new memorial plaque on Mount Clay

[Paradox]

I disagree with you guys who think that reporting the plaque was over the top. I think that making a plaque and mounting on a prominent peak in the whites without asking anyone is a pretty entitled thing to do. To do something like this is to assume that the mountain is yours and that you are so important that you don't have to check with anyone. I see no problem with contacting the USFS and informing them that someone littered on the mountain.

Just because its a memorial to someone who died doesn't make this any less of of a littering offense. But you can count me among the group of people that fights to remove all those roadside crosses, so I am probably in the minority on this issue. Yes, Im sorry that someone died in an accident, but I don't need to see white crosses and wilting flowers on a public road every half mile. Leaving your personal message on a mountain is wrong, and it should be removed as soon a possible. Just because the personal message in this case is about an unfortunate loss of life doesn't change that view for me.

I gotta say I'm with Chomp with this one. The memorials on the mountain are just not right. Did the departed live on that spot, own it at one time, or make it possible for all of us to enjoy or use it? The answer in most cases is no.

Suppose my wife (you do not know her) liked the look of your house, then she died. Two weeks later I use a large amount of epoxy resin to glue a nice, professionally done, bronze plaque onto your front stoop. The height of arrogance on my part, but I can come up with all kinds of platitudes that could make lots of people feel bad or guilty about it. Why are mountain memorials any different?

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

I gotta say I'm with Chomp with this one...

I hate to say it, but me to.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Suppose my wife (you do not know her) liked the look of your house, then she died. Two weeks later I use a large amount of epoxy resin to glue a nice, professionally done, bronze plaque onto your front stoop. The height of arrogance on my part, but I can come up with all kinds of platitudes that could make lots of people feel bad or guilty about it. Why are mountain memorials any different?

My property is private property. The mountains are public property, open to and paid for by all. That's a big difference. One case is trespassing, the other is not.

Note: I am not saying that any memorial is right, or wrong. Legally, they don't belong and I am OK with that as a law. I do think it is incorrect to characterize it as litter or vandalism. It doesn't make it right, but the intention is clearly not meant as a defacement in the case of a memorial. In this case I would guess the person or persons who placed it there were or are unaware of the law.


Tim

 

[Fisher Cat]

My property is private property. The mountains are public property, open to and paid for by all. That's a big difference. One case is trespassing, the other is not.

Note: I am not saying that any memorial is right, or wrong. Legally, they don't belong and I am OK with that as a law. I do think it is incorrect to characterize it as litter or vandalism. It doesn't make it right, but the intention is clearly not meant as a defacement in the case of a memorial. In this case I would guess the person or persons who placed it there were or are unaware of the law.


Tim

That's a reallly good point. I know I mentioned earlier that to take a plaque up there with all the equipment necessary to affix it requires intent. I did not mean to imply intent to break the law. I believe it is totally realistic to believe someone could do it totally unaware of the law. That's totally a different and seperate issue.
I do apologize if I hurt the feelings of anyone by reporting this to the AMC, thus in turn,the USFS. I realize that not everyone would have done the same. But I do respect equally the feelings of those who would have, and those who would have chosen not to.

 

[Papa Bear]

My property is private property. The mountains are public property, open to and paid for by all. That's a big difference. One case is trespassing, the other is not.
Tim

Your distinction emphasizes the wrong side of the equation, namely that the party mounting the plaque is part-owner (as a member of the public) of the site chosen for the plaque.

The other side of the equation is that I am also part-owner (along with you and everyone), thus the plaque is going up on my property, just as much as if is were going up on my porch stoop.

Public property isn't property everyone can use for their private agendas, but it is common property for use by the whole public. So how to decide what goes and what doesn't? Easy, we all decide through representative government, legally enacted rules, etc.

Looked at this way you could say the act is worse than putting the thing on my porch stoop. There, they are offending only me. Putting it in the mountains they are offending everyone.

 

[griffin]

I think the distinction works quite well when you think about intent. Most adults know you aren't allowed to put plaques on or repaint other people's homes.

Thats not the case with putting up a memorial on public land.

Heck, some people on this BOARD weren't aware of what the laws/regulations were in this case, why would a grieving family be any more aware or thoughtful? Especially if they've seen other memorials in the woods?

So I agree the plaque doesn't belong, and i have no problem with people reporting it so it can be taken down, but I have a hard time reading this as a serious "offense" or assuming arrogance, etc., on the part of whoever puts them there.

 

[Puma concolor]

I have no problem with the plaque. But methinks the family might have exercised poor judgement in placing it in the middle of the hiker highway, opening themselves up to the criticism that we've seen here. 100 yards off the trail in an obscure location and no one would have ever been the wiser.
I've seen similar memorials out there before and never once thought about what a terrible offense was being committed against nature. This is the Presidentials, remember, where there are huts, a weather station, a railroad, summit road, gift shop, cafeteria and enough signage to keep a lumber yard busy for a year or two. A nice memorial to a loved one is the least of my objections.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Your distinction emphasizes the wrong side of the equation, namely that the party mounting the plaque is part-owner (as a member of the public) of the site chosen for the plaque.

The other side of the equation is that I am also part-owner (along with you and everyone), thus the plaque is going up on my property, just as much as if is were going up on my porch stoop.

I never said a word about the mounting of the plaque. My distinction was to indicate that there is a separate offense - namely trespassing - if I place a memorial on private property. You would not say I was trespassing on public property because you're are part owner, would you? If you and I are both part owners of public land, then our interests cancel out do they not? You can't remove me from our mutual public land just as I can't remove you. We each have a right to be there. You cannot claim restitution for the plaque on Clay, whereas you can seek damages from me if I put the plaque on your private property.

Public property isn't property everyone can use for their private agendas, but it is common property for use by the whole public. So how to decide what goes and what doesn't? Easy, we all decide through representative government, legally enacted rules, etc.

How about rallies? Political assemblies? I, being a state resident of NH, am therefore part-owner of all public state property in NH. Since I am not a member of political party X, can I then assert that is more offensive for a rally for party X to occur on public land than on private? I don't think so.

Looked at this way you could say the act is worse than putting the thing on my porch stoop. There, they are offending only me. Putting it in the mountains they are offending everyone.

You could. But all day, every day, everywhere you look, people are displaying messages on public ways and there is rarely, if ever, prosecution. Yet every day there are hundreds of private property disputes in the courts. Also, as I stated earlier, I was not at all offended. And thus your statement "offending everyone" is false. You would have to say "everyone except Tim" (at least, I'm betting I'm not alone.)

Look, I don't want to see these things appear everywhere. I'm perfectly OK with the law, and the reporting, and the removal. What offends me is referring to it as litter. Legally, it may be litter, or vandalism. But the law clearly recognizes intent, and I don't think the intent is analogous to spray painted graffiti, or defacing the AMC portion of trail signs, etc.


Tim

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Well put, Tim. My feelings exactly -

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

Plaques and Memorials

There are plaques and memorials all over the mountains. I don't want to see a trend where new ones start popping up all over the place, but on the "How much does this offend me?" scale, it is way down the list. Real graffiti, which is all over the trail signs in some areas is much more offensive. This is done with malicious intent. I find trash and toilet paper much more offensive. It may not be done with malicious intent, but it is careless and thoughtless. I personally find taking a piece of a mountaintop, or a pristine mountain lakeside spot, or a beautiful valley setting, then destroying the spot to build a large facility to accommodate scores of people offensive. These are on public lands, and therefore on "My property" according to this thread. There is a train and a road and ugly radio towers on my favorite mountain, along with several buildings, some of which aren't too appealing to the eye. I'd prefer they weren't there. I find these things far more offensive than some poor family placing a plaque for a lost loved one. This thread has given me some good ideas. I think I'll start contacting the USFS about all the things I don't think belong in the mountains. Maybe they'll remove them.

KDT

 

[Paradox]

I think I might just cast up a beautiful bronze plaque that says: "Main Street Dental LLC 603-536-4009" and epoxy it to the summit of Mount Lafayette . In 2008 I'll get one ten times the size and epoxy it to the summit of Mount Monadnock . 2009 will feature a laser light show (tastefully and professionally done of course) on the summit of Mt. Washington. I'll keep on going until I am declared the absolute arbitor of both taste and teeth for all of New England (evil sounding Hah, hah, hah.)

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I just re-read the entire thread. Not one person is advocating the placement of additional plaques (Paradox excepted, and his post is clearly in jest.) Not one person is taking the position that the existing plaque belongs or does not belong.

The debate has been over whether or not they are or should be allowed (heck, it's just that same old Wilderness question again, right?), and, whether or not it is (dis)respectful to refer to it as trash, or litter. And a bit of a side debate over public vs private property.

I'm not alone in saying "I didn't know you couldn't put up a memorial". I wouldn't have assumed I could either.

The original question still remains -- who was Carol and what is her connection to the mountain(s)?

Tim

 

[psmart]

I think I'll start contacting the USFS about all the things I don't think belong in the mountains. Maybe they'll remove them.
KDT

Remember that the summit of Mt Washington is owned by the State of NH. And the auto road and cog are on strips of private land. The USFS has no authority over these areas.

 

[psmart]

The debate has been over whether or not they are or should be allowed (heck, it's just that same old Wilderness question again, right?), and, whether or not it is (dis)respectful to refer to it as trash, or litter.
Tim

For the record: Any structure or installation in the WMNF requires a "Special Use Permit" issued by the USFS. Special Use permits can be issued only if certain conditions are met, as described on page 2-8 of the 2005 WMNF Plan. Page 2-9 contains the paragraph that applies to the current discussion:

"Permits must not be authorized that create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy that would in effect grant title to federal land to an authorization holder, or would create the appearance of granting such a right. Examples of such uses include, but are not limited to, cemeteries, monuments, memorials, or major capital improvements by municipal entities."

There are certainly other considerations as well (such as the aesthetic issues raised in this thread), but this is the legal basis for the prohibition. This policy applies forest-wide to all management areas.

 

[Paradox]

"Permits must not be authorized that create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy that would in effect grant title to federal land to an authorization holder, or would create the appearance of granting such a right. Examples of such uses include, but are not limited to, cemeteries, monuments, memorials, or major capital improvements by municipal entities."

Dang! Now I have to rewrite my whole marketing plan.

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

Buildings, etc.

Remember that the summit of Mt Washington is owned by the State of NH. And the auto road and cog are on strips of private land. The USFS has no authority over these areas.

Yeah, I realize that, but buildings and such on that particular mountain only make up half of my complaint. Besides, I can see these things from my "public land", and so, they are intruding on my ability to enjoy what is rightfully mine. There's a lot of stuff all over the mountains on "public land" that I think should be removed. The least offensive or obtrusive, to me, are plaques. Again, I don't advocate their being placed around everywhere, but when I am thinking of things in the mountains that I feel don't belong there, plaques are way down the list. There, I repeated myself. When I start my campaign to have all the things I find offensive removed from the mountains, I will try to address the proper offenders. No doubt they will agree with my views and begin immediately to remove these objectionable objects, saving the plaques for last.

KDT

 

[chomp]

What offends me is referring to it as litter. Legally, it may be litter, or vandalism. But the law clearly recognizes intent, and I don't think the intent is analogous to spray painted graffiti, or defacing the AMC portion of trail signs, etc.

Since I started this whole debate with my choice of words, I guess I'll chime in here. I am not going to get into private vs. public or all the other stuff mentioned here. Instead, I am going to stick to addressing this issue - is the plaque vandalism.

Litter is probably an incorrect term, actually, since the memorial was never discarded. But is this memorial really different from your run-of-the-mill graffiti that EVERYONE considers offensive? Why is someone carving "John wuz here" on a bench, or "Tammy loves Mikey 4eva" on a birch tree considered vandalism yet some are saying this plaque is not?

Both are done with the intentions of leaving a lasting message. Both are done without any regard for what others might think of their message. Both are done in a way that alters the environment and causes damage.

Look - I understand that the family was trying to do something nice by creating and mounting this memorial for a loved one. But the person that carves the name of someone they love into a tree, or a bench is also just trying to leave a nice message.

Seriously - what would the response be if instead of this memorial, someone carved "Red Sox 2007" into the summit rock on Liberty? Its not like someone doing that would be intentionally destroying anything, and they would be trying to leave a nice, lasting message about the success of their favorite MLB team. Just because of the specifics of this message, I don't view the action, the intent or the total disregard for everyone else that visits the mountains any differently.

 

[Darwin]

Man! I hope None of this poor womens family are part of this site and can see the petty whinning about a simple memorial the placed in her honor. I'm not saying it's right to place an unauthorized plaque, but come on it's a memorial for a beloved family member not trash or litter.

 

[Sugarloafer]

I.

The original question still remains -- who was Carol and what is her connection to the mountain(s)?

Tim

It's odd isn't it ? Nobody in this community has heard of her and you'd think that someone with a strong enough connection to the mountains that their friends and family would go through the time, expense and effort to get it there, would have some mention of them in their obituary. The obituary pic looks like the same person as the one on the memorial, but is anyone sure ?

 

[dr_wu002]

It's odd isn't it ? Nobody in this community has heard of her and you'd think that someone with a strong enough connection to the mountains that their friends and family would go through the time, expense and effort to get it there, would have some mention of them in their obituary. The obituary pic looks like the same person as the one on the memorial, but is anyone sure ?

I've entertained the idea that this could be a hoax. Not the original poster, BlackandBlue, I don't doubt that the plaque is there, I'm just thinking that someone(s) could have trolled the obituaries, found someone who recently died, made a plaque and put it on the mountain. I've seen larger and even more random hoaxes before and as someone who has taken part of a number of hoaxes, I don't doubt that this is a possibility. People could have put it up thinking, "Let's see how long this lasts..." although if I were organizing such a hoax, I'd probably pick a living person to make a memorial plaque out of.

It's a long shot but always a possibility.

-Dr. Wu