Fluorescent Orange Dots...too much for one person

[Ken]

Agreed. Defacing rocks with spraypaint goes against the wilderness conservation ethic. We are talking about a real, public good here, priceless beyond any work of human art.

No doubt there are many in this land who would as soon ride the world on dirt bikes spraying jets of napalm behind them as they scream towards the apocalypse of their craven and crabbed vision, hooting and hollering all the way.

In fact, that's business as usual. We see the destruction everywhere.

So no, all views aren't equal, it's not all good, and we do need to take stands with as much clarity as we can garner.

I think terms like "outrage" and 'hate" have been thrown around a little loosely here. Sure, there has been hyperbole. But the outrage committed was with spraypaint, and it deserves public evaluation and clear condemnation.

You mention "hyperbole", and it generally does not engender reasoned debate.

For example, you mention wilderness ethics. How much of the affected trail is in wilderness?? I find that often, wilderness zealots want to apply those rules to everyone, everywhere, at all times.

Once again, not arguing for painting (ugh), but false arguments don't help the cause.

[scotts]

Agreed. Defacing rocks with spraypaint goes against the wilderness conservation ethic. We are talking about a real, public good here, priceless beyond any work of human art.

No doubt there are many in this land who would as soon ride the world on dirt bikes spraying jets of napalm behind them as they scream towards the apocalypse of their craven and crabbed vision, hooting and hollering all the way.

In fact, that's business as usual. We see the destruction everywhere.

So no, all views aren't equal, it's not all good, and we do need to take stands with as much clarity as we can garner.

I think terms like "outrage" and 'hate" have been thrown around a little loosely here. Sure, there has been hyperbole. But the outrage committed was with spraypaint, and it deserves public evaluation and clear condemnation.

You mention "hyperbole", and it generally does not engender reasoned debate.

Agreed. Specifically terms like 'nazi', 'hate', and 'zealot' used in the construction of strawman arguments.

For example, you mention wilderness ethics. How much of the affected trail is in wilderness?? I find that often, wilderness zealots want to apply those rules to everyone, everywhere, at all times.

That would be ridiculous. How much is wilderness is up for grabs -- I say the more the better. We've stunk up enough already, and probably ought to live in/solve our own mess before looting the rest.

Of course, spots of flourescent orange paint go a way towards making the discussion moot, in a very real, immediate, concrete way on the skyline trail. Granted, any reaction is largely symbolic. But it is also important. Thus the unapologetic, whole-hearted condemnation.

Once again, not arguing for painting (ugh), but false arguments don't help the cause.

I don't believe I've made any false arguments.

[Hikin_Jim]

Um, guys, I think the consensus is that the orange dots are out of line. How about we don't debate just how bad they are?

Perhaps getting out there and fixing the problem, for those who have the opportunity to help out, is the logical next step?

FWIW,

HJ

[Perry]

Because it was so weirdly and excessively done, I am almost thinking (now) that it WAS done with malice, as some kind of (very) bizarre provocation, or even--who knows--to get attention on this board.

I've been wondering the same thing, just based on the descriptions because I haven't seen the markings. If this was the person's motive, then I bet he (probably a guy) really enjoyed reading all these posts, seeing how pissed off some people are, and watching people argue. The best solution I think is to quietly get rid of the dots/initials.

[Screerider]

No, I'm sure it was done with good intentions. They went thru last year and redid the white dots the same way. There were even a few that misdirected the trail up the cut. The rescue boxes were also loaded with fresh water which told me it wasn't malicious. I think they placed a new sign by the museum as well. While I don't like them, I prefer seeing dots to the multiple trails and massive erosion the tourists bring. In that sense, they're environmentally friendly. More friendly than the can of spray paint used to cover them up. More good intentions. What did they say about the road to hell? It's lined with orange dots? Put a little paint in a sponge topped shoe polish bottle and dab them.
In the words of a young girl that we're all getting to know, "You must not treat others with cruelty and that harshly, you must fight others through peace and through dialogue and education." Or in the words of an old man, get over it and get on with it.

[Ed]

For example, you mention wilderness ethics. How much of the affected trail is in wilderness?? I find that often, wilderness zealots want to apply those rules to everyone, everywhere, at all times.

Yes, I would want to apply 'those rules' to everyone, everywhere, at all times. If someone spray-painted orange dots on your car while it was parked in front of the museum, I would be outraged, and so would you.

[bluerail]

Does anyone have any experience using motsenbockers lift off #4

this threads freaking me out a little..

anybody want to help next saturday, im getting a gallon of a waterbased biodegradable remover to get rid of the dots.., theres other graffitti too.

ive gone up a couple times since the new dots, and general consensus with traffic (mostly new people displaced by the shutdown), is they like them. well that doesnt make them less ugly.

lets get rid of them so we dont have heated debates about ethics at least.

trail clean up anyone? zip?

by the way i think Ken did it.





Ken, please know that im kidding

[Ken]

Agreed. Defacing rocks with spraypaint goes against the wilderness conservation ethic. We are talking about a real, public good here, priceless beyond any work of human art.

No doubt there are many in this land who would as soon ride the world on dirt bikes spraying jets of napalm behind them as they scream towards the apocalypse of their craven and crabbed vision, hooting and hollering all the way.

In fact, that's business as usual. We see the destruction everywhere.

So no, all views aren't equal, it's not all good, and we do need to take stands with as much clarity as we can garner.

I think terms like "outrage" and 'hate" have been thrown around a little loosely here. Sure, there has been hyperbole. But the outrage committed was with spraypaint, and it deserves public evaluation and clear condemnation.

You mention "hyperbole", and it generally does not engender reasoned debate.

Agreed. Specifically terms like 'nazi', 'hate', and 'zealot' used in the construction of strawman arguments.

For example, you mention wilderness ethics. How much of the affected trail is in wilderness?? I find that often, wilderness zealots want to apply those rules to everyone, everywhere, at all times.

That would be ridiculous. How much is wilderness is up for grabs -- I say the more the better. We've stunk up enough already, and probably ought to live in/solve our own mess before looting the rest.

Of course, spots of flourescent orange paint go a way towards making the discussion moot, in a very real, immediate, concrete way on the skyline trail. Granted, any reaction is largely symbolic. But it is also important. Thus the unapologetic, whole-hearted condemnation.

Once again, not arguing for painting (ugh), but false arguments don't help the cause.

I don't believe I've made any false arguments.

Actually, when you access Wilderness Rules in non-wilderness, you have.

[Ken]

Because it was so weirdly and excessively done, I am almost thinking (now) that it WAS done with malice, as some kind of (very) bizarre provocation, or even--who knows--to get attention on this board.

I've been wondering the same thing, just based on the descriptions because I haven't seen the markings. If this was the person's motive, then I bet he (probably a guy) really enjoyed reading all these posts, seeing how pissed off some people are, and watching people argue. The best solution I think is to quietly get rid of the dots/initials.

Perry, I see your point.

However, I think it is through discussion on sites like this that define "community standards", that embody what a community is all about. You may not stop the real zealot, but you may dissuade another 5 that might have thought it was a good idea, as strange as that seems to the rest of us.

This sort of discussion is what went a long way to the creation of ethical climbing techniques, and certainly LNT, a much more recent development.

[Ken]

For example, you mention wilderness ethics. How much of the affected trail is in wilderness?? I find that often, wilderness zealots want to apply those rules to everyone, everywhere, at all times.

Yes, I would want to apply 'those rules' to everyone, everywhere, at all times. If someone spray-painted orange dots on your car while it was parked in front of the museum, I would be outraged, and so would you.

Actually, your analogy would be that you'd be outraged at my having my car painted, destroying the character of steel the way that God meant it to be viewed.