Wilderness programs are very frequently used by parents, sometimes as a one-stop intervention, or as means of ‘introducing’ their child into a longer residential program. But what exactly are wilderness programs? And what is ‘wilderness therapy’?

The Environment

To state the obvious, wilderness programs – as the name implies – are located in the wilderness. These locations are isolated, desolate and remote; they are all areas which are inhospitable to human life; and all of these environments involve climactic extremes: the extreme heat of deserts; the extreme cold of snowy, mountainous regions; or the extreme wetness of vast forested areas. Very few – if anybody – actually lives in these locations, which is precisely because it is extremely counter-productive and even dangerous to do so.

But wilderness programs still want you to send your kids there!

The Risk

Sending your child to a dangerous, inhospitable environment is both an act of abuse and neglect.

Parents simply cannot claim that they were unaware of the risks involved in these environments, or otherwise claim that a wilderness program ‘misled’ them; because common sense dictates that isolated, extremely hot, cold, or wet environments are incredibly dangerous locations which are not fit for a child to stay for any length of time. These locations are referred to as ‘hostile environments’ for a reason!

As a case study, consider the recent example of the three SAS recruits who died in a mountainous region while on exercise in Britain. Even those highly trained, professional, fighting-fit, elite soldiers, with years of experience, succumbed to the extreme heat – and they weren’t in a desert, or hundreds of miles from civilization and medical assistance; they were on a supposedly ‘simple’ trek in the Welsh valleys. Simple – that is – until it goes wrong.

How can a parent be ignorant of these substantial risks?

When you consider that teenagers who attend wilderness programs in these extreme environments almost always have no prior experience of the wilderness, or of living outdoors, and are not used to extreme temperatures or conditions, and have no formal survival training, and may not even be physically fit, this increases the risk dramatically.

Of course, programs counter this argument by stating that they have professional and experienced staff; but many recorded wilderness program deaths have shown this claim to be utter nonsense at almost all existing wilderness programs. Even if we assumed that program staff were professional and experienced, can they be said to be more professional than the British SAS? Hardly. The risk still stands, and the risk is still extreme.

Culture Shock

Part of the ‘justification’ programs provide for isolating teenagers in an extreme environment is the principle of “culture shock”. In practice this means that the environment is so different to what the teenagers are accustomed to, that it becomes a total shock to their system; the children are quite literally dragged far outside their comfort zones. This isolation, desolation, and harsh climate make a person extremely vulnerable, and therefore completely dependent; and it is through this method of forced dependency that power can be exercised over them to the point of extreme. Culture shock can, under certain circumstances, be considered a form of abuse.

For example, in a desert situation, if a group has food and drinking water, and you have none (and no other means of obtaining any) does that group not have total control over you merely through their supply of resources? If you are completely desperate for that food and water, then what will you be willing to do to obtain it? And further, as these people control access to the food and water, and have the ability to withdraw it at will, does that not create a dangerous relationship? Is that relationship not wide open to one-way abuses of power or tyranny? To what extent can we honestly say that this is either therapeutic or beneficial to well-being?

I highly doubt that any parent who has ever placed their child in a wilderness program has even considered these questions.

Problems, problems, problems.

However, if all this were not already bad enough, it is vitally important to consider that many of the teenagers placed in wilderness programs have serious problems of some nature; which could literally be anything, and to any degree of severity, as wilderness programs accept minors with a plethora of issues, which might include: trauma; depression and anxiety; or drug and alcohol dependency, to name but a few.

But, trauma is not treated by inducing more trauma, such as being isolated away from loved ones in the extreme heat, wet or cold. Perceived abandonment in a god-forsaken environment certainly does not help treat feelings of depression or anxiety; and drug and alcohol abusers can actually die if they are subjected to high temperatures, strenuous workouts, and insufficient food and water before their body is clear of chemicals and toxins. This last point is not a theoretical point either: deaths for this reason. have actually occurred in wilderness programs.

It is enormously dangerous for teenagers who have potentially serious conditions to be thrown head-first into a very hostile environment, with staff who potentially don’t know a great deal about the environment themselves. These environments are challenging enough for the physically and mentally fit, yet this is never taken into consideration by programs or parents.

Transport and Trickery

So far, it has been established: that the environments involved in wilderness programs make them extremely unsafe; that even experienced, hardened, professionals can easily die in the wilderness; that wilderness programs often employ staff who are unqualified, untrained and inexperienced, which heightens the risk factor; and that culture shock is dreadfully traumatic, especially for kids who are vulnerable and may have serious conditions.

Now, if that isn’t enough to convince you that wilderness programs are a bad idea, then maybe this extra layer of trauma will convince you: namely that the use of forcible ‘transport’ services or the use of parental deception and trickery, cause even greater distress to a vulnerable young person. This is a well-established psychological fact.

A kidnapping is under no circumstances ‘therapeutic’. The effects of a parentally-ordered kidnapping in the name of ‘therapy’ are every bit as devastating as a real kidnapping, because exactly the same physical, mental and emotional responses take place. Many teenagers who are legally kidnapped in this way experience PTSD as a result of their experience and many find that their trust in others is permanently altered or lost. Additionally, parental deception, either through organizing a kidnapping, or by alternatively convincing a child that they are going on vacation, leads to profound feelings of abandonment, devastation, disbelief, betrayal, and, even more, isolation and desolation than the surroundings of the wilderness provide by themselves. For any child, these combined conditions are likely to emotionally break a child into little pieces before they’ve even started the program.

Imagine being kidnapped all of a sudden by strangers while sleeping soundly in your bed; being driven thousands of miles away from home, and ending up a desert, mountain range, or forest, hundreds of miles away from anyone, in extreme weather conditions, where you cannot escape or summon any kind of help, even if you desperately need it, and you can’t even speak with your parents…no matter how long you are there. The level of trauma and abandonment experienced during this process is literally an indescribable level of devastation.

It is very important to mention this issue, as programs regularly report that 70-80% of teenagers are transported by force by for-hire companies.

What justifies the cost?

Wilderness programs generally cost between $20,000 and $40,000 dollars for between 4 and 12 weeks of so-called ‘therapy’. But, as these programs take place outdoors (and usually on Federal land), what actually justifies this enormous cost?

How much does a tarp, a few rations, and a one-hour visit by a ‘therapist’ once a week actually cost? It’s not very much. Their overheads are very low, and their staff are on the minimum wage.

It works out cheaper to attend Eton College – the finest school in the world – for a full academic year than to attend one of these programs for about 40 days…and yet the kids at wilderness programs live under a tarp on starvation rations, while the pupils at Eton live in opulence. How does that make any sense? How can a wilderness program which lasts for a matter of weeks cost more than the annual cost of attending a school for Princes? Think about the massive profit margins that are clearly involved! Are they really helping children, or are they lining their own pockets with gold?

Therapy? What Therapy?!

When you are paying thousands of dollars for ‘wilderness therapy’ you’d probably expect that your child would get to see a therapist for more than just one hour a week – but that’s all you’ll get. If you’re paying for an 8-week program, your child will get just 8 hours of therapy. It does not compute: a program of 99.5% wilderness and 0.05% therapy is not ‘wilderness therapy’ – it is utter nonsense. For the prices charged, therapists should be with the kids for 8 hours every single day. However, most wilderness programs don’t actually hire proper, licensed, professional therapists; because they cost money, and for-profit programs won’t spend a cent more than they absolutely have to. Just because someone calls themselves a therapist, doesn’t mean they actually are.

But, even if a program does have professional, licensed therapists, this doesn’t alter the fact that the amount of contact time for therapy is woeful; and neither does it alter the fact that therapists are not ‘jacks of all trades’ with the ability to treat anything and everything. Therapists are supposed to have a specialism, in fact, they make it their life’s work to focus on one particular condition – whether it is treating drug dependency, helping those with depression, or assisting with anxiety-related issues. Most people don’t realize that this divide is present in numerous professions: a tax lawyer is not a specialist in family law; a college lecturer is not a proficient kindergarten teacher; a cardiologist is not a specialist in oncology; even though they are lawyers, teachers, and doctors in general. Likewise, therapists have their specialisms, and they cannot be expected to properly treat people with any and all diagnoses and social problems which wilderness programs claim to cater for. This is also probably the reason why it appears to be so difficult for programs to recruit reputable, professional therapists for one-size-fits-all catch-all programs. Therapy just doesn’t work like that.

Wilderness programs implicitly admit they don’t work!

Though this might be extremely surprising, wilderness programs implicitly admit that their programs don’t work, even though they tout the supposed ‘benefits’ and ‘supporting research’ to parents.

All wilderness programs admit that a short-term program is not going to be a magic solution to a child’s problems, and they do this in particular by always pushing parents to place their children in longer-term residential programs, such as therapeutic boarding schools. So then what is the point of a wilderness program? What is it that justifies tens of thousands of dollars in costs? And if – as wilderness programs say – a child requires longer-term residential treatment, then what is a child even doing there in the first place? Why is it that wilderness programs don’t advise the parents of this information before the program begins, instead of towards the end? Could it be because a rational parent would skip the wilderness program altogether for (arguably) an option that might actually do something worthwhile?

I think the answer is obviously ‘yes’.

It is important to mention two things: First, wilderness programs get paid kickbacks for every child they successfully have placed at another program; and in fact, you’ll probably find that they’ll recommend the same place for every single child, regardless of their needs or circumstances. And second, the research which wilderness programs use to convince parents of their efficacy are almost always studies which have been commissioned by the programs themselves; the researchers are working to support a predetermined conclusion. Truly independent studies into wilderness programs show they provide no actual benefits at all.

The parental aspect

Parents often believe that they are doing the right thing by enrolling their child in a wilderness program. But a tragic death at a wilderness program in 2014 really puts all of the above information into perspective, and leaves us asking: What the hell were his parents thinking?

I’m talking about the extremely sad death of Alec Lansing at Trails wilderness program, North Carolina.

Alec was sent to the program (possibly forcibly by hired thugs) for grieving the death of his brother. Yes – you did read that correctly, as despicable as it sounds.

The program was located in a forest described by the police as “rugged and treacherous”: clearly a great place for kids to be for extended periods of time.

Not only that but Alec was sent away in October and sadly passed away in November. The temperatures were particularly cold at the time: so you’ve got to be a really smart parent to have your child living in a dangerous forested environment in the freezing cold of winter, haven’t you?

Just when you think that the story can’t possibly get any worse – it does. It took up to 100 professional searchers, combined with helicopters, 12 days to locate Alec’s body. Even more incredibly, it was admitted by police that he was found “close” to where the program had been; so it’s not as if he got very far, and yet it took the authorities 12 days to find him. How long would it have taken for medical assistance to reach this area under normal circumstances? Probably hours – most likely leading to an avoidable fatality.

This story highlights virtually everything that is wrong with wilderness programs. None of this is an exaggeration. These things not only happen, but they happen all too often. What makes this story particularly sad is that Alec was not a ‘troubled teenager’ at all; he was a talented and intelligent young man; a teenager who was legitimately grieving the death of his brother; a child who needed his parents to comfort him. He was someone who didn’t require abduction and private-imprisonment in a freezing cold forest, and he was someone who didn’t deserve to go through all that trauma before dying a slow and agonizing death.

A parenting lesson for us all…

But especially for those without a modicum of common sense.