Ken, your response hit it exactly. I'd suggest doing some research to find
out who (as in a specific person) manages the DVRAC, and seeing how they
would respond to the original complaint as well as your retort. I'm
especially curious as to their stance on the Native American reaction to
their center desecrating their sacred land.
Some of those quotes from the original letter just seem too preposterous to
have come from the management team of this facility. I almost want to assume
it's a hoax of some kind.
FroBro Q-Tip
-----Original Message-----
From:
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
[
mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of Ken
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:40 PM
To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Is Shelly at it a again or what?????
This is my response to the Geocahing forum. Along with the offensive photo.
Hello,
I would like to introduce myself as the owner of the virtual cache that has
become the center of this controversy. The reason that I created the cache
was to share with others some of the beauty and history that our state has
to offer.
I clearly posted on the cache page the hours that the museum is open and
there was never a need for a visitor to trespass. In order to find the
answers to the questions you never had to leave the public access paths that
are maintained at the site.
As far as the offensive photograph it consists of my daughter leaning up
against a boulder with her arm above the petroglyph. This boulder is located
directly in the walking path that a visitor takes to view the various
petroglyphs at the site. Since this is a museum and this particular boulder
was directly in the walking path I did not believe it was off limits The
rest of the boulders are separated from visitors by short tubular fencing
that clearly define restricted space. Since this boulder was directly in the
visitors pathway, not separated by fencing, with no signs stating do not
touch I did not believe there was any problem with my daughter posing by the
glyph. My impression of the placement of the boulder directly in the walking
path was that it was put there exactly for that purpose. This boulder is
also clearly separated from main rock panels giving me the impression that
it was there for public inspection. Many museums have similar displays that
the public is allowed to touch and examine. We are sorry if we violated the
museum rules but it was an honest mistake and this particular boulder should
have been clearly marked, or fenced off.
Whiling visiting the site, we spoke with the park ranger who happened to be
Native American. During our conversation he explained how many of the local
Arizona tribes once considered this site as a primary sacred location to
them. He explained to us that many of these tribes felt betrayed and
offended by the academic community taking over this sacred site and believed
these people demonstrated little compassion, understanding or respect for
their cultural heritage. Many of these tribes consider this site desecrated
and will no longer visit this area because of the interference of the
academic community.
Is there a double standard that the museum is offended about a picture of a
child touching their boulder, yet have no difficulty alienating entire
tribes of Native Americans in order to conduct their research? The attitude
weve derived appears to be elitist, encouraging academia but forgoing
anyone elses learning.
The museum is run by Arizona State University, which is a publicly funded
school. They lease the site from the Maricopa County Flood Control district,
which is also publicly funded. I find the following statement interesting.
I appreciate the removal of the Center from your website. It has attracted
some visitors. However, we do not think your website is the kind of PR the
Center is seeking
It interesting that they want to be selective in who can visit this publicly
funded site. Who else is not welcome? The handicapped? Anglos? Blacks?
Hispanics? Hunters? Fishermen? 4x4 enthusiasts? Dog lovers? I do not recall
seeing the sign on what they consider acceptable visitors.
What is acceptable P.R.? National Geographic Magazine? Readers Digest?
Playboy? Since when do they get to control freedom of speech regarding this
publicly supported site?
I also find this statement interesting:
Please remove the Deer Valley Rock Art Center from your website. I hope
this request will not turn into a legal matter
What legal matter? There never, ever, was anything placed on this publicly
owned property. This site is listed a Phoenix Points of Pride and The
National Register Of Historic Places. Are they also going to be sued? Do a
Web Search on Deer Valley Rock Art Center and see how many hits you get.
Are they going to threaten legal action against all these sites? I seem to
remember a little article called the 1st amendment that maybe they should
read about.
The sad thing is that as an educational institution they have missed an
opportunity to help educated the Geocaching community about the importance
of not touching petroglyphs. After learning of their concern I could have
posted on the cache page about how the oils in fingerprints can actually
harm a petroglyph. This opportunity is now lost because of their narrow
minded thinking.
Ken
WhereRWee?
*******************************************************************************
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
It is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or
the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make
copies.
** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content **
*******************************************************************************
(text/plain)