National Parks. These areas are not only for recreation purposes, but are also sanctuaries for wildlife. Therefore hunting is not even allowed on most National Park lands, so what would be the purpose of carrying a gun?

Park managers are also very concerned about their employee’s safety should this bill pass. Approaching an angry and armed visitor would not only allow a situation to get out of control, but the visitors may also feel like they do not have to abide by the parks regulations. Carrying a firearm gives the person a sense of false security and would feel like they could get away with anything and deal with whatever comes their way. Thousands of unarmed, seasonal rangers are hired by National parks every summer; at most they are equipped with mace. It is a disaster waiting to happen when a college intern approaches a visitor with a dog off leash and a loaded weapon when the visitor is already angry. How will prospective park employees gain experience when they will be forced to go through police academy just to work within a park? While law enforcement duties are part of a park ranger’s job, the focus is always to maintain and protect a natural area (Dictionary.com, 2006). National parks were created to preserve and protect landmarks, monuments, ecosystems, historical icons, and wildlife (NPS.gov, 2008).

Wildlife attacks are rare in National Parks, especially in front-country areas, however, having a false sense of security would allow untrained visitors to access back-country areas without knowledge of typical wildlife behavior (USA Today, 2008). Without knowledge of animal patterns and behavior, needlessly shooting an animal browsing in the brush could endanger other wildlife and visitors. Wildlife training may not be considered if visitors were able to carry a weapon because of the false sense of security, the feeling that a gun can protect them from anything. An elk may be acting fidgety but that does not mean it will charge, and yet a visitor may shoot it anyway because “it was acting strange”. A very dangerous example may be if someone shot a baby bear cub thinking it was going to hurt their child; however, the mother-bear is probably somewhere nearby and will do more damage than a baby bear would. Understanding wildlife habits may not prevent all attacks or accidents, but that knowledge may help a visitor better understand what to do and how to react rather than just shooting an animal. Park rangers even state that mace or bear spray may be enough to scare away a potential animal attack; outright shooting the animal is unnecessary.

    Safety is one of the primary concerns surrounding this proposal; however there are several political reasons that gun activists are using to try and convince political leaders to pass the bill. Gun activists are claiming that regulations are too difficult to understand when they vary from different agencies. National forests, which are managed by the Department of Agriculture, allow loaded weapons into their boundaries, but National Parks do not. The main difference is that hunting is allowed on National forest land, it is also governed by a different agency. Gun activists want regulations to remain constant throughout departments and allow licensed firearm wearers to have the freedoms that this country fought for. They must have forgotten to look at our nation’s park system and would have noticed that there are four major agencies controlling our natural areas, which also have varying regulations.

The four major agencies include federal, state, city, and county lands. Federal agencies include National parks, National forests, and Fish and Wildlife service lands. States all adopt their own set of regulations when managing their parks, which tend to be smaller than federal lands. County parks have their set of regulations and can choose to charge visitors entrance fees or not; however, these parks are all easily accessible from a city. The final agency that contributes to our parks system are city parks, which typically do not have entrance fees and are very family oriented. Gun activists are not noticing that all of these agencies are all different in their regulations and even national parks and national forests differ greatly in what rules they choose to adopt and enforce. Equalizing laws will not solve the confusion that gun activists are complaining about simply because of the variety of parks our nation has. Simply loosening regulations in National Parks will not be enough to ease the confusion that the gun activists are whining about.

Another problem gun activists are not recognizing is that several National parks overlap into several states (Zinck, 2008). How will they determine which park adopts that state law? It would create further confusion and may even result in changing state laws. Will a park have one set of regulations on one side of the border and adopt a different set of regulations on the other side of the border? How will visitors understand what is allowed and how will park rangers enforce these confusing laws? It creates needless confusion that the gun activists are trying to eliminate in the first place. It will be near impossible for an already under-budgeted park to enforce separate state laws in one park. A few states, such as Wyoming, have very loose firearms restrictions and therefore automatic rifles could be seen around Devil’s Tower or frighteningly, Yellowstone National park.

    I understand that there are benefits to allowing loaded firearms in national parks. While safety is a primary concern for park conservationists and park rangers, safety is also the main reason why gun activists proposed this bill in the first place. Even though wildlife attacks are rare, they can happen (Inwood, 2007). Wildlife can be unpredictable no matter how much training courses we take, attacks can happen in the city or in a national park for any reason. Allowing loaded firearms will ensure safety of the people who pay to use the parks (Inwood, 2007). Women and children are also targeted in the need of increased safety in our national parks. There are several cases where women and children are harmed or murdered during a day hike, and allowing a loaded firearm could protect them. Denying protection to a taxpayer to use the lands they pay for is a crime in itself. Backcountry areas are the only places where a loaded gun is useful. Even though wildlife attacks are rare, they do happen and there are cases where nothing can stop the animal, except a gun. Dangerous people also inhabit the backcountry areas, and women and children are targeted because they can rarely fend off a strong man.

    These alternative views are valid and strong arguments; however, they are not enough to convince me to allow guns in national parks. The consequences and confusion that will arise from the passing of this bill outweighs the need for visitors to feel safe in a safe haven. Cases of wildlife attacks and “two-legged predator” attacks are isolated and rare compared to the threat to wildlife, which is a widespread problem. Although I admit that protection in a national park is essential, it is also essential to protect wildlife and visitors from people who may abuse the right to carry loaded firearms. Guns are useless in populated areas and will only create further violence, even if it is for personal protection.

    Allowing loaded firearms into parks is bad news waiting to happen. The complications and confusion will be unnecessary and will spark further debate about potential solutions. Park managers will have to consider increasing the amount of armed employees they have on staff, and may require that all employees be armed. The amount of intern or job opportunities for high school and college students will be drastically reduced because of the lack of safety a park will be able to provide. Safety is of primary concern for visitors, park employees, and wildlife. Our nation has changed from a hundred years ago, and guns are not as necessary as they used to be. Allowing this bill to pass will encourage gun activists to pursue loosening firearm restrictions in every park, and they will not stop fighting until they win. Standing our ground now and preventing this bill to pass will send a message to politicians and gun activists that a gun is not a symbol of safety, it is a symbol of weakness. Society is already frightened by the amount of shootings happening in our schools and malls in the past decade, and upholding strict firearm laws is the only preventative measure we can take to protect the safe havens of our National Parks. Safety of visitors and wildlife should supersede the right to bear arms.

Rocky Mountain national park – 11/2007