Defacing National Parks

[hotjag1]

I remember about a year ago reading about a young woman that visited and defaced several of our National Parks with her so-called art work. I think her name was Casey Nockett.

Anyway, I haven't heard anything about it in almost a year. Supposedly, the NPS was going to track her down and charge her with several felonies. Has anyone heard if the NPS ever did anything about this vandalism in the parks?

I'm hoping so, but I can't find any related stories about it...Don

[korbe]

monkey44 wrote:

korbe wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
One main difference between the rock paintings and carvings - the Native Americans created that artwork on rocks they owned.

Graffiti 'artists' paint on items they DON'T own.

I thought that we, the American people "own" our National Parks, and we "allow" our government to manage those parks for us.

So, if the citizens of the USA own it, including the graffiti jerks, and the government manages it, then it's OK with you for graffiti jerks to paint it?

Did I say something to insinuate that I approve of graffiti jerks painting stuff?

[monkey44]

korbe wrote:

monkey44 wrote:
One main difference between the rock paintings and carvings - the Native Americans created that artwork on rocks they owned.

Graffiti 'artists' paint on items they DON'T own.

I thought that we, the American people "own" our National Parks, and we "allow" our government to manage those parks for us.

So, if the citizens of the USA own it, including the graffiti jerks, and the government manages it, then it's OK with you for graffiti jerks to paint it?

[korbe]

monkey44 wrote:
One main difference between the rock paintings and carvings - the Native Americans created that artwork on rocks they owned.

Graffiti 'artists' paint on items they DON'T own.

I thought that we, the American people "own" our National Parks, and we "allow" our government to manage those parks for us.

[monkey44]

One main difference between the rock paintings and carvings - the Native Americans created that artwork on rocks they owned.

Graffiti 'artists' paint on items they DON'T own.

[toedtoes]

Interesting discussion. One could argue that the petroglyphs were a form of communication - warning others of potential dangers, etc.

But, one could argue the same for graffiti.

In 500 years, will they be looked upon with the same educational leaning.

[Old-Biscuit]

Pryamids


Petroglyphs


Independence Rock WY


'Graffiti'



Thin line between historical and 'graffiti'
In 100 yrs will modern graffiti be looked upon as historical?

[Veebyes]

Used to have to deal with similar mentality when I was in the snorkeling business & the live coral was the major attraction, along with the fish. The stuff is very slow growing & highly suseptible to damage from human touch.

Try getting that message through to the boneheads who could not understand that it was there for them to see only because those before left it alone.

[Fish__n___Grits]

Some years back we were at Petrified Forest and I witnessed two guys in their 20's pick up a BIG! chunk of petrified wood and lug it to their SUV. I told them that the fine for removing anything from the park was really big and they told me to mind my own blankety - blank business. So --- when I got to the gate I ratted them out. They were caught and (I hope) paid the big fine.

[time2roll]

korbe wrote:

Litch wrote:

korbe wrote:

Litch wrote:

korbe wrote:
.......And when the Indians did it, I believe it was called something different. 🙂

It absolutely amazes me that someone would use this as a comparison to justify such irresponsible actions.

I am surely not attempting to justify irresponsibility, just stating something to think about.

They also did not have the means to chart their history in journals and computers like we do today. Just stating something to think about.

I wonder if the Indian petroglyphs were done to chart their history or is it that we just use those carvings to chart their history.

If she would stick to painting her own home I am sure someone would find it interesting in 2000+ years.
If she wants to paint the forest blue then she should purchase it and do what she likes.

I doubt she would appreciate every artist painting their free spirit in her house.

[hotjag1]

Old-Biscuit wrote:
Nov 1,2015 seems to be the most recent info.

May end up not being pursed :S


LINK

--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link. It does seem to be dragging out, and only a misdemeanor. You're probably right about the NPS not doing anything, which will send a message to future wannabe artists that nothing will happen if they continue to deface our National Parks.

[korbe]

Litch wrote:

korbe wrote:

Litch wrote:

korbe wrote:
.......And when the Indians did it, I believe it was called something different. 🙂

It absolutely amazes me that someone would use this as a comparison to justify such irresponsible actions.

I am surely not attempting to justify irresponsibility, just stating something to think about.

They also did not have the means to chart their history in journals and computers like we do today. Just stating something to think about.

I wonder if the Indian petroglyphs were done to chart their history or is it that we just use those carvings to chart their history.

[Litch]

korbe wrote:

Litch wrote:

korbe wrote:
.......And when the Indians did it, I believe it was called something different. 🙂

It absolutely amazes me that someone would use this as a comparison to justify such irresponsible actions.

I am surely not attempting to justify irresponsibility, just stating something to think about.

They also did not have the means to chart their history in journals and computers like we do today. Just stating something to think about.

[toedtoes]

fj12ryder wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

MNGeeks61 wrote:
"A quick glimpse at the handiwork by Nocket, the goblin topplers or the hundreds of tourist names inscribed on the rockface below will demonstrate that some people just don't get the idea of leaving a place better than when you found it."

I was thinking it was generational too...how many of us here were taught this lesson? Or better yet: "It's not my property, I will not deface it."

It's not generational. People have been marking trees, rocks, etc., forever. Regardless of whose property it's on. People have been taking home "souvenirs" of rocks, petrified wood, etc., forever.

Laws about it have been made because it's been a problem for a long time and has been shown to destroy the value of the parks - not because this generation has no respect.

Very true, there are places where members of the Roman legions carved their names into and onto cave and building walls. Ramses II had his cartouche carved into columns and buildings over older carvings.

Don't take the above statement as tacit approval of what that person has done. I hate graffiti in almost all places, but especially on places that are still pristine.

I was in Yellowstone Nat'l Park in the late 70's and watched a trailer stop at a turnoff, and a woman got out, broke off a large piece of calcite, this was near some hot springs, and hopped back into the vehicle and away they went. I was stunned.

The one that affected me the most was when I saw the Titanic exhibit. They had the replica of the iceberg on display and people of all ages were carving their names into the ice. I actually cried seeing them get excited about writing their names on what was truly a representation of so many deaths. I thought then and still think today that our society has lost empathy (all ages).

[korbe]

Litch wrote:

korbe wrote:
.......And when the Indians did it, I believe it was called something different. 🙂

It absolutely amazes me that someone would use this as a comparison to justify such irresponsible actions.

I am surely not attempting to justify irresponsibility, just stating something to think about.