First, the remains of a cremated body are not “ashes,” as the term is commonly referred to. The remains are bone fragments that, can be too large to scatter if they have not been mechanically reduced. They do not immediately dissolve when scattered. They normally cannot be disbursed and blown away when scattered; so be mindful of that.

Second, while it is permissible in most states to scatter cremated remains, there are indirect legal requirements. No state law allow cremated remains to be scattered on private property without the consent of the property owner. (Common sense really dictates here though; what can you do on private property without the consent of the property owner? …nothing that I know of.) Many national and state parks have permit requirements and, sometimes location limitations for the scattering of those remains.

All that said — there are no “cremains police” in any state to ensure proper etiquette, permits, or permission are obtained and used. There are no health, safety or environmental issues to be concerned about and as such your own moral compass/judgment can be your guide to effectively do whatever you want within the reasons of common sense.

It’s a good practice to get the permission of the landowner to do anything on private land and when it comes to non-specific public land, don’t ask, don’t tell is as fitting advice as any. No laws say “yes” and no laws say “no.” Be advised that cremated remains can be stark white, a little like aquarium gravel, and therefore rather conspicuous, not at all like the “ashes from a campfire or fireplace”. So you may wish to consider a shallow burial unless you’re scattering in water. It is also highly advisable to use the road (or area) less traveled for the scattering ceremony; cremation and/or scattering is offensive to many people and cultures.

Within all the literary writings at all levels; federal, state, and local legislation – the only commonality agreed point of principle I have found is that the container which carries the remains must be disposed of separately – preferably is a waste receptacle.

It’s useful to mention that while most people searching for scattering advice tend to search regionally looking for State-based information… cremation (thus scattering) is not a state matter. You will mostly (if at all) only find information regarding State run or National Parks which can confuse your information findings. Most often you should be reviewing the local city or town ordinance and bylaws where the scattering ceremony is likely to take place.

Sacred Universe attempts to be as legally accurate as it can be for advice in every state and city. In fact, because scattering of ashes isn’t usually a state matter (with the exceptions of state parks and lands) we have included State Park Memorialization articles in the cremation chapter for your region which may contain additional information. City or town ordinance and bylaws will supercede these chapters “if available” and if not, most any public lands will normally align to the guidelines of the State park in your region.

Administered by the cemetery interests, cremation has become just another way of making a buck, principally through the sale of the niche and urn plus “perpetual care” for the ashes. Cemetery men are most reluctant to relinquish the ashes for any other form of disposition; one told me rather plaintively, “If everyone wanted to take the ashes away and scatter them or bury them privately, we’d soon be out of business.” The crematoria, competing for the good will of the undertakers upon whom they depend for business, naturally play along with them in the matter of building up their services and merchandise.

Arguments for and against cremation were discussed at a recent convention of the National Association of Cemeteries, to which were invited top officials of the Cremation Association of America. The theme of the meeting was “Profit Through Cremation Without a Crematory.” A procremation speaker pointed out that although few cemeteries have their own crematoria, “their operators can derive substantial profit if they accent the memorialization aspects of cremation… Actually, in fact, most of the inquiries the C.A.A. receives come from cemetery men whose main feeling is that they’re not so much interested in who sells the razor as in who sells the blades.” The C.A.A., he said, is “endeavoring to show the cemetery men in an economic sense just what we show the public in a spiritual sense: that cremation is by no means the end-all.” Another spoke of the space-saving aspects: “Within a given area for interment spaces, for example, the cemetery can sell a greater number of spaces for cremated remains than for regular caskets. The greater number of smaller sales within that given area can make up the difference, and then some. That of course means profit. . . . Land purchase costs can be avoided. So can expensive and controversial battles with public bodies on rezoning.”

Arguments against cremation were advanced by a veteran sales director for one of Los Angeles’s largest cemeteries, which operates its own crematory. He cited figures on costs in the Los Angeles area to support his point that cremation is a demonstrably cheaper process than ground burial, even when the cost of the niche and urn is figured in, and therefore much less profitable. The cost of cremation averages $60 (although the public authorities charge only $15 at the county’s retort); containers for cremated remains average $55; interment spaces for the containers average only $85 as against an average $325 for regular graves. He said the most expensive space for a container in a columbarium is about $250, whereas the most expensive grave is about $1,000. “The economics of pro-cremation arguments are very questionable to me,” he said. “A big volume of cremations, at a lower price for each, may total up to a profit exceeding that from a small volume of regular burials. But you work harder and there certainly is a shocking overhead in administration.”

In spite of the admonitions of the Cremation Association, it remains true that families who choose cremation also tend to choose cheaper and less elaborate caskets. This may be because those who favor cremation incline in all matters towards rationality; it may be because of a rather natural disinclination to pay a lot of money for an embalmed and bronze-encased memory picture that is to be burned up in a few days. It is not surprising that there has always been a strong current of opposition to cremation among the undertakers, who are painfully aware of the financial hazards it presents to their end of the funeral business. As one wrote, “Cremations in volume will ruin any funeral director’s business. We cremate quite a few cases, and no matter how you figure it, we make a reasonable margin of profit only on about 6 per cent of the cases we cremate.”

Characteristically, they seek to counter the trend towards cremation by playing on the emotions of the survivors, portraying the procedure as hideous and horror-filled. A funeral director, Writing in Mortuary Management, describes how this can be done: “When anybody asks me about cremation,

I simply tell them the truth: that it can be the cheapest way of disposing of a body, but that anyone who had ever witnessed a cremation wouldn’t cremate a pet dog. I drop it right there, unless they ask me why I say that, and then I give them a blow-by-blow description of what happens in the retort. About four out of five back off immediately, and ex:press no further interest in cremation!”

Those with a direct financial stake in cremation, the owners of crematoria and the niche and urn salesmen, do not, of course, see it this way. On the contrary, they wax lyrical over “the clean, beautiful method of resolution by incandescence rather than the unspeakable horrors of decay . . . we think of our loved one as in his ethereal body, as

The Forest Lawn “Art Guide” has a good deal to say about the proper care of cremated ashes, and contains many a warning to those who might contemplate either scattering them, keeping them at home, or privately burying them. It reads in part like a Declaration of Principles for a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Cremated Remains: “Only by crushing or grinding can these hard, white bone-shapes be reduced to fine grit or ash, a practice as horrifying as any wilful mutilation. It is lack of understanding of this, and of the true nature of cremated remains, that has led to the deplorable vogue for ‘scattering: . . . In the past and in areas where protective legislation has not been enacted, receptacles containing cremated remains have sometimes been kept in homes, and have been lost through fire [I], burglary, or other unforeseen occurrences, resulting in lasting remorse. Even more regrettable are the results of the practice known as ‘scattering: Recognizable fragments of the human frame that come hurtling out of the skies, wash ashore on beaches, or roll about underfoot in gardens and parks appall the strangers who encounter them, and cause lifelong heartache to those who have had any share in such disposition of a loved one’s remains.” Follows, of course, a description of the niches for sale at Forest Lawn, marblefront, bronze-front or glass-faced, «designed to hold a bronze urn of artistic design.”

The cemetery and columbarium people will, understandably, go to all sorts of lengths to nip in the bud any trend towards the English practice of scattering. Their first concern is to make sure that the ashes are not reduced to scatterable proportions; a simple matter of failing to apply enough heat during the cremation to completely destroy the bony structure (thus guaranteeing that «recognizable fragments of the human frame” will appear among the ashes) and of failing to pulverize the ashes as recommended by English cremation authorities. Their second concern is with the aforementioned «protective legislation,” by which is meant legislation «protecting” the cremated remains from the next of kin of those decedents who have expressly directed that their ashes be scattered or privately buried.

California is one of four states in which cemetery lobbyists have succeeded in passing such legislation. (The others are Alaska, Indiana and Washington.) California is, from the point of view of the niche-and-urn business, a key state, for there is a very marked regional factor in the incidence of cremation in the United States. In 1960 almost half of the total number of cremations in this country-z8,ooo out of 59,00o-took place in Pacific coast states. In California one out of six decedents is cremated, and the proportion is higher in the big cities.

The law in California does not contain an explicit prohibition against scattering or private burial of the ashes. It works like this: After a decedent has been cremated, the next of kin may arrange for removal of the ashes from the crematory, but only by designating a recognized cemetery or columbarium to which he wishes them shipped. Removal of the ashes for any other disposition is a misdemeanor, “‘ punishable by fine or imprisonment; if two or more persons participate iii the removal, they could be prosecuted for conspiracy, a felony. If the next of kin fails to designate a cemetery or columbarium, the crematory customarily begins to charge a monthly storage rate for the ashes of $1.50.

If he demands that the ashes be turned over to him, he will be told by the crematory that this is «against the law.” However if he protests loudly enough, the crematorium will almost certainly give in and hand over the ashes (thus presumably becoming a party to the felonious conspiracy) because the last thing the cemetery interests want is a legal test case on this question.

This peculiar piece of legislation, on the statute books since 1939, went unchallenged until 1961, when an amendment to the law was introduced by State Senator Fred Farr of Carmel and Assemblyman Nicholas Petris, which would permit the next of kin to obtain possession of cremated remains for private burial or scattering. The hearings that ensued were instructive because they demonstrated beyond question the enormous power of the cemetery interests and their ability to influence legislation in the face of reason, popular demand and expert testimony. Both Mr. Farr and Mr. Petris received an unprecedented flow of mail from constituents in support of their amendment. Many of the letters were from people who had firsthand experience with the problem of trying to rescue ashes of relatives from the tenacious cemetery. One correspondent related a conversation he had had with a cemetery salesman: “This man, a professional hard-sell artist, said that their groups had it fixed so the bill would be tabled in committee, and added that if for some unknown reason the bill did slip by, it would not do the slightest good because the crematories would hand back the skull and bones intact to the customer and tell him to scatter them. He said the cemeteries were not in business to scatter ashes to the winds, and that they would lick this bill hands down.”

On the eve of the hearing, Senator Farr learned that the lobbyists were indeed circulating among the legislators photographs purportedly of cremated remains, displaying knucklebones, bits of shin and other unappetizing remnants. These, they claimed, would become commonplace features of the California landscape if the proposed bill should pass.

The following morning, three stalwart matrons, supporters of the Farr-Petris amendment, appeared at the entrance to the State Capitol in Sacramento. They were carrying an odd assortment of objects. One had a large box, inscribed CREMATED REMAINS OF MR. , another carried an old-fashioned coffee-bean grinder, and the third wielded a claw hammer. A guard stopped them, and asked the lady with the claw hammer, “What are you taking that in for?” “To open this box of the cremated remains of Mr. —,” she answered. “And what’s the coffee grinder for?” asked the astonished guard. “To grind up the cremated remains of Mr. —,” explained one of the ladies helpfully. The guard, open-mouthed, let them pass.

Senator Farr’s purpose was a visual demonstration. On opening the box, he found not the gruesome hunks of human bone shown in the photographs but a grayish compound of fine and coarse ash, most of it the consistency of cornmeal, in which were contained some brittle bone fragments up to three inches in length. These he proceeded to put through the coffee grinder, preparing several trayfuls as evidence for other members of the committee. The San Francisco Chronicle reported, “As he passed the small box of ashes around to committee members, some of the dust of ‘John Doe’ wafted from the box, hung in the air for a few seconds, then settled on the highly polished table.”

Senator Farr’s demonstration succeeded in demolishing the first major argument of opponents of his amendment. With equal ease, he laid waste to their two remaining contentions: that scattering human ashes would endanger the public health, and that to permit dispersion of the remains would hamper crime detection in cases of suspected poisoning. A public health officer testified that human ashes are sterile and could not possibly create a public health problem. A pathologist said, “Many romantic stories tell of conviction following analysis of cremation ashes, but no documented case of this type exists. Anyone claiming such should be required to produce proof, which I hold cannot be done. The only time that proper medicolegal post-mortem examination can be done is prior to cremation. Such ashes have no importance in law enforcement or crime detection.”

Yet, when all the dust had settled, the bill was shelved by a vote of 4 to 3, and referred to a committee for a two-year study. In spite of the efforts of the sponsors, the study was never made. Mr. Nicholas Petris declared the measure lost because of a combination of fear, superstition and enormous lobby pressure. He added that he personally abhors cremation-the very thought makes him shudder; furthermore it is contrary to the doctrine of the Greek Orthodox Church to which he belongs. But, he said, he intends to disinter this bill anyway, because of the civil liberties issue involved; the law as it now stands robs Californians of the right to arrange for such disposition as they see fit of their own mortal remains.

At this writing, the final outcome of the legislation is unknown. It can be predicted with certainty that the cemetery interests will fight long and hard to maintain their selfconferred role of protectors of the defenseless little packages of human ash.

Cremation is not an end in itself, but the process which prepares the human remains for inurnment in a beautiful and everlasting memorial. – Chapel of the Chimes booklet, endorsed by Cremation Association of America

A common reaction of people who learn for the first time some of the facts and figures connected with the American way of death is to say, “None of that for me! I’m going to beat this racket. I just want to be cremated, and avoid all the fuss and expense.”

Cremation sounds like a simple, tidy solution to the disposal of the dead. It is available in most parts of the United States and (although frowned on by Catholics and some branches of the Jewish faith) is sanctioned by the majority religions. It appeals to the nature lover and the poeticminded, who visualize their mortal remains scattered over sunny hillside or remote seashore. It is applauded by rationalists, people concerned with sanitation, land conservation and population statistics, and by those who would like to see an end to all the malarkey that surrounds the usual kind of funeral. It has appeal for the economy-minded; logically, one would think the expense would be but a tiny fraction of that incurred by earth burial. Many people are under the vague impression that the undertaker can be bypassed altogether, and embalming dispensed with; that the crematorium will, no doubt, arrange to place the body in a suitable container, and consign it to the flames; that the only expense incurred will be the crematorium’s charge, something under $100.

It is true that in most countries where cremation is on the increase, the objectives of economy and simplicity are well served. In England, for example, where the number of cremations rose from 3 in 1885 to 107,159 in 1951 and today is the mode of disposal of 35 per cent of the dead, the cost is in the neighborhood of $10. Specifications for the coffin to be used are of the simplest, “easily combustible wood, not painted or varnished”; to facilitate scattering the ashes they are “removed from the cremator, and after cooling pulverized to a fine texture.” The ultimate disposition of 90 per cent of English cremated remains is scattering, or “strewing,” as the clergy prefer to call it. Sometimes the ashes are scattered over the ocean or from a plane over the countryside; more often, by a crematory attendant, in a Garden of Remembrance, consecrated ground specially set aside for the purpose. Most crematoria and cemeteries maintain such a garden; in some there is a nominal charge of about $1.50. The practice of scattering was formally approved by the Church of England in 1944.

The vogue for cremation is a very recent development in England. The cremation “movement” was initiated there in the nineteenth century. Its adherents included many distinguished physicians and chemists; intellectuals; radicals and reformers; a few members of the aristocracy. Among the organizers of the first Cremation Society in 1874 were Sir Henry Thompson, Bart., Surgeon to the Queen; Anthony Trollope, Spencer Wells, Millais, the Dukes of Bedford and Westminster. Naturally, that thorny old critic of the status quo, George Bernard Shaw, was strongly in favor of cremation, and he sums up the argument for it with his usual pithiness: “Dead bodies can be cremated. All of them ought to be; for earth burial, a horrible practice, will some day be prohibited by law, not only because it is hideously unaesthetic, but because the dead would crowd the living off the earth if it could be carried out to its end of preserving our bodies for their resurrection on an imaginary day of judgment (in sober fact, every day is a day of judgment).”

There were at first strong objections to cremation from some of the clergy, who thought that it would interfere with the resurrection of the body; this point was neatly disposed of by Lord Shaftesbury when he asked, “What would in such a case become of the Blessed Martyrs?” In the 1870S and 1880s, cremation advocates campaigned on a number of fronts for legality and public acceptance of the practice. They published expository material urging support for their cause; they experimented with various types of furnaces; they went so far as to cremate each other in defiance of the authorities, thus subjecting themselves to public censure and even to criminal prosecution. It was not until 1884 that they won a court decision declaring cremation to be a legal procedure, but there was still much opposition from church and public; police protection was sometimes necessary when a cremation was to take place. In short, acceptance of cremation as a sensible and also a respectable disposition of the human dead was only won as the result of a hard-fought, uphill struggle.

The early partisans of cremation, willing to flout the law and risk imprisonment to simplify and rationalize disposal of the dead, would whirl in their urns could they but see what has become of their favorite cause today in America. For cremation, like every other aspect of the disposal of the dead, has long since been taken over by the funeral industry, which prescribes the procedures to be followed and establishes its own regulations to which the customers must adhere. Therefore, he who seeks to avoid the purchase of a casket, embalming and the full treatment will not succeed by the mere fact of choosing cremation rather than burial. Also, he is much more likely to end up in an urn housed in a niche in an elaborate “columbarium,” complete with Perpetual Care, than to be scattered or privately buried in some favorite country spot.

“If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em” would seem to sum up the funeral industry’s attitude to cremation. There is a Cremation Association of America, but it has no resemblance to its English predecessor, It is in fact merely an association of persons, principally cemetery operators, who are in the cremation business. Simplicity and economy are not their goals; far from it. The philosophical outlook of the Association is expounded in some material issued by the Education and Information Committee:

• Is a funeral director necessary?

His services are exactly the same as for other forms of care, and his services are needed for the first call, embalming, casket selection and conduct of the service.

• What kind of casket is best for cremation?

Inasmuch as the casket serves its primary purpose in creating a memory picture at the time of the funeral service, this is a matter for each family to decide. In general, it is recommended that the casket be the same as for any other form of interment.

• What is done with cremated remains?

Cremation is not disposition; it is only a method for preparing the remains for memorialization. They are still human remains, and should be placed in a dedicated place such as a columbarium, mausoleum or other place where they will receive continuing care.