Tom, my thanks to you for providing legal documentation on the matter of graffiti in shelters or at least information, while not specifically related to the shelters, that is still probably applicable to the shelters. I loved your thorough examination of matters. It has made me all the more wiser.
Revisiting the matter of LNT, I see that my example of building the shelters in the first place as being a violation to the nature that surrounds them, may have been a bit radical. You proposed that is related to LNT because it is a matter of:
Respect other visitors and protect the quality of their experience.
The above quote was directly take from the LNT website. However, even you went on to say that:
Graffiti, as noted, may be offensive.
This is a very subjective matter.
I. We have people that would never condone marking up the walls of shelters and whom do not care to see the creative ideas and thoughts that flow through other people's minds.
II. We have people that would never condone marking up the walls of the shelters, but whom sometimes find the sketchings and illustrations of others to be amusing.
III. We have people that believe that there are far more other important things to worry about than condoning or not condoning those that mark up the walls of shelters and whom find the sketchings and illustrations to be creative ways of expression.
Therefore, since we have three categories of people, this cannot be something that is deemed objectively offensive to all people. If this is the case, are we suppose to give into the thoughts and feelings of group #1, take their position to heart, and recognize things solely from their viewpoint. Do not get me wrong, I want everyone that comes to the island to have a wonderful experience, but when do we drop the hammer. When does the confines of what one considers a good experience on the island become too excessive? When do we look at things through the microscope of how the majority of people react to certain matters? Or does, 'Respecting other visitors and protecting the quality of their experience', always take on the forefront even if it is only representative of a couple of individual's thoughts and opinions. I guess my argument here is how badly does this graffiti really ruin any one mans experience? Does it kill your trip? Does it make you not want to come back? I personally do not think that anyone would answer "yes" to any of these question, because obviously people still keep having great experiences on the island and they keep returning. Overall, these are my general thoughts on the LNT principle that was targeted for the focus of this discussion.
With regards to your quotation on federal law TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 65 (MALICIOUS MISCHIEF) - § 1361:
Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:
If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
To begin with let us bring our attention to the word "depredation" as it is used in this context.
Depredation, according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
the act of preying upon or plundering; robbery; ravage.
Under this context of the meaning of this word, we would need to go further in depth with regards to what 'plundering; robbery;and ravaging' mean.
Plundering (or plunder), according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
to rob of goods or valuables by open force, as in war, hostile raids, brigandage, etc.
I believe we can all agree that plundering does not apply to the context of our situation.
Robbery (or rob), according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.
I believe we can all agree that robbery does not apply to the context of our situation.
Ravage, according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
to work havoc upon; damage or mar by ravages
or it can also mean (I state both definitions because this is where the heart of our problem lies):
to work havoc; do ruinous damage.
In order to determine if the word ravage is a suitable word to declare those that write on the walls of shelters as criminals, we must further evaluate the word. To do this, I'd advise reviewing the definitions of havoc, mar, and ruinous.
Havoc, according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
great destruction or devastation; ruinous damage.
I do not believe we can declare graffiti has "great destruction" or "devastation", to do so would be just as radical as me arguing that shelters are a direct violation of leave no trace. However, again we see that word "ruinous" brought into light within the vary definition of havoc. Let's skip to the meaning of this word, before we proceed on to analyzing the definition of mar.
Ruinous (or ruin), according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
the downfall, decay, or destruction of anything
Some may argue a good point based off of this definition. I would expect someone to state the following: "If someone writes on the walls of the shelters, they are contributing to its destruction and decay."
However, to counter this argument, let us examine the primary objective of why these shelters were built in the first place. I think the very word shelter lends itself to the initial purposes of their construction, to provide shelter for visitors coming to the island. If this is the primary reason for putting these 8X10 shacks into place, then I do not believe people are bringing ruin to their usability and longevity, or to put it simply, I do not they are taking away from the integrity the shelters as a source of cover. I think the word ruin needs to be applied to how certain peoples behavior affect the purposes behind why the shelters were built in the first place. Having accessed matters from this standpoint, I believe that we can agree that the shelters themselves have not be ruined by those that decide to write on their walls. Now we must go on to examine our final word, mar.
Mar, according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
to damage or spoil to a certain extent; render less perfect, attractive, useful, etc.; impair or spoil
What are we going to claim as being "less perfect" or "less attractive", because we certainly cannot claim that marring the shelters makes them less "useful". Is "perfection" a measurement that is based off of the shelter's original state of being? Do we note something as being closer to "perfection" if it is closer to it's original state? Or can we say that the shelters themselves may not have been "perfect" to begin with? Can we agree that "perfection" is often considered an unattainable absolute? Can we agree that "perfection" is a work in motion, but that actually arriving at a state of "perfection" is something that may not be achievable due to many factors that are both objective and subjective? In an objective sense, we can view something as being close to perfect during a certain period in time, but far from perfect during another period of time. Time can play an objective role on the perfection or imperfection of something that is being observed. In a subjective sense, different people will view different things as being close to perfect and far from perfect. Personal preference can play a subjective role on the perfection or imperfection of something that is being observed. Furthermore, if you would like definitions on the word perfect, I have provided them below.
Perfect, according to
http://www.dictionary.com, means:
conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type
excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement
exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose
entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings
I would like to focus on the second definition, especially the part on "...beyond practical or theoretical improvement." This is what I was aiming at when I argue that perfection is something that is difficult to attain. I believe, if everyone in this forum meet in a conference room, we could all make arguments behind how we could improve the shelters or how their architects could have made it a point to focus on certain things when developing the blueprints behind their design. The point that I am trying to make here is that perfection is a touchy subject and something that may not be visible in reality. That said, I believe we need to shift back to determining if graffiti makes the shelters "less attractive."
With regard to attractiveness, I believe we can all agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Therefore, whether something is attractive or less attractive, is solely based on the subjectivity of an individual person. Again, just like with perfection, we have a note of personal opinion that enters into the equation. Therefore, we should only focus on the objective nature of the issue at hand. The question then becomes, "Does graffiti affect the usability of the shelters?" When I refer to usability, I am referring to the purposes that the shelters were originally intended for and to the word "useful" in our definition of mar. Looking at things from this perspective, I do not see how one can argue that graffiti takes away from the "usability" of the shelters.
If one would want to go into further depth, I'm sure we could make it an argument of were the intentions of the individuals that participated in creating these exhibits of graffiti acting in a malicious or mischievous way with regards to how chapter 65 is phrased. I believe I already went into great details trying to examine federal law TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 65 (MALICIOUS MISCHIEF) - § 1361, but if you would like to engage in a conversation about the malicious and mischievous intentions behind these people, I would be glad to entertain the idea. Very quickly, I would suggest that people that draw or write things that are unsuitable for the eyes of children are indeed acting in a malicious or mischievous manner. However, I would not argue the same case with someone that simply carves his or her initials into the wall with date so that they can revisit the shelter in the future. This is something that would have to be investigated on a case by case basis.
As I mentioned earlier, if this does become a huge issue, if a lot of people are affected by it, or if it ruins the experiences of the majority of people that visit the island; I believe it is the duty and obligation of Rangers to incorporate some kind of rule that specifically targets this offensive. I believe it is something that should be written on your camping pass or within the shelters themselves. I realize that my argument may not hold up in the court of law based off of federal law TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 65 (MALICIOUS MISCHIEF) - § 1361, but I still believe that I provide a good case for those that participate in creating graffiti on the walls of shelters. In conclusion, I believe this is something that needs to be targeted and spotlighted by Rangers if it becomes a prevalent concern of many. It is something that needs to be made apparent in writing.
If anyone has anything left to say on this matter, please speak on this issue from an objective tone like Tom did. It makes your argument representative of the facts that surround the topic rather providing people with your mere opinion. Nothing personal, I don't care if you feel as though the shelters look like an underpass from LA or like the walls of the buildings you pass by in Detroit. I don't live in Detroit. I don't live in LA, or for that matter, below an underpass in LA. You have stated your opinion, this is great, but do you plan on presenting any logical reasoning or rational behind your beliefs? Because frankly Damon, your broken record is not helping support your point of view.