close
more_vert

Branwen wrote:
Wouldn't uric acid be as damaging as say, acid rain?
And herein lies the nub: are natural animal effluences to be deemed as unfriendly as unnatural pollutants? Is this an indicator of how far lost some of us in our culture have become, or merely an important denominator of where Nature can be 'bad', so we can be aswell?

But on the other hand, relating to what you ask Branwen: don't you think issues such as this one should be studied, in order that we can ascertain the damage Nature can have upon aspects of her own body (in this case, stones, that have been inflicted with human etchings) by raining upon herself, in comparison to some of her animals urinating on those said human etchings? Is animal dung to be banned from the outdoors in case it infects some important archaeological site? Is urine worse than bird-droppings? Wot should we do!!!? ;)

Paulus wrote:
Branwen wrote:
Wouldn't uric acid be as damaging as say, acid rain?
And herein lies the nub: are natural animal effluences to be deemed as unfriendly as unnatural pollutants?
Yep, thats why some farmers get HLS funding to keep cattle away from certain sites.

Yeah... but the question was about deliberately pissing on rockart for the sake of a good photo... not whether they need protecting or studying after animals that piss on them - the fact they need protection from cattle piss as Rockich said should tell us the answer.

I don't carry water if its a day trip, I prefer a bag of chilled white grapes - they seem to stave off thirst without making me desperate to pee.