I have no doubt that this will generate some angry replies, but I have to say that the vitriolic language I've seen regarding whether or not native ecosystems should be maintained in pioneer cemeteries seems to be getting out of hand. Presumably all subscribers to this list are interested in preserving cemeteries; this common cause should serve to unite us, not divide us along lines of pro- or anti-ecology, etc. I have ancestors and relatives buried all over Indiana from one end of the state to the other, in well-kept municipal cemeteries and in completely overgrown family burial grounds close to 200 years old. While I have a strong interest in the stones themselves, I cherish the information found there, and I hate to see how they have weathered over the years due to purely natural causes, it is more important to me that the cemeteries themselves remain intact. A cemetery is not a collection of gravestones; the markers are cultural artifacts, and nothing will prevent th! eir eventual decay. A cemetery is a burial place for human remains. I absolutely abhor cemetery vandalism, willful or not, but I think the first focus should be on the graves themselves. Surely those of us who support conservation causes are as concerned about preservation as those of us whose interests lie in local history. And surely a cemetery located on land that is permanently protected for its natural resources is safer than one located in the path of rampant and ill-considered development. Native plants don't destroy cemeteries, people do- whether with bovines, baseball bats, or bulldozers. Could a relatively low temperature, fast moving controlled burn damage stones? Possibly. But I'd rather walk through a family plot devoid of stones and covered with wild flowers and grasses ("weeds" are non-native, introduced species that crowd out native plants) than one covered with sod, or blacktop, for that matter.

Steve, Like you, I also abhor vandalism in our cemeteries. Letting a cemetery go back to it's "natural state" by letting the pretty flowers and grasses grow is, I consider, vandalism. Where will it stop. Next will be trees and scrubs that should also grow. Then the root get into our families remains, headstones get knocked over and in the future there's nothing but a vacant field full of plants. Now, since there is nothing there, and some old paperwork says there used to be a cemetery but nothing else to prove that, why not just put up a mall, or another gas station. ST JOHNS LUTHERAN cemetery will one day do just that. Once you give an inch, you might as will give up, you've lost. Brian E. Smead Terre Haute, Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Frevert" <rfrevert@megsinet.net> To: <INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 3:25 PM Subject: [INPCRP] Cemeteries and nature > I have no doubt that this will generate some angry replies, but I have to say that the vitriolic language I've seen regarding whether or not native ecosystems should be maintained in pioneer cemeteries seems to be getting out of hand. Presumably all subscribers to this list are interested in preserving cemeteries; this common cause should serve to unite us, not divide us along lines of pro- or anti-ecology, etc. I have ancestors and relatives buried all over Indiana from one end of the state to the other, in well-kept municipal cemeteries and in completely overgrown family burial grounds close to 200 years old. While I have a strong interest in the stones themselves, I cherish the information found there, and I hate to see how they have weathered over the years due to purely natural causes, it is more important to me that the cemeteries themselves remain intact. A cemetery is not a collection of gravestones; the markers are cultural artifacts, and nothing will prevent th! > eir eventual decay. A cemetery is a burial place for human remains. I absolutely abhor cemetery vandalism, willful or not, but I think the first focus should be on the graves themselves. Surely those of us who support conservation causes are as concerned about preservation as those of us whose interests lie in local history. And surely a cemetery located on land that is permanently protected for its natural resources is safer than one located in the path of rampant and ill-considered development. Native plants don't destroy cemeteries, people do- whether with bovines, baseball bats, or bulldozers. Could a relatively low temperature, fast moving controlled burn damage stones? Possibly. But I'd rather walk through a family plot devoid of stones and covered with wild flowers and grasses ("weeds" are non-native, introduced species that crowd out native plants) than one covered with sod, or blacktop, for that matter. > > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE, send message consisting only of > "UNSUBSCRIBE" to INPCRP-L-REQUEST@rootsweb.com > or to INPCRP-D-REQUEST@rootsweb.com (for DIGEST version) >