'Tagging' up Redington

[funkyfreddy]

I have very passionate feelings about the outdoors and to put it simply - I believe in karma...... In this case I would say that those who beat on the forest deserve a beating in return.....

If this makes me a bad guy then so be it....... I couldn't care less if it comes across as politically incorrect or fails to correspond with currently fashionable sentiments or Mcmorals...... I get very angry when people disrespect the earth, the forests, the air, the water, etc. and I'm not afraid to express it....

I also think that feeling ashamed from time to time is part of growing up.... When someone does wrong they should be shamed, otherwise wrongful behaviour is only encouraged..... this seems very simple to me and has nothing to do with God, Allah, lynch mobs, Maine legal statutes, beheadings and floggings in 3rd world countries, etc.

 

[darren]

skiguy - you said it well

Funkyfreddy also said it well. Do I really think Chuck should be shot? No. Do I really think that he should getting caned in the middle of a town green? Yes. In Thailand you can get caned for spitting on a sidewalk. Nice. I think of that everytime I am driving behind someone that throws a ciggy butt out the car window. Public humiliation and/or a little slap with a stick could go a long way to straightening out our society. In our society, there is absolutely no fear for the reprocussions of our actions anymore. None.

- darren

 

[amstony]

In the first four post to this thread we have the suggestion that this individual be shot, hanged and beaten and that our federal govenment should adopt policies of third world brutality. I don't think Kevin Rooney is the bad guy here. No one has made any effort to cite a specific Maine staute that has been violated despite the repeated mention of a crime. Hot pink blazes are just wrong on a number of levels and the idividual responsible is certainly inconsiderate. Love Canal and Gilson Road are indeed a crime against nature, but this is not. There are much worse things in this world than this.
Bob

RFK- please don't lump me in with those who want to publicly "execute" this guy. In your post you state the first 4 posters want to hang, shoot, behead, etc this guy who marked up the path to Reddington. I was the second post, and I said absolutely nothing of the sort. In the future don't be so frivilous with what you say about others. I said nothing of the sort in my post. This board is open to public view, and I don't appreciate your comment.

 

[cantdog]

Speaking as the 4th to reply and not wanting the be mistaken for an advocate of cruel and unusual punishment, I thought I would elaborate on my previous post.

What would YOU do if you caught Chuck in the act? Ask him what he is doing any why? Tell him how wrong is actions are? Look the other way? Report the incident later? Threaten him with violence? The possibilities are endless.

I'm guessing there are a variety on answers within this population that are probably event and detail specific.

 

[amstony]

No where did he say, "All of the first four posters..."

Amstony, you might want to read a little slower next time before jumping on your warhorse.


EDIT:
If spray painting a tree or rock is a crime against nature, then what the hell is this.

Bud - I don't know you and I don't care if I do....it reads what it reads! I suggest you mind your own business and worry about how you post. As for warhorse, get a life.

 

[Paradox]

As long as we are discussing defacing the wilderness, lets see how some of you view my experience on Friday going up N. Kennebago Divide. I lost the distal end of one of my hiking poles that was lashed to the back of my pack. It was grabbed by a branch or something in a spruce thicket in the last 1000 feet to the summit. I did not discover this until the top. I tried to find it on the way down, but really did not consider it more important to find it than to keep on going to White Cap.

1). Am I a bad guy for littering?
2.) Am I a good guy for at least trying to find it?
3.) Am I a bad guy for crashing through a perfectly good spruce thicket in the first place?
4.) Am I a good guy for not using poles very often because they deface the wilderness? (After all, one of the easiest trails to follow is one used by a pole hiker: rocks are scratched, corderoys and blowdowns have holes poked in them.)
5.) Am I a moron for not lashing in my poles better?
6.) All the above.
7.) Other.

 

[--M.]

Keeping it civil, I submit the following:

Give me a break people! "Crime against nature"!!! Are you implying the rocks and trees have felt some sort of pain or mental anguish as a result of being spray painted. The only crime committed was against the owner of the property and that's not you!

Perhaps I was unclear:

In reference to the issue on Couchsachraga (http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13737&highlight=Couchie ), the slashing of dozens of trees with wounds that will take quite a bit of time to heal (to say nothing of their appearance to observers) is in fact a crime against nature. Those trees have been harmed in a very real way. Quite literally, it's a crime against nature.

As for the spray painting in this case, my point is that the peak in question is open to the public for hiking and also sits on private property (do I have these two points right?). Therefore, there is an offense against the visiting public and there is one against the owners of the land. "Chuck" took a dump in the community sandbox.

These two issues remind me of the opening scene from "The Godfather." Bonaserra's daughter has been beaten by two boys for refusing them sex. He wants the boys killed. Vito Corleone responds "That is not justice: your daughter is still alive."

The trees on Couchsachraga have been harmed. The route up Redington has been spray-painted. These are very real offenses by people who are either VERY clueless or (more likely) mildly sociopathic. VERY sociopathic? No. But antagonistic at the least, if you ask me (and I know you're all asking me! ).

One thing I'm learning from participating in this thread is how difficult clear communication seems to become when teasing out the actual intentions of posters.

As for the Rushmore monument, I wouldn't have it there, if we had it to do over again.


I hope this clarifies my comments and helps people see the difference between social behavior correction and Scarlet Letter administration.

After all, I don't think "Chuck" should suffer a lifetime ban from hiking. And if he's going to continue visiting the woods, don't we want the lad trained (like a puppy) rather than alienated? An appropriately-measured punishment and re-education is in order, not an excommunication.

Okay?

Later,

--Mike.

 

[grouseking]

My god this is crazy! While I agree that the person should not have blazed the trees, it seems the thread has gone beyond a simple debate. I think we should all look at this earlier thread Posting with Civility and remember why we are here.

Maybe it is not my place to say anything, but I couldn't help it.

Phil

Let's go hiking!!!! AND HAVE FUN!

 

[mavs00]

Perhaps I was unclear:

In reference to the issue on Couchsachraga (http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13737&highlight=Couchie ), the slashing of dozens of trees with wounds that will take quite a bit of time to heal (to say nothing of their appearance to observers) is in fact a crime against nature. Those trees have been harmed in a very real way. Quite literally, it's a crime against nature.

As a matter of record.......

Actually, it wasn't just dozens of trees. According to official tally, it was over 150 trees, with over 250 individual hacks.

And no, they won't heal in time. Over 100 were judged to have been damaged irreparably and will die. And while perhaps not rising to the level of high crimes against society, the infractions were, in fact criminal in nature and are being redressed within in the appropriete system. That is fact, so go ahead and pretend it ain't big deal, but most people on here and within the DEC of the NY think it is.

Names or addresses for the defenda...... errrrr, I mean accused have NEVER been published on this forum or my forum. Thats not to say, administrators from either did not cooperate when asked, but if you look carefully, we went out of our way to practice restraint (certainly name wise) and to discourage "lynch mob" tactics by members.

Attempts to say otherwise are uninformed and, frankly, make me sick.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Mav00 - at the risk of repeating myself - I don't think ANYONE is defending Chuck or his actions, or the Couchie Slasher for that matter. Those actions were inappropriate, and some might even be illegal. Whether they are illegal or not, however, is up the appropriate authorities.

What I AM defending, however, is the presumption of innocence, and that in a civilized society we respect the rule of law, and allow the judicial process to run its course without resorting to vigilanteism, charactor assassination, etc.

If you choose to interpret this defense of the rule of law as somehow defending the 'alleged actions' of Chuck and the Slasher ... then I give up. Nothing I can say will change your mind.

I'd also like to observe that the US is anything but 'soft on crime'. Quite the contrary - we (the US, not Canada) has THE highest, incarceration rates of any country in the world - 1 in 37 adults. So, as grouseking says, let's go hiking, allow the appropriate authorities to deal with these 'crimes against nature', including meting out what, if any punishments are appropriate.

PS - MAV00 - I just read your edited post, and find myself in disagreement with the statement re: that the Couchie Slasher's name and address - that thread may have been sanitized since, but at one time I read his name, address and additional personal information which had been posted. Frankly, I was disgusted by the actions of some who deliberately inflamed that sorry episode.

 

[mavs00]

PS - MAV00 - I just read your edited post, and find myself in disagreement with the statement re: that the Couchie Slasher's name and address - that thread may have been sanitized since, but at one time I read his name, address and additional personal information which had been posted. Frankly, I was disgusted by the actions of some who deliberately inflamed that sorry episode.

I cannot speak for this site........ I do not have any editorial control over it. On my site (which admittedly was a hotbed of discussion about it, and which may be why I am defensive), I quickly deleted EVERY reference to the persons name.

In discussions with administrators of this site, I believe they did the same. We did our best to be responsible that way. We CANNOT be responsible for every post a person makes. We can only go in later and "sanitize". Other than that, I agree, no name and the presumption of innocence prevails.

However, that does NOT preclude general redress to action which obviously transgress wilderness ethics. THIS IS THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS. If you act (or post something) stupid, expect to get called on it, at least in an anonymous way.

 

[Peakbagr]

For the record, the person who did the vandalism on Couchsacagra provided his name and address on his own internet blog, provided a full trip report complete with pictures and link to their site on VFTT and elsewhere.
He further invited the public into the debate by taking an "I live around here and can do whatever I want" stance in discussions on another board and in private communications with many. It was only after the realization that he was advertising his own crime that he took the blog out of the public eye.

As to "inflaming" that disgusts you, there were relatively few people who at first noticed the VFTT Trail Conditions report of the vandalism.
With little extra resources, the NY DEC has to apportion its funds to high priority areas. Without the public outcry that the "inflaming" generated, it is very possible that an investigation may never have begun or that it would have started far later, on a much colder trail. While some of the emotional reactions were over the top, they got the attention of a number of very technically-competent members here and on 2 other Boards who were able to provide the DEC investigators with electronic records and screen prints crucial to their file.

Mavs is a good friend and can do whatever he wishes on ADKHighPeaks, but at such time as the Couchy incident is properly adjudicated, VFTT will report the full details and encourage other media to do the same. I see no purpose in sheltering embarassment when publicizing the outcome has the potential for keeping others from repeating the behavior.

 

[rambler]

It is possible that "chuck" thought he was being helpful, although I can not imagine why he would spray his name on the rock. Thanks to Carole for taking the time to remove similar blazes. If caught, Chuck should be made to remove the blazes, and given a lesson in the proper uses of blazing. If taught in a constructive way about why he made a mistake, he might well become a useful volunteer in trail work. At least he was out hiking and not just spray painting grafitti around his neighborhood.

 

[jjmcgo]

Let's be precise

Can someone cite the Maine statute violated by spray-painting trees on private property?
Does the land owner have to file a complaint for a citation to be written or an arrest made?
In the future, when discussing possible crime, can we avoid the confusion between actual crimes as defined in statute, and the vague, disputable, non-legal term "crime against nature?"
Some people consider bushwacking and legal campfires to be "crimes against nature."
State criminal-code books are far less controversial and we can all agree on what is law and what isn't.
Last, is it possible that Chuck works for the property owner or contractor and is marking a route for a road to the summit? Or, a path for fellow workers to follow?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Can someone cite the Maine statute violated by spray-painting trees on private property?
Does the land owner have to file a complaint for a citation to be written or an arrest made?
In the future, when discussing possible crime, can we avoid the confusion between actual crimes as defined in statute, and the vague, disputable, non-legal term "crime against nature?"
Some people consider bushwacking and legal campfires to be "crimes against nature."
State criminal-code books are far less controversial and we can all agree on what is law and what isn't.
Last, is it possible that Chuck works for the property owner or contractor and is marking a route for a road to the summit? Or, a path for fellow workers to follow?

FACTS? You want FACTS? Now you ask for them!

WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING FACTS!

(Sorry for the levity, with apologies to Cheech and Chong.)

 

[TDawg]

Some people consider bushwacking and legal campfires to be "crimes against nature."

If someone tried to tell me that bushwacking was a crime against nature I would definatly laugh in their face. Kind of ridiculous, I think.

Last, is it possible that Chuck works for the property owner or contractor and is marking a route for a road to the summit? Or, a path for fellow workers to follow?

Maybe a small small chance, but I doubt it. No need to mark the path, it's already pretty easy to follow. Also he took a stupid turn off the herd path just to go push through some thick spruce, only to return to the trail. I don't think workers would take Chucks route, rather than sticking to the trail.

 

[--M.]

My bad:

I was the one who used the incendiary term "crime against nature."

I used not in reference to this peak, but rather in relation to the Couchsachraga incident. It may not be appropriate in this type of forum, and I regret its use.

What I said about Redington ("Reddington"? how do you spell this one?) is that "'Chuck' took a dump in the community sandbox."

Later,

--M.

 

[darren]

Speaking of taking a dump, it is like someone's dog took a big dump right in the middle of this thread. This thread has certainly outlived it usefullness, so I'll shut it down.

- darren