Below is the latest letter that was sent to me from our Joke of a Park System. this is the whole letter and nothing has been removed. Note the text that I placed in ( ).
Dave, A Very Unhappy Taxpayer of the Park system
We as a staff whole-heartedly agree with you're position. I get the feeling
that you my have misunderstood the meaning of our message. (Not once have we
ever complained about letterboxing being disrespectful to any of our parks).
On the contrary, the people that visit these boxes are wonderful stewards of
the environment and probably pick up trash, report damage, etc. more than
the typical park "hiker". We love having letterboxes in our park and don't
want to see them removed. Not once have I heard anyone in the cincinnati
park system complain about letterboxing. We have worked extensively with
other people interested in geocaching and have even put our own geocaches in
the park, so I wouldn't say that we are "against letterboxing." I am sorry
that you took the message in a way that it was not intended.
(With that being said, we do reserve the right to regulate both the position
and the number of letterboxes that we allow in our park). For instance, if
we found a geocache that was located on top of a stand of "Ginseng," an
endangered wildflower, then that geocache would have to be moved. This is
what we have been hired to do, and I believe that your clientele would
appreciate us doing that. We don't feel that it is unreasonable to request
that ("ONE" out of "FOUR" boxes be removed. This will leave one box per
30-acres of our park). To me, that is not unreasonable. The location of that
particular letterbox is not ideal, and regardless of the hazard of being
around a blind curve, (we do not want to post a sign since there is no trail
located within that area). I don't know if you feel like me, but I think our
parks are already too full of unwanted signs.
(If you) wish to remove all of your letterboxes, you're welcome to, but that
is not what we want. (We would just request a "mutual respect" between what
YOU want, and what WE are here to accomplish). If you would like to discuss
the matter further, feel free to give me a call at 231-8678. Thank you for
your cooperation. -chris carroll-
What they are here to accomplish!!! Who the hell are they kidding. I just told them that around 27 people what played the Sith Impossible game and NO one has complainded aboutthat box AND the CURVE is not a BLIND curve.
Everything I wrote in my first reply letter CHRIS said no to, Like We have to many sign's in our park to place a sign at the BLIND curve, 1 box per 30 Acres!!! That is one box per square Mile!!! that the heck is this!!!!!
Chris hit the nail on the head. It is no longer the peoples park system BUT someone's ego Trip of control.
Very Sad Indeed!!
Dave
Dave aka Coolwan
My e-mail
coolwan@zoomtown.com
My Web-site
HTTP://Home.fuse.net/docman
more from Park Removing letterboxs
4 messages in this thread |
Started on 2002-09-30
more from Park Removing letterboxs
From: coolwan (coolwan@zoomtown.com) |
Date: 2002-09-30 21:45:43 UTC-04:00
Re: [LbNA] more from Park Removing letterboxs
From: Susan/Erik Davis (davisarc@DavisVermont.com) |
Date: 2002-10-01 00:43:44 UTC-04:00
I'd like to suggest it may be time for a deep breath and a few moments
taken for reflection.
Did anyone ever think we would receive a conciliatory note from a park
system? From my vantage point, that is what this looks like.
Dialogue doesn't always equal prevailing, but it does offer an
opportunity to learn what is on someone else's mind. In this case,
the park feels it is being reasonable and it appears that they have
had to scrape a few people up from a particular place. Whether the
menace is cars, skaters, bikers, or on our own drive in winter,
speeding snowmobilers, it seems as though some kind of events have
already occurred at this location. Why contribute to a perceived
problem area?
I think some thanks to the cincinnati park people. Perhaps over time
they will be willing to alter the 1 box in 30 acres guideline. That
does seem a bit close, but then I am used to such big areas.
Please, let's build on the positive aspects of this event. We have a
park person saying "YES".
Regards,
Susan
in apple ripe Vermont.
taken for reflection.
Did anyone ever think we would receive a conciliatory note from a park
system? From my vantage point, that is what this looks like.
Dialogue doesn't always equal prevailing, but it does offer an
opportunity to learn what is on someone else's mind. In this case,
the park feels it is being reasonable and it appears that they have
had to scrape a few people up from a particular place. Whether the
menace is cars, skaters, bikers, or on our own drive in winter,
speeding snowmobilers, it seems as though some kind of events have
already occurred at this location. Why contribute to a perceived
problem area?
I think some thanks to the cincinnati park people. Perhaps over time
they will be willing to alter the 1 box in 30 acres guideline. That
does seem a bit close, but then I am used to such big areas.
Please, let's build on the positive aspects of this event. We have a
park person saying "YES".
Regards,
Susan
in apple ripe Vermont.
Re: [LbNA] more from Park Removing letterboxs
From: (HANNAHKAT@aol.com) |
Date: 2002-10-01 09:44:30 UTC-04:00
Take a deep breath is right!
I must disagree with you regarding the letter you received back from the park staff. Now granted, it was written by someone in the park service with very poor writing skills,which certainly colors its tone, but if you READ it, it states that they are very willing to have letterboxes in the park and they realize the value of letterboxers as stewards and responsible park users. This is the attitude we want park managers to have.
There is also a glaring defensive tone to the letter. They feel like THEIR work is being attacked. As someone who works at a wildlife sanctuary, I can clearly say that we go into the field because we want others to find the same love and value of the outdoors as we do, but we are also bound by liability issues and the real threat of 'over-loving' an area and balancing protecting species with a users right to access an area.
I think their letter is more than reasonable and I think we should feel very lucky that they are not as reactionary as some or they might have banned letterboxes outright just out of spite.
We should also take great care in the way we express our opinions and frustrations to these organizations. If we present ourselves as orderly, intelligent and reasonable it will take us a lot further than if we seem inflammatory, unyielding and stubborn.Step into their shoes for a moment.
I also didn't take the whole 30 acres comment as a "policy". I took that(despite the poor writing of the park person)as a compensatory comment...that you would STILL have 3 boxes in the park if the one on the dangerous curve is removed which WOULD BE one per 30 acres which is better than NO boxes. (which is true,is it not?)
I don't think that they are asking too much by not allowing a box there. They have to make these safety decisions and it doesn't matter if you and others think you can walk there in safety. I'm sure lots of people could. But as someone who has dealt with the general public for a long time...there are some REALLY clueless people out there, some REALLY AMAZINGLY STUPID people who would go and get themselves hit or injured and then would sue the park for allowing such a thing...rather than taking responsibility for their own actions. Believe me, I'm sure the park people think it's a shame they have to make that stupid rule, but they also have to be hyper-conscious of the litigious nature of the amoral society we live in.
Sorry to rant, but we HAVE to take the high road.
-Kim (aka Rustypuff)
I must disagree with you regarding the letter you received back from the park staff. Now granted, it was written by someone in the park service with very poor writing skills,which certainly colors its tone, but if you READ it, it states that they are very willing to have letterboxes in the park and they realize the value of letterboxers as stewards and responsible park users. This is the attitude we want park managers to have.
There is also a glaring defensive tone to the letter. They feel like THEIR work is being attacked. As someone who works at a wildlife sanctuary, I can clearly say that we go into the field because we want others to find the same love and value of the outdoors as we do, but we are also bound by liability issues and the real threat of 'over-loving' an area and balancing protecting species with a users right to access an area.
I think their letter is more than reasonable and I think we should feel very lucky that they are not as reactionary as some or they might have banned letterboxes outright just out of spite.
We should also take great care in the way we express our opinions and frustrations to these organizations. If we present ourselves as orderly, intelligent and reasonable it will take us a lot further than if we seem inflammatory, unyielding and stubborn.Step into their shoes for a moment.
I also didn't take the whole 30 acres comment as a "policy". I took that(despite the poor writing of the park person)as a compensatory comment...that you would STILL have 3 boxes in the park if the one on the dangerous curve is removed which WOULD BE one per 30 acres which is better than NO boxes. (which is true,is it not?)
I don't think that they are asking too much by not allowing a box there. They have to make these safety decisions and it doesn't matter if you and others think you can walk there in safety. I'm sure lots of people could. But as someone who has dealt with the general public for a long time...there are some REALLY clueless people out there, some REALLY AMAZINGLY STUPID people who would go and get themselves hit or injured and then would sue the park for allowing such a thing...rather than taking responsibility for their own actions. Believe me, I'm sure the park people think it's a shame they have to make that stupid rule, but they also have to be hyper-conscious of the litigious nature of the amoral society we live in.
Sorry to rant, but we HAVE to take the high road.
-Kim (aka Rustypuff)
Re: [LbNA] more from Park Removing letterboxs
From: psycomommy2003 (ktborrelli@hotmail.com) |
Date: 2002-10-01 14:10:26 UTC
--Ditto! You catch more flies with honey than you do with ****! Seems
to me you are fortunate that they are willing to work WITH
letterboxers.
Psychomommy
- In letterbox-usa@y..., HANNAHKAT@a... wrote:
> I must disagree with you regarding the letter you received back
from the park staff. Now granted, it was written by someone in the
park service with very poor writing skills,which certainly colors its
tone, but if you READ it, it states that they are very willing to
have letterboxes in the park and they realize the value of
letterboxers as stewards and responsible park users. This is the
attitude we want park managers to have.
>
> There is also a glaring defensive tone to the letter. They feel
like THEIR work is being attacked. As someone who works at a wildlife
sanctuary, I can clearly say that we go into the field because we
want others to find the same love and value of the outdoors as we do,
but we are also bound by liability issues and the real threat
of 'over-loving' an area and balancing protecting species with a
users right to access an area.
>
> I think their letter is more than reasonable and I think we should
feel very lucky that they are not as reactionary as some or they
might have banned letterboxes outright just out of spite.
>
> We should also take great care in the way we express our opinions
and frustrations to these organizations. If we present ourselves as
orderly, intelligent and reasonable it will take us a lot further
than if we seem inflammatory, unyielding and stubborn.Step into their
shoes for a moment.
>
> I also didn't take the whole 30 acres comment as a "policy". I took
that(despite the poor writing of the park person)as a compensatory
comment...that you would STILL have 3 boxes in the park if the one on
the dangerous curve is removed which WOULD BE one per 30 acres which
is better than NO boxes. (which is true,is it not?)
>
> I don't think that they are asking too much by not allowing a box
there. They have to make these safety decisions and it doesn't matter
if you and others think you can walk there in safety. I'm sure lots
of people could. But as someone who has dealt with the general public
for a long time...there are some REALLY clueless people out there,
some REALLY AMAZINGLY STUPID people who would go and get themselves
hit or injured and then would sue the park for allowing such a
thing...rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.
Believe me, I'm sure the park people think it's a shame they have to
make that stupid rule, but they also have to be hyper-conscious of
the litigious nature of the amoral society we live in.
>
> Sorry to rant, but we HAVE to take the high road.
>
> -Kim (aka Rustypuff)
to me you are fortunate that they are willing to work WITH
letterboxers.
Psychomommy
- In letterbox-usa@y..., HANNAHKAT@a... wrote:
> I must disagree with you regarding the letter you received back
from the park staff. Now granted, it was written by someone in the
park service with very poor writing skills,which certainly colors its
tone, but if you READ it, it states that they are very willing to
have letterboxes in the park and they realize the value of
letterboxers as stewards and responsible park users. This is the
attitude we want park managers to have.
>
> There is also a glaring defensive tone to the letter. They feel
like THEIR work is being attacked. As someone who works at a wildlife
sanctuary, I can clearly say that we go into the field because we
want others to find the same love and value of the outdoors as we do,
but we are also bound by liability issues and the real threat
of 'over-loving' an area and balancing protecting species with a
users right to access an area.
>
> I think their letter is more than reasonable and I think we should
feel very lucky that they are not as reactionary as some or they
might have banned letterboxes outright just out of spite.
>
> We should also take great care in the way we express our opinions
and frustrations to these organizations. If we present ourselves as
orderly, intelligent and reasonable it will take us a lot further
than if we seem inflammatory, unyielding and stubborn.Step into their
shoes for a moment.
>
> I also didn't take the whole 30 acres comment as a "policy". I took
that(despite the poor writing of the park person)as a compensatory
comment...that you would STILL have 3 boxes in the park if the one on
the dangerous curve is removed which WOULD BE one per 30 acres which
is better than NO boxes. (which is true,is it not?)
>
> I don't think that they are asking too much by not allowing a box
there. They have to make these safety decisions and it doesn't matter
if you and others think you can walk there in safety. I'm sure lots
of people could. But as someone who has dealt with the general public
for a long time...there are some REALLY clueless people out there,
some REALLY AMAZINGLY STUPID people who would go and get themselves
hit or injured and then would sue the park for allowing such a
thing...rather than taking responsibility for their own actions.
Believe me, I'm sure the park people think it's a shame they have to
make that stupid rule, but they also have to be hyper-conscious of
the litigious nature of the amoral society we live in.
>
> Sorry to rant, but we HAVE to take the high road.
>
> -Kim (aka Rustypuff)