[Az-Geocaching] what????? To Ken.....

[listserv@azgeocaching.com]

Hi Ken,
Just to let you know that I (and probably many here) have read all the
entries on the forum, and I lend my support to you. I think a
"virtual" in a PUBLIC place is entirely appropriate. The directions to
this Rock place are posted in many public forums and a "virtual"
geocache is NO different than another type of directions. Geez!   And
I understand your explanation about why the pic of your daughter and
the rock was taken.
Sounds like somebody got their undies in a bunch....has anybody spoken
with somebody in charge there? 
If there is anything I can do help, let me know. I'm pretty good at
writing pointed, yet relatively polite, letters and emails.

Hang in there!
Trisha "Lightning"
Prescott

PS your daughter is darling!!



On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, "Ken" wrote:








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 
we’ve derived appears to be elitist, encouraging academia but forgoing
anyone 
else’s 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? 
Hispanic’s? 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 hopethis 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.
 
KenWhereRWee?  


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Although no one can go back and
make a brand new start,
Anyone can start from now and
make a brand new ending."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~