Opinion Poll

[JAK]

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]

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 and George L. Kelling, in an article titled "Broken Windows" and which appeared in the March 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly.^[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, 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]
The article received a great deal of attention and was very widely cited. A 1996 criminology andurban sociology book, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by 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 and strategies to contain or eliminate crime from urban neighborhoods.^[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]
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.

[Rasty]

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.

[Astro]

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.

[Siarl]

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.

[Siarl]

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]

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.

[Sly]

I like to read the comments as long as they are positive.

That's what trail registers are for.

[Sly]

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.

[Sly]

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]

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]

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.

[bfayer]

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