Anti trail vandalism post goes viral on FB

[rickb]

eyesores and rat boxes.

Shelters can avoided and seldom come as a surprise.

Its these huge blood orange tents that keep popping up like mushrooms that get to me!

(Just kidding. I think they have all been exterpated from these parts, and the only one I know of down south would be be an honor to stumble upon.)

[RED-DOG]

i think this is ridiculous because a few years ago no one talked or even cared about it, i mean heck the trail clubs thought it was a piece of art, and now this is all people wants to talk about, personally i think this is only a WB issue not a real life issue.

[Old Hiker]

http://www.teamsandtastic.com/RockStacking/


????????????????

[magneto]

Ed Abbey says it best---

"Why is it that the destruction of something created by humans is called vandalism, yet the destruction of something created by God is called development?"

The difference is intent:

"Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Human beings living and building on the Earth is a good thing. Defacing and destroying what has been built is not.

The builder of a shelter intends to create a place for people to have respite from the weather while they enjoy the woods. The defacer of a shelter is a jerk who seeks to mar that intent by gratifying his own swollen ego.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offshore]

Pretty much agree on this---man made structures, especially in a national park or national forest, wilderness etc---are in themselves acts of vandalism.

Except they're not. The definition of vandalism is destruction or defacement of property without the owner's permission. I don't think the shelters, etc. popped up without the knowledge and permission of the organizations responsible for the lands on which they were built. You may not like them, as is your right, but they are not acts of vandalism.

[Solitude501]

I applaud the posting of this crime on you tube. It is not "OK" to draw or carve on things that "YOU" do not own. It was not yours to do as you will. "Leave No Trace Behind" seems to have no meaning anymore, even to those that are suppose to be in tune with nature.
There is "Right" and "Wrong" and this act was WRONG. I personally cannot stand to see graffiti in our National Parks, National Forest, State Forest or local parks. It is not "ART", it is destruction and a selfish act committed by a selfish individual. It is disturbing it seems that many members of this forum, thinks it is "OK". Disturbing indeed.

[Spit Walker]

Hey everyone we are going to pour this concrete right through the middle of our last remaining wildlands... and you better not right your ****ing name in it!

[Uriah]

Except they're not. The definition of vandalism is destruction or defacement of property without the owner's permission. I don't think the shelters, etc. popped up without the knowledge and permission of the organizations responsible for the lands on which they were built. You may not like them, as is your right, but they are not acts of vandalism.

That's man's definition, of course. And everything must exist as per our definitions!

Nature's definitions, the animals' definition (particularly those whose very lives are nudging the brink of extinction) and the forests' definition all likely differ. Why must everything on Earth fall under OUR terms? Someone has to speak up for the rights of the plants and animals and the land, no? If we could ask them what vandalism is, and if they could communicate an answer to us, and if we were willing to listen, I can assure you they'd claim it was--and IS--vandalism. Destroying habitat is nothing but vandalism, no matter how you care to define it.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Wow, I didn't expect so much controversy when I posted this thread. [I must have forgotten where I was ]

As a crime it certainly pales in comparison to many, if not most. But it was more the attitude of the offenders that I found disturbing - the idea that it is okay to just do as one pleases without regard to the rights of others, in this case the general public who own the trail/path railing and pay for its construction and repair. And yes, it's the old argument, "if everyone did it", that would lead to a lot more damage, especially if everybody did whatever they chose without consequence. The question becomes, "Where do we draw the line?" Carving initials? Painting graffiti on rock formations? Knocking over rock formations?

As to the argument that shelters, etc., are vandalism, and to a greater degree industrial society in general, then so are virtually all acts of man. In the narrow sense as hikers, even our use of metals, plastics, and fabrics (natural and synthetic) for our gear all contribute to industrialization and are not immune from criticism. The trail footpath itself would also qualify. Unless we as a species go back to being nomadic hunter/gatherers, we are creatures that by our nature modify (some may deem it vandalize) our environment. But there is a big difference in what we choose to do collectively, and what an individual chooses to do on their own. That difference being the limits we place by establishing laws.

I would submit that if you defend the carving of initials, then you should also defend painting graffiti on rock formations. Because the acts are simply a matter of degree and artistic interpretation. The attitude and intent are the same.

[Tipi Walter]

Human beings living and building on the Earth is a good thing. Defacing and destroying what has been built is not.

The builder of a shelter intends to create a place for people to have respite from the weather while they enjoy the woods. The defacer of a shelter is a jerk who seeks to mar that intent by gratifying his own swollen ego.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Humans building on the earth is a good thing when there were 300 million of us around the equator as in Biblical times and when Jesus was alive. Believe it or not and as absurd as it sounds, there are now 7+ billion of us on the planet and each of us wants our own clearcut patch of open deforested ground to build our homes and drive our cars and burn oil and flip on computers. So, excessive humans living and building on the Earth is in itself defacing and destroying what wild lands are left.

Except they're not. The definition of vandalism is destruction or defacement of property without the owner's permission. I don't think the shelters, etc. popped up without the knowledge and permission of the organizations responsible for the lands on which they were built. You may not like them, as is your right, but they are not acts of vandalism.

The organizations that are responsible for these Rat Box shelters (leave no trace???) did so with erroneous knowledge and self-appointed and self-ordained permission. Defacing them is only an act of vandalism for those twisted individuals who drool over Man and his engineering cleverness. I believe the outdoors and the forest has seen enough of man's cleverness.

Ed Abbey once again had something to say about this subject. He recommended everyone throw litter on every highway since in his opinion every highway is a cut scar thru the landscape and in itself is the biggest piece of litter.

Hey everyone we are going to pour this concrete right through the middle of our last remaining wildlands... and you better not right your ****ing name in it!

Exactly. Spit(?) Walker gets it. Amen, pass the peanuts and raisins.

That's man's definition, of course. And everything must exist as per our definitions!

Nature's definitions, the animals' definition (particularly those whose very lives are nudging the brink of extinction) and the forests' definition all likely differ. Why must everything on Earth fall under OUR terms? Someone has to speak up for the rights of the plants and animals and the land, no? If we could ask them what vandalism is, and if they could communicate an answer to us, and if we were willing to listen, I can assure you they'd claim it was--and IS--vandalism. Destroying habitat is nothing but vandalism, no matter how you care to define it.

Another excellent post. Full agreement. Here's an example of human centrism and human ignorance---The monarch butterfly population is down 90% from its regular numbers. This is due to pesticides killing off the milkweed plant. Here's the kicker: Scientists WONDER if the butterfly needs to be put on the endangered species list. Say what???!!! To do so would cause a pesticide company to stop using its products to kill milkweed. Chemical engineers would be homeless and out of work. Some might hang themselves.

[MuddyWaters]

Things people say and do reveal who they really are.
Sometimes there are repercussions.
So be it.
Not much sympathy here if you share your personal business with the world, or do bad things in public.

Both say your a fool anyway.

The one thing i most repeat to my kids is "Stupid people eventually get whats coming to them". " Dont be one of them".

[4eyedbuzzard]

Humans building on the earth is a good thing when there were 300 million of us around the equator as in Biblical times and when Jesus was alive. Believe it or not and as absurd as it sounds, there are now 7+ billion of us on the planet and each of us wants our own clearcut patch of open deforested ground to build our homes and drive our cars and burn oil and flip on computers. So, excessive humans living and building on the Earth is in itself defacing and destroying what wild lands are left.

Tipi, I agree with you that the biggest single factor in human driven destruction of the planet is our (over) population. Personally, I have this notion that 2 - 3 billion would be about the limit of earth's long term carrying capacity. But, feel free to pick your own number, because there is no consensus to be found, other than we are likely going beyond the earth's carrying capacity due to rapid industrialization of the third world countries. The big problem then comes down to which side of this equation you and yours want to wind up on. What can one say, except that all those who don't want to go quietly are just sore losers? Just trying to keep it all in perspective . . .

[Offshore]

That's man's definition, of course. And everything must exist as per our definitions!

Nature's definitions, the animals' definition (particularly those whose very lives are nudging the brink of extinction) and the forests' definition all likely differ. Why must everything on Earth fall under OUR terms? Someone has to speak up for the rights of the plants and animals and the land, no? If we could ask them what vandalism is, and if they could communicate an answer to us, and if we were willing to listen, I can assure you they'd claim it was--and IS--vandalism. Destroying habitat is nothing but vandalism, no matter how you care to define it.

Humans are a part of nature and one can only speak for humans - and really just a very small portion of humankind (1 in 7.3 billion or so). The idea of being able to ask animals an opinion or to speak for that abstraction that is "nature" is naivete at best or anthropomorphism and hubris at worst.

[magneto]

I'm getting out my popcorn for the rest of this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[4eyedbuzzard]

I'm getting out my popcorn for the rest of this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thread drift. WB's answer to, "Will there be a sequel?"

[Tipi Walter]

Humans are a part of nature and one can only speak for humans - and really just a very small portion of humankind (1 in 7.3 billion or so). The idea of being able to ask animals an opinion or to speak for that abstraction that is "nature" is naivete at best or anthropomorphism and hubris at worst.

Humans are just a very small portion of humankind?? 1 in 7.3 billion? I already have dementia but that sentence just doesn't make sense.

Your last sentence sounds like an apology for destructive human behavior (mountaintop removal anyone?) as animals obviously have no opinion regarding nature or their place on earth. With this mindset animals become non-participants in "our" world and are therefore in the way of glorious human progress. So obviously humans are god's gift to the planet, the shining city on the hill, and we are endowed with holy wisdom to ruin the world as we see fit.

[rickb]

My guess is that some of those who are 0K with a fellow citizen defacing public property at an overlook, would be apoplectic if another fellow citizen with different core beliefs decided to do the same kind defacement to their F-150 pickup -- or whatever.

[Sarcasm the elf]

[4eyedbuzzard]

Humans are just a very small portion of humankind?? 1 in 7.3 billion? I already have dementia but that sentence just doesn't make sense.

Your last sentence sounds like an apology for destructive human behavior (mountaintop removal anyone?) as animals obviously have no opinion regarding nature or their place on earth. With this mindset animals become non-participants in "our" world and are therefore in the way of glorious human progress. So obviously humans are god's gift to the planet, the shining city on the hill, and we are endowed with holy wisdom to ruin the world as we see fit.

By our very birth and existence, we are all "guilty" of impacting the planet. What is ultimately positive or negative is very subjective. I kind of enjoy the irony of debating the positive vs negative aspects of human progress on an internet discussion board by hikers who support industrialization, aka progress, by their use and purchase of manufactured technical products.

[Lone Wolf]

the big tree in Neel gap has been defaced by dozens of shoes thrown into it's branches. it's on the AT. it looks ridiculous