View Full Version : Opinion Poll
Here begins an opinion poll, in the "Straight Forward" section in hopes of keeping it streamlined. Please answer w/ your opinion. Is it OK or not OK to write/draw on AT shelter walls, posts, beams, rafters? The question assumes that the writing/drawing is not vulgar, obscene, or threatening. The question assumes that no structural damage results (for example, from carving deeply).
Here begins an opinion poll, in the "Straight Forward" section in hopes of keeping it streamlined. Please answer w/ your opinion. Is it OK or not OK to write/draw on AT shelter walls, posts, beams, rafters? The question assumes that the writing/drawing is not vulgar, obscene, or threatening. The question assumes that no structural damage results (for example, from carving deeply).
Not OK. One doesn't deface what doesn't belong to them.
Definitely not ok. Should be fined. That is what the journals are for.
MuddyWaters
11-11-2013, 22:05
Ask the people that donated their time, and some cases their own money to help build them
What do you think they would say?
But straight to the point, definitely not.
atmilkman
11-11-2013, 22:05
Not OK. One doesn't deface what doesn't belong to them.
+1 on this
No, Would it be alright to rewrite on your house or car if its not vulgar, obscene or threatening? No structural damage either.
NO!
(I'm surprised someone even needs to ask)
Another Kevin
11-11-2013, 22:41
Not OK. If a shelter has neither register or notice board it's OK to write a note on your own paper and tape it up - assuming that you need to send a companion a message. The recipient is expected to remove it again.
Not ok to write on other peoples stuff.
Old Hiker
11-11-2013, 23:20
No. It's not OK. If you think it's OK, please post your address, as I have lots of Sharpies I've taken from the students at my school for defacing the walls. I have a week coming up at Thanksgiving.
Definitely not ok. Shows a total lack of respect for other people.
Tally after 12 responses: 12 not OK / 0 OK
Feral Bill
11-11-2013, 23:27
Another no here. Nice to see so much agreement on WB.
Odd Man Out
11-11-2013, 23:30
Not OK.....
ams212001
11-11-2013, 23:30
NO!
(I'm surprised someone even needs to ask)
I think it is a legit question because enough people feel otherwise and write on the shelter walls and probably don't give a second thought about it.
I would have to say no it is not "right." But, I will not lose sleep if someone writing a limerick about rain on the wall.
jimmyjam
11-11-2013, 23:33
Definitely not ok
slow mind
11-11-2013, 23:49
No on the AT it is not OK.
There are other Nat. parks and trails where a shelter maintainer/builder or even ranger will smile and hand you a marker.
MkBibble
11-12-2013, 00:41
Of course it is not okay.
Sarcasm the elf
11-12-2013, 00:43
Ask the people that donated their time, and some cases their own money to help build them
What do you think they would say?
But straight to the point, definitely not.
+1 Well said.
Leanthree
11-12-2013, 00:47
Just adding my no vote
I never have anything worth writing but I do love to read other peoples. As long as it doesnt hurt the structure, like deep carvings, I think it is fine.
I never have anything worth writing but I do love to read other peoples. As long as it doesnt hurt the structure, like deep carvings, I think it is fine.
How can you think its OK? It ruins the shelters. Its worse when they tag signs, store bathrooms by the trail, Laundromat in hot springs. This **** pisses me off. Leave your marker at home save the weight.
Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Tapatalk 2
NO WAY is it ok to leave your senseless message behind.
How can you think its OK? It ruins the shelters. Its worse when they tag signs, store bathrooms by the trail, Laundromat in hot springs. This **** pisses me off. Leave your marker at home save the weight.
Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Tapatalk 2
I guess it doesnt bother me to see it, and I dont do it. I dont feel it ruins anything and I like to read the comments as long as they are positive. I remember this cool shelter that could fit maybe 5 ppl somewhere in NC that had markings dating back to 1950. I just think its neat to read and look at and think of all the memories those places hold. For me it adds character.
I guess it doesnt bother me to see it, and I dont do it. I dont feel it ruins anything and I like to read the comments as long as they are positive. I remember this cool shelter that could fit maybe 5 ppl somewhere in NC that had markings dating back to 1950. I just think its neat to read and look at and think of all the memories those places hold. For me it adds character.
I know the shelter your talking about it is cool but these days people don't just put a name and date they cover the walls with garbage
Sent from my SPH-M820-BST using Tapatalk 2
imscotty
11-12-2013, 01:32
People who deface shelters, trees, rocks, signs, and such along the trail are just plain iselfish. Most hikers are there to enjoy nature, not to see that kind of crap. What kind of sorry soul needs to pump up their egos by leaving graffiti? Showing consideration to your fellow hikers and to future hikes by leaving no trace and with kind and friendly interactions would be a greater legacy to leave from your hike.
Trailweaver
11-12-2013, 02:41
I do always wonder if those people write on their dining/bedroom/bathroom walls at home. No, it's not o.k., and if I saw someone doing it, I'd have to call them on it.
having said that, I have a friend who bought a rambling 4-story house that had been an exclusive girls camp in the mountains. In the upstairs halls and dorm/bedrooms girls had written a virtual history of the camp. It was fascinating to read names, dates, nicknames, and rhymes for a period of 30 years. They had been invited to do so, however. . . And that makes the difference.
Not Ok. It wasn't ok in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and it's not Ok now.
Rocket Jones
11-12-2013, 06:51
Never ok....
Nice to see so much agreement on WB.
I disagree.:)
Trebor66
11-12-2013, 07:48
Here's another NO vote
Sailing_Faith
11-12-2013, 08:13
No, not ok.
i do think it is ok to write on a persons forehead who is caught writing on a shelter wall though....
Drybones
11-12-2013, 09:07
Not OK. One doesn't deface what doesn't belong to them.
+1...I've often wondered what pleasure or satisfaction one gains from trashing stuff.
Wormer, your post adds nothing to the discussion and I hope it's removed.
Wormer, your post adds nothing to the discussion and I hope it's removed.
I think it was a botched attempt at adding a picture.
garlic08
11-12-2013, 10:43
No.
Some argue there is a fine line between graffiti and art. I respectfully disagree when "art" is placed without permission on property that does not belong expressly to the "artist".
No!
It is not OK to write/draw on AT shelter walls, posts, beams, rafters.
FarmerChef
11-12-2013, 11:06
Definite no vote here.
Rain Man
11-12-2013, 11:09
No, not okay.
I like the post turning the question around. Is it okay for us to write on their packs, tents, sleeping bags, ... or their homes, ... their cars? If personal property is excluded based on their rationalizations, ... what about their church? Their school? What about the Washington Monument in DC? Can we write on it? Other national and state monuments, statues, and sites?
No, it's not "okay." The fact that it is out in nature makes it even less okay.
Rain:sunMan
.
Nope. I don't go hiking to see graffiti.
michaelosborne
11-12-2013, 11:16
No way it's not okay!
atmilkman
11-12-2013, 11:37
I guess it doesnt bother me to see it, and I dont do it. I dont feel it ruins anything and I like to read the comments as long as they are positive. I remember this cool shelter that could fit maybe 5 ppl somewhere in NC that had markings dating back to 1950. I just think its neat to read and look at and think of all the memories those places hold. For me it adds character.
Heck, I could write on the wall and date it 1776 and people would really think they "discovered" something. Maybe leave behind some chicken ankles and call them prehistoric.
Yes, JK, obviously no!
:datz:datz
I’m ok with it and not ok with it. When I go into a very old shelter and see “Tommy and Daddy – June 3, 1951” or something like that it seems pretty cool to think about whoever they are (were) and what their trip was like then and what their life has been like since that day, and how that experience has impacted them. Don’t bother going into the stuff you have seen on port-a-potty walls and the like, writing on my living room walls, etc – I get it. I have never written on any shelter wall, nor will I. I don’t reserve the right to be “offended” by everything a fellow human does in this life - not worth the bother – but I do have my own preferences. The question and the comments are legitimate, but then I assume so are mine. If we think about one of the fairly new shelters – say Mountaineer – and walk in there right after it was finished, I’d have a hard time seeing someone being the first one to write on the wall. I’m trying to understand the comparison between the first one in there and the example above from “1951”… Funny how we change. A few years ago when there was a “malfunction” during the halftime show at the Super Bowl, they searched and selected a more “wholesome” act for a few years following – that’s what they said. But, back in the day when the currently “wholesome” act was just coming onto the scene, some of them would have been considered very “unwholesome”. The consensus here is to leave the walls clean, and some will not. Years later we will all read them.
kayak karl
11-12-2013, 12:24
NO, never all right.
i stopped at a new shelter is the south. saw dust was still around it. on the second level written in pencil was "i was the first to sleep here 0/0/00". torn between LNT and irony i wanted to write "NO, you were the first to vandalize it". instead i got a rock and erased it.
to the example above, what is the difference between Father & Son 1951 or Father & Son 2013?
Not okay.
At the double spring gap shelter I did like the one person that wrote over several others "No one cares that you were here".
HikerMom58
11-12-2013, 12:35
I’m ok with it and not ok with it. When I go into a very old shelter and see “Tommy and Daddy – June 3, 1951” or something like that it seems pretty cool to think about whoever they are (were) and what their trip was like then and what their life has been like since that day, and how that experience has impacted them. Don’t bother going into the stuff you have seen on port-a-potty walls and the like, writing on my living room walls, etc – I get it. I have never written on any shelter wall, nor will I. I don’t reserve the right to be “offended” by everything a fellow human does in this life - not worth the bother – but I do have my own preferences. The question and the comments are legitimate, but then I assume so are mine. If we think about one of the fairly new shelters – say Mountaineer – and walk in there right after it was finished, I’d have a hard time seeing someone being the first one to write on the wall. I’m trying to understand the comparison between the first one in there and the example above from “1951”… Funny how we change. A few years ago when there was a “malfunction” during the halftime show at the Super Bowl, they searched and selected a more “wholesome” act for a few years following – that’s what they said. But, back in the day when the currently “wholesome” act was just coming onto the scene, some of them would have been considered very “unwholesome”. The consensus here is to leave the walls clean, and some will not. Years later we will all read them.
I LOVE this post!! This post is a reality check on so many levels. ^ You and I can't control others behavior so it's all about finding ways to cope & try to wrap our heads around it.
I still strongly dislike seeing any type of graffiti etc.. on any thing natural ...rocks, trees etc... it's heartbreaking.
For my own sanity, I have found ways to cope with it.
I couldn't/wouldn't do any of it, myself.
It's never OK to deface anything along the AT or anywhere else, and I find it hard to imagine that any serious hiker would disagree. Not a very good topic for an opinion poll.
Seatbelt
11-12-2013, 15:43
[QUOTE=Dad;1816255] If we think about one of the fairly new shelters – say Mountaineer – and walk in there right after it was finished, I’d have a hard time seeing someone being the first one to write on the wall.
Funny you mention this--I was in this shelter 2012 and was amazed at how much graffitti is in it already.
For the record, I vote NO also, but will admit to laughing out loud at the lengthy discourse someone wrote on the privy door at Spring Mtn shelter--where a large chunk was missing from the toilet seat.:D
rocketsocks
11-12-2013, 15:47
graffiti begets graffiti...
insert graffiti where broken windows appear in the article, kinda similar.
The broken windows theory was first introduced by social scientists James Q. Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Q._Wilson) and George L. Kelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_L._Kelling), in an article titled "Broken Windows" and which appeared in the March 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic_Monthly).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-pdf-1) The title comes from the following example:
Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a pavement. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of refuse from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.
Before the introduction of this theory by Wilson and Kelling, Philip Zimbardo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo), a Stanford psychologist, arranged an experiment testing the broken-window theory in 1969. Zimbardo arranged for an automobile with no license plates and the hood up to be parked idle in a Bronx neighbourhood and a second automobile in the same condition to be set up in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked by "vandals" within minutes of its "abandonment". Zimbardo noted that the first "vandals" to arrive were a family – a father, mother and a young son – who removed the radiator and battery. Within twenty four hours of its abandonment, everything of value had been stripped from the vehicle. After that, the car's windows were smashed in, parts torn, upholstery ripped, and children were using the car as a playground. At the same time, the vehicle sitting idle in Palo Alto, California sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo himself went up to the vehicle and deliberately smashed it with a sledgehammer. Soon after, people joined in for the destruction. Zimbardo observed that majority of the adult "vandals" in both cases were primarily well dressed, clean-cut and respectable whites. It is believed that in a neighborhood such as the Bronx where the history of abandoned property and theft are more prevalent, vandalism occurs much more quickly as the community gives off a "no one cares" vibe. Similar events can occur in any civilized community when communal barriers – the sense of mutual regard and obligations of civility – are lowered by actions that suggests "no one cares".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-pdf-1)
The article received a great deal of attention and was very widely cited. A 1996 criminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology) andurban sociology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sociology) book, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by George L. Kelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_L._Kelling) and a co-author Catharine Coles, is based on the article but develops the argument in greater detail. It discusses the theory in relation to crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime) and strategies to contain or eliminate crime from urban neighborhoods.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-2)
A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say the book's authors, is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the sidewalk every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighborhood.
Although work done by the police is crucial towards crime prevention, Oscar Newman, in his 1972 book, Defensible Space, explained that the presence of the police authority is just not enough for a safe and crime-free city. People in the community also need to lend a hand towards crime prevention. The theory that Newman proposes is that people will take care of and protect their own spaces they feel they have an investment in, arguing that an area will eventually be safer if the people feel a sense of ownership and responsibility towards the area. The reason why broken windows and acts of vandalism are still prevalent is because communities simply do not seem to care for it. Regardless of how many times the windows have been repaired, the society still has to invest some of their time to keep it safe. The negligence of society towards any form of a "broken window" signifies the a lack of concern for the community. Newman states this as a clear sign that the society has accepted this disorder, allowing for the unrepaired broken windows to display the vulnerability and lack of defence against the situation.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-3)
The theory thus makes two major claims: that further petty crime and low-level anti-social behavior will be deterred, and that major crime will be prevented as a result. Criticism of the theory has tended to focus only on the latter claim.
41.5 not OK / 1.5 not OK
Tiptoe says: "Not a very good topic for an opinion poll." Just because you say no and believe it strongly doesn't mean it's a worthless poll. It was apparently worthwhile enough for you to chime in with a "no" even though 40 others had already said "no." For those voting "no," there is value in knowing that almost everyone agrees with you. For those who would tend to vote "yes," there is value for them in discovering they are in the minority. For those who can't give a simple answer without taking a jab at the original post, there is value in having a place to vent.
No, not OK. (unless you are actually dying and you wanted to leave that last note, but you better be found dead right next to it.)
perdidochas
11-12-2013, 17:10
I guess it doesnt bother me to see it, and I dont do it. I dont feel it ruins anything and I like to read the comments as long as they are positive. I remember this cool shelter that could fit maybe 5 ppl somewhere in NC that had markings dating back to 1950. I just think its neat to read and look at and think of all the memories those places hold. For me it adds character.
If everybody did that, the 1950s messages would have been written over.
perdidochas
11-12-2013, 17:12
I vote No.
Old Hiker
11-12-2013, 17:33
No way it's not okay!
OK - sorry - I need some punctuation, please.
No way ! It's not OK to deface.
There is no way it's not all right to deface. It's OK.
Let's eat Granny !!
Let's eat, Granny !!
Kerosene
11-12-2013, 17:40
Not okay. Never done it. I have read what is written though.
importman77
11-12-2013, 19:21
I agree with those who said it's never okay to deface something that doesn't belong to you. How anyone could think otherwise is beyond me.
oldwetherman
11-12-2013, 21:09
No. Never. It's wrong on every level.
None yet
11-12-2013, 21:50
absolutely not OK. Follow ATC Guidelines- leave no trace includes not defacing what is not yours.
MuddyWaters
11-12-2013, 21:53
I usually think "what kind of idiot would write on a wall in a shelter????"
geomaniac
11-12-2013, 22:21
Absolutely not ok
Not OK. If you want to carve wood, buy your own property and do it there.
Heck, I could write on the wall and date it 1776 and people would really think they "discovered" something. Maybe leave behind some chicken ankles and call them prehistoric.
That would be cool
Pedaling Fool
11-13-2013, 09:08
Here begins an opinion poll, in the "Straight Forward" section in hopes of keeping it streamlined. Please answer w/ your opinion. Is it OK or not OK to write/draw on AT shelter walls, posts, beams, rafters? The question assumes that the writing/drawing is not vulgar, obscene, or threatening. The question assumes that no structural damage results (for example, from carving deeply).You should have another catagory, besides OK / Not OK; should be:
OK
Not OK
IDGAF
Translation: I Don't Give A F___k
You should have another catagory, besides OK / Not OK; should be:
OK
Not OK
IDGAF
Translation: I Don't Give A F___k
I don't give a folk? I don't get it?
Tiptoe says: "Not a very good topic for an opinion poll." Just because you say no and believe it strongly doesn't mean it's a worthless poll. It was apparently worthwhile enough for you to chime in with a "no" even though 40 others had already said "no." For those voting "no," there is value in knowing that almost everyone agrees with you. For those who would tend to vote "yes," there is value for them in discovering they are in the minority. For those who can't give a simple answer without taking a jab at the original post, there is value in having a place to vent.
I can see your point, BabySue, and I'm all for free expression. But nearly everyone agrees that defacing is a no-no. The most interesting polls to me are those where a wide diversity of opinion is expressed. You read the comments, and you broaden your point of view.
This spring, I met a young couple from Florida at Bryant Ridge Shelter (whose names excape me). The guy asked me to sign his pack; he was collecting signatures/tags from everyone they met. I happily complied. Now they have a great souvenir from their hike. This is a great alternative, in a way, to the compulsion to leave your mark where others can see it.
Reading this thread raised a question...is there a person or entity that actually "owns" the shelters? I thought (maybe wrongly) that they were on public land or public easements and were not owned by anyone?
Secondly, I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but to me the shelters themselves are a bigger blight on nature than any writing on shelter walls could ever be. Several people have said that people hike the trail to be in nature...and that is definitely true...but if that's the case, then I think you have to take more offense at the shelters themselves than anything written on a shelter wall.
Overall, I personally have no negative reaction when I see writing on shelter walls, privy walls, public bathroom stalls, etc. It just doesn't bother me in the slightest. But I can't say I've ever personally done it, nor do I understand the impulse.
Check that...I've used white out to put my initials on the wall of Gino's East in Chicago...but so has everyone else that's ever been there.
not ok to the point where stopping someone from doing it is appropriate.
fredmugs
11-13-2013, 11:42
41.5 not OK / 1.5 not OK
Next time you conduct a poll it may be beneficial to actually put a poll in it. It would save you from counting.
Personally I get more upset seeing a bunch of canned foods someone left behind than someone writing their trail name on the wall.
perdidochas
11-13-2013, 11:43
Reading this thread raised a question...is there a person or entity that actually "owns" the shelters? I thought (maybe wrongly) that they were on public land or public easements and were not owned by anyone?
Secondly, I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but to me the shelters themselves are a bigger blight on nature than any writing on shelter walls could ever be. Several people have said that people hike the trail to be in nature...and that is definitely true...but if that's the case, then I think you have to take more offense at the shelters themselves than anything written on a shelter wall.
Overall, I personally have no negative reaction when I see writing on shelter walls, privy walls, public bathroom stalls, etc. It just doesn't bother me in the slightest. But I can't say I've ever personally done it, nor do I understand the impulse.
Check that...I've used white out to put my initials on the wall of Gino's East in Chicago...but so has everyone else that's ever been there.
They don't belong to individuals, hence the individual doesn't have the right to deface them.
They don't belong to individuals, hence the individual doesn't have the right to deface them.
But if they belong to nobody (not saying they do...hence my original question), then really nobody has the right to tell anyone they CAN'T deface them...no?
Otherwise, it's just people giving their personal opinion on the subject of graffiti. And if we're in the realm of personal opinion, there's a myriad of things that offend me more than graffiti on shelter walls.
Pedaling Fool
11-13-2013, 11:58
Secondly, I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but to me the shelters themselves are a bigger blight on nature than any writing on shelter walls could ever be. Several people have said that people hike the trail to be in nature...and that is definitely true...but if that's the case, then I think you have to take more offense at the shelters themselves than anything written on a shelter wall.Yes, there are some with that view point, but that's the view point of the minority, so it's an invalid view point. No one cares about the opinion of the minority :D
HikerMom58
11-13-2013, 12:10
Reading this thread raised a question...is there a person or entity that actually "owns" the shelters? I thought (maybe wrongly) that they were on public land or public easements and were not owned by anyone?
Secondly, I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but to me the shelters themselves are a bigger blight on nature than any writing on shelter walls could ever be. Several people have said that people hike the trail to be in nature...and that is definitely true...but if that's the case, then I think you have to take more offense at the shelters themselves than anything written on a shelter wall.
Overall, I personally have no negative reaction when I see writing on shelter walls, privy walls, public bathroom stalls, etc. It just doesn't bother me in the slightest. But I can't say I've ever personally done it, nor do I understand the impulse.
Check that...I've used white out to put my initials on the wall of Gino's East in Chicago...but so has everyone else that's ever been there.
This is my opinion... There are other trails that don't have shelters on them. So, there are other hiking options to accommodate hiker's preferences.
The AT does have shelters &, I, for one appreciate them. I prefer to tent, if it's not raining, super windy etc... The picnic tables are nice for food prep etc.. & for socializing. I don't view them as a blight on nature. I see them as helpful.
I went on a hike, this past weekend, on the AT. I hiked 7.4 miles. (out and back) I saw about 4 different places, along the trail, where someone left a good amount of TP on the ground. Not :cool:.
I do not see any trees (other than the white blazes) or rocks that had "graffiti" on them. #feelingblessed
Permanent "damage" done to rocks and trees is the biggest blight of all.
This is my opinion... There are other trails that don't have shelters on them. So, there are other hiking options to accommodate hiker's preferences.
The AT does have shelters &, I, for one appreciate them. I prefer to tent, if it's not raining, super windy etc... The picnic tables are nice for food prep etc.. & for socializing. I don't view them as a blight on nature. I see them as helpful.
I'm not even disagreeing with this. But I do think it's a bit disingenuous to say "i'm here for nature, graffiti offends me" when you're sitting staring at a huge man-made structure.
HikerMom58
11-13-2013, 12:56
I'm not even disagreeing with this. But I do think it's a bit disingenuous to say "i'm here for nature, graffiti offends me" when you're sitting staring at a huge man-made structure.
So are you saying it's all or nothing? I realize that when I hike on the AT, I will not be surrounded by nature without a human trace. So I accept the things that aren't "natural" and use them for the purpose intended. I don't get upset over the graffiti on or in the shelters. Would I prefer not see to see it? Sure. Do I enjoy some of it, sometimes, Sure. It's not black & white with me.
It is heartbreaking for me, however, to see something "natural" defaced.
So are you saying it's all or nothing? I realize that when I hike on the AT, I will not be surrounded by nature without a human trace. So I accept the things that aren't "natural" and use them for the purpose intended. I don't get upset over the graffiti on or in the shelters. Would I prefer not see to see it? Sure. Do I enjoy some of it, sometimes, Sure. It's not black & white with me.
It is heartbreaking for me, however, to see something "natural" defaced.
You and I are pretty much in agreement. What you just wrote is basically how I feel as well.
I just object to the reasoning many in this thread have used for their position against graffiti because I agree it's not black and white. You can't argue LNT when the shelter itself is a violation of LNT premises. It comes down to a personal, subjective opinion. For me personally it's neither offensive nor a violation of any moral/ethical position.
HikerMom58
11-13-2013, 13:40
You and I are pretty much in agreement. What you just wrote is basically how I feel as well.
I just object to the reasoning many in this thread have used for their position against graffiti because I agree it's not black and white. You can't argue LNT when the shelter itself is a violation of LNT premises. It comes down to a personal, subjective opinion. For me personally it's neither offensive nor a violation of any moral/ethical position.
I agree... :D
max patch
11-13-2013, 14:01
I just object to the reasoning many in this thread have used for their position against graffiti because I agree it's not black and white. You can't argue LNT when the shelter itself is a violation of LNT premises
You may not have that opinion if you ever saw the Whitley Gap Shelter in GA 5ish years ago when it was totally covered in graffiti. It looked like the graffiti you see written on walls in downtown urban areas. It has since been repainted brown and now pretty much blends in with the surroundings.
squeezebox
11-13-2013, 14:23
Leave no trace !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And there's a log book to sign and leave messages in.
Spirit Walker
11-13-2013, 21:53
It's not okay, ever, unless the walls are about to be painted over.
When I thruhiked, there was a family that came to a shelter in the Smokies. They had more people than reservations, so ended up camping outside. The kids looked up at the graffiti and one said something about it to their mother. Mother said, "You can add your names later." Then one of the kids said, "Oh look, that word is misspelled." My response was to say, "Yes, that is the kind of idiot who thinks it's okay to vandalize shelters." Mom didn't like me much. They never did get a chance to write on the walls while I was there.
It's not okay, ever, unless the walls are about to be painted over.
When I thruhiked, there was a family that came to a shelter in the Smokies. They had more people than reservations, so ended up camping outside. The kids looked up at the graffiti and one said something about it to their mother. Mother said, "You can add your names later." Then one of the kids said, "Oh look, that word is misspelled." My response was to say, "Yes, that is the kind of idiot who thinks it's okay to vandalize shelters." Mom didn't like me much. They never did get a chance to write on the walls while I was there.
Good for you. How this is a gray area for anyone blows me away. It's like saying "because theft happens regularly it doesn't bother me. Sometimes there is a funny story involved that makes me laugh." Defacing property that is not one's own is just plain wrong and should not be excused. Period.
It's not okay, ever, unless the walls are about to be painted over.
When I thruhiked, there was a family that came to a shelter in the Smokies. They had more people than reservations, so ended up camping outside. The kids looked up at the graffiti and one said something about it to their mother. Mother said, "You can add your names later." Then one of the kids said, "Oh look, that word is misspelled." My response was to say, "Yes, that is the kind of idiot who thinks it's okay to vandalize shelters." Mom didn't like me much. They never did get a chance to write on the walls while I was there.
Spirit Walker, I am with Aficion on this one. Appreciate that you there and willing to say something and prevent it from happening. :)
What about burning a ring on the picnic table by using a stove on it? OK or not OK?
What about burning a ring on the picnic table by using a stove on it? OK or not OK?
Depends. Was it an accident? Was anything learned?
Sarcasm the elf
11-14-2013, 00:02
What about burning a ring on the picnic table by using a stove on it? OK or not OK?
Not much of an issue either way, when was the last time you saw someone using a whitegas stove on the A.T.?
What about burning a ring on the picnic table by using a stove on it? OK or not OK?
Not Ok if it happened because of negligence or on purpose. If it happened by accident and the person learns from it, it's still not ok, but much more forgivable.
I have yet to see someone accidentally carve their name into a shelter or write on the wall with a sharpie.
From my point of view this is not about LNT, or what is natural or what is not, if that were the case I wouldn't care if someone spray painted the side of the bank where I keep my money. This is about respecting others and the property of others. It is never Ok to deface property that does not belong to you.
There is not one standard of respect on the trail and another off the trail.
From my point of view this is not about LNT, or what is natural or what is not, if that were the case I wouldn't care if someone spray painted the side of the bank where I keep my money. This is about respecting others and the property of others. It is never Ok to deface property that does not belong to you.
There is not one standard of respect on the trail and another off the trail.
This kind of goes back to my original question...who owns the shelters?
If someone was defacing MY property, I would care. But I sure wouldn't care if someone was spray painting the side of MY bank. I wish I had enough time and energy to worry about stuff like that. I just don't understand the moral outrage here.
This kind of goes back to my original question...who owns the shelters?
If someone was defacing MY property, I would care. But I sure wouldn't care if someone was spray painting the side of MY bank. I wish I had enough time and energy to worry about stuff like that. I just don't understand the moral outrage here.
Well the people defacing them definitely do NOT own them! It is still a crime to destroy another person's property even if it is in the woods (and the law breakers are not prosecuted). The problem is YOU SHOULD CARE if someone is spray painting on your (or any other) bank. I strongly recommend you go back an read Rocket Socks post about the broken window theory.
This kind of goes back to my original question...who owns the shelters?
If someone was defacing MY property, I would care. But I sure wouldn't care if someone was spray painting the side of MY bank. I wish I had enough time and energy to worry about stuff like that. I just don't understand the moral outrage here.
It doesn't matter who owns the shelters. At what point do you start caring? Can someone spray paint your car? What about your mother's car? Who about your best friends car? At what point does your objection to defacing property begin and end? Is it OK for someone to steal from someone else but not from you?
If its not OK for someone to do it to your property, then its not OK to do to someone else's.
I can not imagine living in such a self centered world where I only cared about people doing bad things to me and my property but not to others.
HikerMom58
11-14-2013, 10:24
Not Ok if it happened because of negligence or on purpose. If it happened by accident and the person learns from it, it's still not ok, but much more forgivable.
I have yet to see someone accidentally carve their name into a shelter or write on the wall with a sharpie.
From my point of view this is not about LNT, or what is natural or what is not, if that were the case I wouldn't care if someone spray painted the side of the bank where I keep my money. This is about respecting others and the property of others. It is never Ok to deface property that does not belong to you.
There is not one standard of respect on the trail and another off the trail.
That is very true, there isn't. It has everything to do with respect.
What people do in the woods with sharpies etc.. is out of my/our control. In the end, it doesn't matter what I think about it. It happens. If I could be part of a plan that would prevent others from continuing to do this, I would jump in with both feet. If I saw it happening in front of me, I would speak up. Other than that, I try not to stress about it.
My point about the ownership of the shelters is that I don't think anyone owns them. I acknowledge that I may be uninformed, and would like enlightenment in this case.
If something belongs to no-one, then doesn't it belong to everyone, equally? In which case the people writing on the shelter walls have as much right to do that as you do to be offended by it.
Well the people defacing them definitely do NOT own them! It is still a crime to destroy another person's property even if it is in the woods (and the law breakers are not prosecuted). The problem is YOU SHOULD CARE if someone is spray painting on your (or any other) bank. I strongly recommend you go back an read Rocket Socks post about the broken window theory.
Based on your sig, I am assuming you're a Christian. I am too. I know I have plenty of my own sins to deal with before I start judging others on whether or not they right on shelter walls, or steal, or whatever. I'm not saying I think any of this is RIGHT....I'm just saying I'm not in a position to start moralizing about it.
Based on your sig, I am assuming you're a Christian. I am too. I know I have plenty of my own sins to deal with before I start judging others on whether or not they right on shelter walls, or steal, or whatever. I'm not saying I think any of this is RIGHT....I'm just saying I'm not in a position to start moralizing about it.
*write*
apparently I can't type/spell correctly either.
I think it is a tasteless act. Of course, I also think that trail shelters are tasteless and would love to see them removed altogether. Just my opinion.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
If something belongs to no-one, then doesn't it belong to everyone, equally? In which case the people writing on the shelter walls have as much right to do that as you do to be offended by it.
The AT is a national scenic trail which would indicate that structures within the corridor are owned by the national park service. In theory all public lands are owned by all of us although what we can do on those lands is obviously heavily regulated.
HikerMom58
11-14-2013, 10:48
I think it is a tasteless act. Of course, I also think that trail shelters are tasteless and would love to see them removed altogether. Just my opinion.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
RCBear... why do you feel the shelters are tasteless? Do you feel they are helpful at all while hiking the trail? JW...
As far as defacing them, I feel I would want to respect the wishes of the builder & respect the trail itself. It is all about respect.
RCBear... why do you feel the shelters are tasteless? Do you feel they are helpful at all while hiking the trail? JW...
As far as defacing them, I feel I would want to respect the wishes of the builder & respect the trail itself. It is all about respect.
In my opinion, besides the mere belief that any man made structure when I hike/backpack takes away from experience (which is on me of course), I feel that shelters on the trail breed nastiness, just like the privys do. They obviously are a help to those that don't carry their own shelter, but if they weren't there, that would change that anyway. AND...if they weren't there, we wouldn't have 10 pages of posts on the topic of defacing them. If you build it, the nastiness will come of course. :)
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
In my opinion, besides the mere belief that any man made structure when I hike/backpack takes away from experience (which is on me of course), I feel that shelters on the trail breed nastiness, just like the privys do. They obviously are a help to those that don't carry their own shelter, but if they weren't there, that would change that anyway. AND...if they weren't there, we wouldn't have 10 pages of posts on the topic of defacing them. If you build it, the nastiness will come of course. :)
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
Shelters are the lesser of two evils. It is far better to concentrate the blight to a fixed location. No disrespect intended to hikers on the AT, but if there were no shelters the hikers like locusts would strip an area clean, and then move on and strip the next area and strip it too. People are social creatures and will congregate with or without shelters. I believe we are better off with. Most are far enough off the trail that if someone does not want to see it they don't need to. Blue blazes are not mandatory.
Shelters are the lesser of two evils. It is far better to concentrate the blight to a fixed location. No disrespect intended to hikers on the AT, but if there were no shelters the hikers like locusts would strip an area clean, and then move on and strip the next area and strip it too. People are social creatures and will congregate with or without shelters. I believe we are better off with. Most are far enough off the trail that if someone does not want to see it they don't need to. Blue blazes are not mandatory.
On the other hand, if you could magically wipe away the shelters, wouldn't that also reduce the number of hikers on the AT (because you'd be forced to have more backcountry skills to do a through, less party time at shelters, etc.), and consequently reduce the impact? PCT, CDT don't have shelters and they seem to be doing fine controlling the locusts/hikers, no?
Shelters are the lesser of two evils. It is far better to concentrate the blight to a fixed location. No disrespect intended to hikers on the AT, but if there were no shelters the hikers like locusts would strip an area clean, and then move on and strip the next area and strip it too. People are social creatures and will congregate with or without shelters. I believe we are better off with. Most are far enough off the trail that if someone does not want to see it they don't need to. Blue blazes are not mandatory.
i'm not going to disagree that they don't provide some merit in the fact that there are so many who travel the AT. but...perhaps if they didn't exist, those that felt like carrying and dealing with the hassle of managing their own shelter would stick to day hikes. I don't see why you still couldn't mandate that setting up camp must be in the same areas as where shelters currently exist. and you're right, with or without them, there are going to be nasty folk that will leave their large footprints behind, which will still end up being cleaned up by the same folk that tend to the shelters. It's just my 2 cents. I'm not a crazy ranter about it, i just don't care for them.
HikerMom58
11-14-2013, 12:00
In my opinion, besides the mere belief that any man made structure when I hike/backpack takes away from experience (which is on me of course), I feel that shelters on the trail breed nastiness, just like the privys do. They obviously are a help to those that don't carry their own shelter, but if they weren't there, that would change that anyway. AND...if they weren't there, we wouldn't have 10 pages of posts on the topic of defacing them. If you build it, the nastiness will come of course. :)
Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2
Ha ha!! You are funny!! True dat! I agree with ya... they can get nasty.
I always carry my own shelter & I like to sleep my tent, not the shelter. I like the shelters b/c they provide a "shelter" from the elements etc... There's other reasons too. :)
I've only seen a few shelters that were really ugly due to the graffiti, I'm prob. just lucky.
Nice to "see" you RCBear... tell that other bear "hi" too. :)
SouthMark
11-14-2013, 12:02
What amazes me is that there are some who "think that it is ok".
HikerMom58
11-14-2013, 12:13
What amazes me is that there are some who "think that it is ok".
I "accept it", as a reality, but still do not "think it is ok". I don't find it as "upsetting" as some people do.... does that make sense? lol
SouthMark
11-14-2013, 12:40
I "accept it", as a reality, but still do not "think it is ok". I don't find it as "upsetting" as some people do.... does that make sense? lol
Well I would hang around and debate it but I am headed out to one of our state parks to tag some of the picnic pavilions.
SouthMark
11-14-2013, 12:44
Well I would hang around and debate it but I am headed out to one of our state parks to tag some of the picnic pavilions.
Whoops, I meant to add a smiley face. :)
Ha ha!! You are funny!! True dat! I agree with ya... they can get nasty.
I always carry my own shelter & I like to sleep my tent, not the shelter. I like the shelters b/c they provide a "shelter" from the elements etc... There's other reasons too. :)
I've only seen a few shelters that were really ugly due to the graffiti, I'm prob. just lucky.
Nice to "see" you RCBear... tell that other bear "hi" too. :)
Hey Shmaybix, I will let the "gizzybear" know you said hello. we are going to be heading out for a long weekender down around the Withlacoochee River in North Central Florida next weekend. I will probably have changed my trail name to "gatorbait" after that :)
squeezebox
11-14-2013, 14:38
I kinda get the impression that graffiti is illegal anywhere, inc. trains, subways, AT, anywhere
I kinda get the impression that graffiti is illegal anywhere, inc. trains, subways, AT, anywhere
Apparently just because its illegal does not mean it immoral, as long as you don't know who owns the train that is :)
I just know its not mine so I don't believe I have the right to redecorate at will.
Apparently just because its illegal does not mean it immoral, as long as you don't know who owns the train that is :)
I just know its not mine so I don't believe I have the right to redecorate at will.
Don't mistake what I was saying. If there is some entity that actually owns the shelters, then I agree they shouldn't be defaced. But if there is NOT an entity that owns them, then people who want to decorate them with graffiti have every right to do so...as much right as you have to sleep in them or fart in them or cook in them, etc.
The issue is not ignorance as to the owner...the issue is if there is an owner at all. Again...I'm just waiting for someone to educate me on whether there's an entity that owns the shelters. If it's the Nat'l Park Service, then you'd have to abide by their rules throughout.
If it's the Nat'l Park Service, then you'd have to abide by their rules throughout.
http://www.nps.gov/appa/index.htm
http://www.nps.gov/appa/index.htm
OK, thanks. Works for me. I no longer think it's ok to deface the shelters.
I appreciate everyone humoring me over the last two days where I've been intensely bored at work. Taking the minority side of this debate has been much more fun than doing my job!
If not ok, then why is all the shelters loaded with writing all over them?
DEFINITELY NOT OK,
which means if you do it, you should be aware that it is not ok, so there better be a really compelling reason, like you are an amazing artist and they will be able to cut out your carving of a shelter mouse peeing on a sleeping thru-hike for at least $1,000,000 and support train maintainers for several years to come.
NOT OK!! Iam suprised at some of the dialog..
full conditions
11-14-2013, 19:02
It's definitely not OK. While I'm not an enormous fan of shelters, I dont generally advocate defacing everything I'm not a fan of - and, besides the obvious ethical breakdown involved, graffiti dosent improve the shelter experience.
If there was a zombie apocalypse and the unzombified population of the United States was almost exterminated then it might be ok, if done tastefully.
I'm not sure what zombies might consider tasteful
rocketsocks
11-14-2013, 22:29
If not ok, then why is all the shelters loaded with writing all over them?
graffiti begets graffiti...
It would seem that some see writings and assume it must be ok.....so they join in.
insert graffiti where broken windows appear in the article, kinda similar.
The broken windows theory was first introduced by social scientists James Q. Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Q._Wilson) and George L. Kelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_L._Kelling), in an article titled "Broken Windows" and which appeared in the March 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic_Monthly).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-pdf-1) The title comes from the following example:Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a pavement. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of refuse from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.
Before the introduction of this theory by Wilson and Kelling, Philip Zimbardo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo), a Stanford psychologist, arranged an experiment testing the broken-window theory in 1969. Zimbardo arranged for an automobile with no license plates and the hood up to be parked idle in a Bronx neighbourhood and a second automobile in the same condition to be set up in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked by "vandals" within minutes of its "abandonment". Zimbardo noted that the first "vandals" to arrive were a family – a father, mother and a young son – who removed the radiator and battery. Within twenty four hours of its abandonment, everything of value had been stripped from the vehicle. After that, the car's windows were smashed in, parts torn, upholstery ripped, and children were using the car as a playground. At the same time, the vehicle sitting idle in Palo Alto, California sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo himself went up to the vehicle and deliberately smashed it with a sledgehammer. Soon after, people joined in for the destruction. Zimbardo observed that majority of the adult "vandals" in both cases were primarily well dressed, clean-cut and respectable whites. It is believed that in a neighborhood such as the Bronx where the history of abandoned property and theft are more prevalent, vandalism occurs much more quickly as the community gives off a "no one cares" vibe. Similar events can occur in any civilized community when communal barriers – the sense of mutual regard and obligations of civility – are lowered by actions that suggests "no one cares".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-pdf-1)
The article received a great deal of attention and was very widely cited. A 1996 criminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology) andurban sociology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sociology) book, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by George L. Kelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_L._Kelling) and a co-author Catharine Coles, is based on the article but develops the argument in greater detail. It discusses the theory in relation to crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime) and strategies to contain or eliminate crime from urban neighborhoods.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-2)
A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say the book's authors, is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the sidewalk every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighborhood.
Although work done by the police is crucial towards crime prevention, Oscar Newman, in his 1972 book, Defensible Space, explained that the presence of the police authority is just not enough for a safe and crime-free city. People in the community also need to lend a hand towards crime prevention. The theory that Newman proposes is that people will take care of and protect their own spaces they feel they have an investment in, arguing that an area will eventually be safer if the people feel a sense of ownership and responsibility towards the area. The reason why broken windows and acts of vandalism are still prevalent is because communities simply do not seem to care for it. Regardless of how many times the windows have been repaired, the society still has to invest some of their time to keep it safe. The negligence of society towards any form of a "broken window" signifies the a lack of concern for the community. Newman states this as a clear sign that the society has accepted this disorder, allowing for the unrepaired broken windows to display the vulnerability and lack of defence against the situation.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#cite_note-3)
The theory thus makes two major claims: that further petty crime and low-level anti-social behavior will be deterred, and that major crime will be prevented as a result. Criticism of the theory has tended to focus only on the latter claim.
My point about the ownership of the shelters is that I don't think anyone owns them. I acknowledge that I may be uninformed, and would like enlightenment in this case.
If something belongs to no-one, then doesn't it belong to everyone, equally? In which case the people writing on the shelter walls have as much right to do that as you do to be offended by it.
Your reasoning is way off. By your reasoning I should be able to take all the water from a river and use it without regard to you needing or wanting some water. After all its our water but I got it first.
Your reasoning is way off. By your reasoning I should be able to take all the water from a river and use it without regard to you needing or wanting some water. After all its our water but I got it first.
That last line reminds me of Bill Gates in the Pirates of Silicon Valley. :cool:
No, not OK. (unless you are actually dying and you wanted to leave that last note, but you better be found dead right next to it.)
Fantastic answer. I agree. And I say no to the graffiti.
Reading this thread raised a question...is there a person or entity that actually "owns" the shelters? I thought (maybe wrongly) that they were on public land or public easements and were not owned by anyone?
Secondly, I'm surprised nobody has said this yet, but to me the shelters themselves are a bigger blight on nature than any writing on shelter walls could ever be. Several people have said that people hike the trail to be in nature...and that is definitely true...but if that's the case, then I think you have to take more offense at the shelters themselves than anything written on a shelter wall.
Overall, I personally have no negative reaction when I see writing on shelter walls, privy walls, public bathroom stalls, etc. It just doesn't bother me in the slightest. But I can't say I've ever personally done it, nor do I understand the impulse.
Okay. I do see your point that the shelters are not a natural object however, they are created for a very great reason. That reason is that without the shelters there would be 3.5 million (at present that is the number quoted from the AT Conservancy and not all 3.5 million are thru-hikers) people camping where ever they happen to drop, willie-nillie and create an environmental mess in a very short term. The shelters were created to preserve the trail and the forest and nature from our footprint. Therefore, the shelter is a necessary evil. In the meantime, the shelter is a public shelter and as such, as is the case with most public property, it's not any one person's rightful decision to stomp, write, deface, or disfigure what's not privately theirs to do with as they wish. The fact that it doesn't upset me when I see it or that I actually do read it doesn't justify the action. As a person that works in the hospitality industry, it really amazes and stuns me when guests arrive and immediately exhibit some of the most rudest and outrageous behavior. And I think to myself, "Where are their manners?" "Is this how they wish to be treated by guests that arrive on their doorstep?"And to this it applies as well, we, the hikers on the trails are guests on the trails of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. Hikers should be as courteous and gracious as is possible while on the trail. I also feel very protective of the trail since it actually goes through my home where my family resides. This is my and your heritage, my and your history. Some respect is deserved. That respect does not include damage and defacement of property along the way.
Gray Blazer
11-19-2013, 04:33
When I used to go to Summer Camp when I was a kid, people used to scrawl a small amount on the walls or roof or toilet stalls Some would be quite humorous or poignant or even pure poetry. Somewhere along the way in our society, the men took the locker room humor out of the locker room and started using it in TV shows, etc. cuz I guess they couldn't come up with something better *examples-Beavis and Butthead, Simpsons and on and on. When it comes to extreme vulgarity and narcissistically marking your territory like an animal I'm an old fuddy-duddy. I, personally don't like seeing it.
I like to read the comments as long as they are positive.
That's what trail registers are for.
The kids looked up at the graffiti and one said something about it to their mother. Mother said, "You can add your names later." Then one of the kids said, "Oh look, that word is misspelled." My response was to say, "Yes, that is the kind of idiot who thinks it's okay to vandalize shelters." Mom didn't like me much.
LOL... awesome.
This kind of goes back to my original question...who owns the shelters?
I'd have to say the public owns them just as it own the Lincoln memorial. Now tell me how cool it would be to write "Mak was here"?
Gray Blazer
11-19-2013, 08:40
I'd have to say the public owns them just as it own the Lincoln memorial. Now tell me how cool it would be to write "Mak was here"?
You mean MLK, jr.? That would have been cool.
Tuckahoe
11-19-2013, 09:25
Okay. I do see your point that the shelters are not a natural object however, they are created for a very great reason. That reason is that without the shelters there would be 3.5 million (at present that is the number quoted from the AT Conservancy and not all 3.5 million are thru-hikers) people camping where ever they happen to drop, willie-nillie and create an environmental mess in a very short term. The shelters were created to preserve the trail and the forest and nature from our footprint. Therefore, the shelter is a necessary evil.
I cannot quite agree with your premise and while I am indifferent to shelters, I do not see them as a necessary evil. My objection here is that I believe dispersed camping is far better than congregating every trail user to a shelter, which does greater damage.
All trail use does some damage, but by spreading that damage lightly over a very broad area the impact is minimal and the recovery is much quicker. By seeking to focus camping at shelters, all the damage is being concentrated in one increasingly larger area that takes decades to recover. Paths and tent sites are established all around the shelter, tell tale white paper flags pop up everywhere and the ground all around becomes compacted and little new vegetation grows. Because people continually use the shelters animals are attracted to the area as well, becoming nuisances. Because shelters are usually tied to water sources, its difficult to fully abandon the area to allow full recovery.
I cannot quite agree with your premise and while I am indifferent to shelters, I do not see them as a necessary evil. My objection here is that I believe dispersed camping is far better than congregating every trail user to a shelter, which does greater damage.
All trail use does some damage, but by spreading that damage lightly over a very broad area the impact is minimal and the recovery is much quicker. By seeking to focus camping at shelters, all the damage is being concentrated in one increasingly larger area that takes decades to recover. Paths and tent sites are established all around the shelter, tell tale white paper flags pop up everywhere and the ground all around becomes compacted and little new vegetation grows. Because people continually use the shelters animals are attracted to the area as well, becoming nuisances. Because shelters are usually tied to water sources, its difficult to fully abandon the area to allow full recovery.
I agree, in an ideal world. The problem is people are social creatures and will congregate and not self disperse. Even if they wanted to self disperse the would still congregate in areas where camping is easy and water is reasonably available out of necessity.
So we either give them a place to congregate or they will do it themselves until the location is trashed, they they will move and trash the next location.
At least shelters keep most of the impact to one location. As for myself, I am selfish and I like shelters because they keep the good tent sites open for me.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4