[Az-Geocaching] Roadrunner's slam on 4-wheeling

Thu, 8 Aug 2002 06:29:10 -0700

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C23EDF.94375AC0
Content-Type: text/plain

All;

You may have read the Email from Stu Olson to the list, responding to
Roadrunner's original slam on ATV and 4-Wheelers. Stu's a a very active
member of the Arizona Virtual Jeep Club (AZVJC), and is VERY active in
fighting to keep our public lands open for the public (us). After reading
Roadrunner's original Email, I also was very upset. But I knew the intent
wasn't to slam 4-wheeling in general, but those few "rotten apples" who give
4-wheeling a bad name. I'm also a member of the AZVJC. However, geocaching
has made me fairly inactive with the AZVJC. I know there's other AZVJC
members who are geocachers.

Before Stu knew about Roadrunner's Email to this list, Stu had already
Emailed a letter to the AZ Republic. Stu, and the entire AZVJC, are friends
fighting to keep lands open to geocaching and responsible 4-wheeling. The
following is Stu's Email to Ms. Leonard:

Ms. Leonard,

I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's newspaper.
Although I am not a "geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has gained
over the past years. With the improvements in GPS receivers and their drop
in price, it is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of these little
beauties.

One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated (on page A2)
that "Geocaching began in May 2000 when the Clinton administration
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global
positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use devices to steer cars or find
missing hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that geocaching may
very well have started in May, 2000, it was not because of any actions taken
by the Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then President
Clinton lifted the requirement that caused the intentional degradation in
the accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his administration can be
given any kind of credit for making the GPS technology available to the
civilian population and its subsequent use for steering cars or finding lost
hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS receiver long before May 1, 2000.
As to your comment about it being able to steer a car....no...no...no! Would
you feel confident in a car with a "steering system" that could guide your
vehicle to within an accuracy of 6 to 20 feet? (those are your numbers, not
mine) Thank you but no....I prefer to "steer" my vehicle with more precision
than that. I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot error would very well put me into
the path of dangerous oncoming traffic. 

But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to the point of
this correspondence. As an environmentalist that fully enjoys virtually
everything our public lands have to offer, I am saddened to hear that some
irresponsible people are leaving their trash behind, making new trails, and
even picking up native artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how
many of these people are familiar with the laws concerning removing an item
from an archaeological site? I can tell you, from first hand experience,
that many people have no idea that driving across the desert or up a big
hill, where there is no trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak
to people leaving their trash behind....any road trip down I-10 or I-17 will
yield supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.

The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame that your
article places on those people that are participating in the geocaching
sport (I guess we can call it a sport?) Let's first look at the facts you
stated in the article:

1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet that
are on or near archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many were
actually on a site) 

2. There are more than 10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa County.

3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, not including
those on Tribal lands.

4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have been kept
secret for years, and officials have even required a new site steward to
sign a confidentiality agreement. 

So...let me see if I understand what you are really saying.

1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near an archaeological
site in this state.

2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and specific land
management officials, no where the archaeological sites are.....and we have
one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) that are upset because three
and one half hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache sites in
Arizona happen to be put on these secret archaeological sites.

It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that are ruining
our archaeological sites but yet we won't tell them where the sites are so
they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an archaeological
site. I realize this might very well be a damned if you do, damned if you
don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here. Your
article indicates that many of the Arizona geocaches are in remote
locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say shame on
the geocachers for picking a challenging location to hide their
cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret archaeological site
that no one told them about.....and it is their fault? You've got to be
kidding, right?

Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps another way to
look at it is:

1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage population didn't
complete high school?

2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving through a
Phoenix intersection ran the red light?

I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person who helps run
AZgeocaching.com, has not been contacted or notified about the apparent
problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological sites.
However, it is sad that the amount of text you devoted to Mr. Cluff is
approximately 0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am certain that
all reading it will in no way be biased by this. 

Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's plans to
help correct it? From what was written, it appears that a strong push
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long way
in correcting this problem. Perhaps some public awareness commercials on the
local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware of their
inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people randomly hiding little
tuperware containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites that they
have no knowledge of. 

I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that will be
implemented to help curb this problem.

King Regards,

Stu Olson

Phoenix

------_=_NextPart_001_01C23EDF.94375AC0
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>All;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>You 
may have read the Email from Stu Olson to the list, responding to Roadrunner's 
original slam on ATV and 4-Wheelers. Stu's a a very active member of the Arizona 
Virtual Jeep Club (AZVJC), and is VERY active in fighting to keep our public 
lands open for the public (us). After reading Roadrunner's original Email, I 
also was very upset. But I knew the intent wasn't to slam 4-wheeling in general, 
but those few "rotten apples" who give 4-wheeling a bad name. I'm also a 
member&nbsp;of the AZVJC. However, geocaching has made me fairly inactive with 
the AZVJC. I know there's other AZVJC members who are 
geocachers.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Before 
Stu knew about Roadrunner's Email to this list, Stu had already Emailed a letter 
to the AZ Republic. Stu, and the entire AZVJC, are friends fighting&nbsp;to keep 
lands open to geocaching&nbsp;and responsible&nbsp;4-wheeling.&nbsp;The 
following is Stu's Email to Ms. Leonard:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
Ms. Leonard,
I read your "A high-tech scavenger hunt" article in today's 
newspaper. Although I am not a 
"geocacher", I am aware of the popularity it has gained over the past years. With the improvements in 
GPS receivers and their drop in price, it 
is certainly easy to be the proud owner of one of these little beauties.
One item was incorrectly reported in your article. You stated 
(on page A2) that "Geocaching began in May 
2000 when the Clinton administration 
unscrambled the electronic signals of the government-owned global positioning sytem, allowing civilians to use 
devices to steer cars or find missing 
hikers with pinpoint accuracy." While it is true that geocaching may very well have started in May, 2000, it was 
not because of any actions taken by the 
Clinton Administration. On or about May 1, 2002, then President Clinton lifted the requirement that 
caused the intentional degradation in the 
accuracy of the GPS signal. Neither he nor his 
administration can be given any kind of credit for making the GPS 
technology available to the civilian 
population and its subsequent use for steering 
cars or finding lost hikers. I was using a consumer grade GPS receiver 
long before May 1, 2000. As to your 
comment about it being able to steer a 
car....no...no...no! Would you feel confident in a car with a 
"steering system" that could guide your 
vehicle to within an accuracy of 6 to 20 feet? 
(those are your numbers, not mine) Thank you but no....I prefer to 
"steer" my vehicle with more precision 
than that. I am afraid that a 6 to 20 foot 
error would very well put me into the path of dangerous oncoming 
traffic. 
But, enough about the basics of GPS reception. I need to get to 
the point of this correspondence. As an environmentalist that fully enjoys 
virtually everything our public lands have 
to offer, I am saddened to hear that some irresponsible people&nbsp;are leaving their trash behind, making new 
trails, and even picking up native 
artifacts they find in a geocache area. I wonder how many of these people are familiar with the laws concerning 
removing an item from an archaeological 
site? I can tell you, from first hand experience, that many people have no idea that driving across the 
desert or up a big hill, where there is no 
trail, is unlawful in most of Arizona. I can speak to people leaving their trash behind....any road trip 
down I-10 or I-17 will yield supporting evidence that people certainly do litter.
The main point I found quite interesting is the apparent blame 
that your article places on those people 
that are participating in the geocaching 
sport (I guess we can call it a&nbsp;sport?) 
Let's first look at the facts you stated in the 
article:
1. There are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the 
Internet that are on or near 
archaeological sites. (you didn't mention how many were actually on a site) 
2. There are more than 
10,900 known archaeological sites in Maricopa 
County.
3. There are more than 50,400 archaeological sites in Arizona, 
not&nbsp;including 
those on Tribal lands.
4. You stated that most of the archaeological locations have 
been kept secret for years, and officials 
have even required a new site steward to 
sign a confidentiality agreement. 
So...let me see if I understand what you are really 
saying.
1. 0.0357143% of the geocache sites are located on or near 
an archaeological site 
in this state.
2. Virtually no one, except the trusted site stewards and 
specific land management officials, no 
where the archaeological sites are.....and we have one or two site stewards (that you interviewed) 
that are upset because three and one half 
hundreths of just one percent of the total geocache sites in Arizona happen to be put on 
these secret archaeological sites.
It is sad that the geocachers are being held up as those that 
are ruining our archaeological sites but 
yet we won't tell them where the sites are so 
they wouldn't accidentally put their cache "at or near" an 
archaeological site. I realize this might 
very well be a damned if you do, damned if you 
don't kind of situation, but please apply some common sense here. 
Your article indicates that many of the 
Arizona geocaches are in remote 
locations....places that are difficult to get to. So, we then say shame 
on the geocachers for picking a 
challenging location to hide their 
cache.....and when it just happens to be on a secret archaeological 
site that no one told them about.....and 
it is their fault? You've got to be 
kidding, right?
Maybe it is not quite as bad as I am led to believe? Perhaps 
another way to look at 
it is:
1. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of our teenage 
population didn't complete high school?
2. Wouldn't it be great if only 0.0357143% of the people driving 
through a Phoenix 
intersection ran the red light?
I do commend you for reporting that Mr. Brian Cluff, a person 
who helps run AZgeocaching.com, has not 
been contacted or notified about the apparent 
problem that is occuring at or near the secret archaeological sites. However, it is sad that the amount of text you 
devoted to Mr. Cluff is approximately 
0.0357143% of your article. None the less....I am certain that all reading it will in no way be biased by 
this. 
Now that you have identified this problem, what are the paper's 
plans to help correct it? From what was 
written, it appears that a strong push 
towards educating those that enjoy geocaching would certainly go a long 
way in correcting this problem. Perhaps 
some public awareness commercials on the 
local TV stations (maybe even radio too) would make more aware of their inapropriate actions. Remeber, we have people 
randomly hiding little tuperware 
containers of goodies on secret archaeological sites that they have no knowledge of. 
I look forward to your next article that outlines the plans that 
will be implemented to 
help curb this problem.
King Regards,
Stu Olson
Phoenix
&nbsp;
&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C23EDF.94375AC0--