text:
Cycling in Melbourne

Cycling in Melbourne is an important mode of transport, fitness, sport and recreation in many parts of the city. After a period of significant decline through the mid to late 20th century, additional infrastructure investment, changing transport preferences and increasing congestion has resulted in a resurgence in the popularity of cycling for transport. This is assisted by Melbourne's natural characteristics of relatively flat topography and generally mild climate.

Despite an active cycling culture and an extensive network of off-road paths through some parts of the suburbs, Melbourne lacks the on-road cycling facilities that feature in many comparable cities in Europe and North America. Cycling infrastructure expenditure remains low compared to other cities and well below international recommendations. The introduction of mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) in Victoria in the early 1990s, the first such legislation in the developed world, may have further exacerbated the decline in cycling's popularity. Cycling's transport modal share accounts for less than 2% of all trips throughout the Melbourne metropolitan area, though bicycles comprised 16% of all morning peak-hour commuter vehicles entering the CBD in March 2017 – up from 9% in March 2008.

19th century
During the worldwide bike boom of the 1890s, cycling was seen an exciting new option for transport taken up eagerly by many people. The craze for cycling in the 1890s is portrayed in the poem Mulga Bill's Bicycle by Australian poet Banjo Paterson, and many other ballads from the time. For women at the time, cycling provided the opportunity of more freedom and being able to wear less restrictive clothing, or rational dress.

Cycling clubs and societies were established in the 1880s and 1890s. In 1885, the Victorian Cyclists Union (VCU) was active, and the League of Victorian Wheelmen (LVW) was formed in 1893. Various notables of the era were members, such as University of Melbourne Professor of Engineering William Charles Kernot who was vice-president of the LVW for a time.

In the 1890s, cycle races like the Austral Wheel Race, and later the Melbourne to Warrnambool Classic, were very popular forms of entertainment, drawing crowds of many thousands. The first women's road race in Victoria occurred in Melbourne on Saturday 16 May 1896 on a hilly 11 mi course through the northern suburbs of Northcote, Heidelberg, Ivanhoe, Alphington and Clifton Hill.

20th century
Cycling provided an enduring activity for ordinary Melburnians until falling automobile prices and growing consumer affluence saw increasing numbers switch over to the car in the 1940s and 1950s. Up until the 1940s the bicycle was an important commuter vehicle for many Melbourne people. Post war affluence saw a decline in cycle commuting, and the bicycle was largely relegated to a children's or teenager's activity or for sporting or recreational use.

1970s
It was not until the 1970s that cycle commuting and cycle touring started being widely promoted and used again. Prominent in bicycle advocacy in Melbourne in the 1970s and 1980s was journalist and author Keith Dunstan.

From the 1970s onwards, cycling in Melbourne and the rest of Victoria was stimulated by a number of factors:

 * The establishment of the Melbourne Bicycle Touring Club (MBTC) in October 1973. The MBTC aims to promote cycle touring and a healthy, active lifestyle. It has a fundamental commitment to public transport, making extensive use of the country and suburban train networks to get to and from the rides it runs.
 * The Bicycle Institute of Victoria (later known as Bicycle Victoria, and now gone nationwide and known as Bicycle Network) started in 1975 with its first president being Keith Dunstan, as a broad appeal membership organisation to campaign for improved facilities and recognition of cyclists., Bicycle Network had grown to 50,000 members across Australia.
 * Innovative supported tours by Friends of the Earth to Canberra to protest uranium mining – the FoE Rides Against Uranium – in 1975, 1976, and 1977.
 * Australia's first bicycle plan instituted in the late 1970s in Geelong.
 * Growing general environmental awareness of pollution, negative impact of automobiles, and protest at the construction of inner city freeways.

1980s
In the 1980s, the first triple chainring, or granny gears, bicycles started being sold. Ron Shepherd, an engineer and founding member of the MBTC and Bicycle Institute of Victoria relentlessly promoted use of triple cranks to promote cycle touring among a wider audience.

In 1984, Bicycle Institute of Victoria organised the first Great Victorian Bike Ride with 2,100 participants, commonly regarded as the largest single touring bike ride in the world at that time.

1990s
In 1990, Bicycle Victoria organised the launching of its first local government-based bicycle advocacy affiliates, the so-called Bicycle User Groups (BUGs), in Melbourne. , these BUGs are still going strong, but often no longer closely affiliated with Bicycle Victoria (Bicycle Network).

In July 1990, mandatory helmet laws were first introduced in Victoria, the first state in Australia to do so. Victoria's mandatory helmet laws have been the matter of intense debate, both locally and internationally, over the years (see below).

In 1993, Bicycle Victoria launched the inaugural 210 km Around the Bay in a Day ride around Port Phillip Bay. This event, which in 2006 attracted more than 14,000 participants, is still held every October.

Also in 1993, Melbourne's first dedicated on-street bike lanes were installed on St Kilda Road, a 6 km long tree-lined boulevard leading into the CBD. The St Kilda Rd bike lanes have routinely been the object of severe safety criticism, mainly for forcing cyclists to ride in the door zone of parked cars.

In 1994, Bicycle Victoria inaugurated Australia's first Ride2Work Day. Ride to Work Day has now spread nationwide.

In November 1995, the first Melbourne Critical Mass was held. This has become a popular regular event with cyclists meeting in front of the State Library of Victoria at 5.30 pm on the last Friday of every month to ride around the city in safety as one mass. They are accompanied on a regular basis by Victoria Police's Bicycle Squad. Generally the police do not interfere in the event but act to facilitate its smooth movement to reduce any obstruction and to calm the antagonism of some car drivers.

21st century
In 2004, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) introduced a Bike Assist membership option, to assist cyclists with punctures or basic repairs.

In 2008, regulation was introduced banning the carriage of bicycles on suburban trains during peak periods. However, this was rescinded several months later after an outcry from bicycle users.

In June 2010, a bicycle hire system called Melbourne Bike Share commenced operations, while another, oBike, launched in June 2017.

In 2014, the Australian Cyclists Party ran candidates in the Victorian state election in several electorates of the Victorian Legislative Council (upper house); though unsuccessful in getting into office, this is believed to be the first election contested by a dedicated party for cycling issues in the world.

Bicycle Network runs annual Ride2Work and Ride2School days to stimulate, with some success, cycle commuting. This is assisted by the formation of many workplace Bicycle User Groups (BUGS). The success of Ride2Work Day has since seen it become a national event.

Off road

The majority of Melbourne's bicycle network is located on paths that do not follow roads. These mostly follow parkland, railways and watercourses in a radial pattern to and from the area around the Central Business District.

Most paths are not dedicated for bicycles but instead designated as 'shared paths' that are also used by people walking, jogging or other active transport modes.

On road
While some central areas have bicycle lanes and other infrastructure, most roads do not have facilities for bicycles. There is a mixture of physically protected bicycle lanes on some roads but on road bicycle infrastructure mostly consists of signs and painted lines.

Since car-based transport planning commenced in Melbourne in the 20th century, bicycle infrastructure on roads has not been implemented or done sporadically. However, since the early 2000s, policy and legislation affecting cycling in Melbourne has been increasingly directing the state and local governments to recognise cycling as a mainstream transport mode which offers significant sustainability and health benefits. The 2010 Transport Integration Act sets a policy framework for creating a more integrated and sustainable transport system for Victoria including Melbourne and contains features which support improved conditions for cyclists.

Despite these small improvements and policy direction, levels of cycling in Melbourne remain low, with the most common reason given for not cycling being a lack of safe on road infrastructure.

Public transport
Carriage of bicycles is free on all suburban and regional trains, subject to space availability. Folding bicycles meeting specific criteria are permitted onboard trams and buses but all other bicycles are not allowed.

Bicycle racks on two metropolitan and two regional bus routes commenced April 2016. , the results from the trial have not been published but the trial has continued.

Bicycle share programs
Between 2010 and 2019 the government ran the Melbourne Bike Share program, the first public bicycle sharing system in Australia. On completion the system consisted of 53 docking stations with 676 bikes situated around the Melbourne CBD. The total cost was estimated at $5.5 million over four years. The system was operated by the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria and the US firm Alta Bicycle Share, which runs bicycle share systems in four North American cities. In 2019, the Melbourne bike share program was scrapped by the Victorian State Government due to low usage, with an average of one ride per day towards the end of the program. Some claimed this was due to the state's mandatory helmet laws.

Currently Melbourne does not have a docked bicycle share program, but does have dockless electric bike and electric scooter share programs in inner-Melbourne run by private companies Lime and Neuron. The e-bikes and e-scooters can use bike lanes, are speed-restricted and can only operate within the City of Melbourne, City of Port Philip and City of Yarra local government areas.

Cycling as a sport

Victoria has produced many cycling athletes of world renown. Sir Hubert Opperman, "Oppy" (1904–1996), is perhaps the most well known and internationally recognised Australian cyclist of the 1920s and 1930s. As an Australian sportsman, his feats in cycling are compared with Sir Donald Bradman in cricket. He set the 24-hour road distance record of 505.75 mi in 1939; the track record for 24 hours covering 489.3 mi in 1940. He won the 1928 Bol D'or 24-hour race and the 1931 Paris–Brest–Paris 1200 km marathon in record time of 49 hours 23 minutes. Many of his long-distance records stood for many years. In France and Australia he was feted as a sporting hero, with thousands attending a parade in his honour in Melbourne 1928.

Post-World War II, Geelong cyclist, Russell Mockridge, was widely described as "Australia's greatest all-round cyclist for all time". Due to his upper class accent he was initially dubbed Little Lord Fauntleroy; however, his race wins soon earned him the nickname of The Geelong Flyer. Mockridge was killed by a bus in 1958 participating in the 225 km Tour of Gippsland. He was just 2.1 mi from the start of the race at the Dandenong Rd / Clayton Rd intersection in Melbourne.

Cycle racing continues to be popular in Melbourne with the Herald Sun Tour, since 1952, bringing professional cyclists from around the world for a multi-stage race around regional Victoria and Melbourne.

, more than 25,000 cyclists, including triathletes and many elite riders, use Beach Road and the Nepean Highway from Black Rock to Mount Eliza on a typical weekend. Each Saturday morning the Hell Ride, a large bunch ride leaves from Black Rock at 7 am. It can contain up to 200 cyclists in summer months with speeds up to 60 km/h. The Hell Ride is a politically contentious topic both amongst Melbourne cyclists and the broader community: most formal cycling organisations discourage their riders from participating, including Cycling Victoria.

A large number of local cycling clubs organise amateur-level racing, with criteriums mostly held in the summer and the road racing season in the winter months. Coburg Cycling Club, based in the Melbourne northern suburb of Coburg, is one of Australia's oldest cycling clubs. It was established as a social club in March 1896 by members of the St. Paul's church choir on Sydney Road. Members quickly found themselves participating in all levels of cycle sport. Many cyclists from the Coburg Cycling Club rose to prominence including Ivor 'Snowy' Munro, Ernie Bainbridge, Richard 'Fatty' Lamb, and the 1956 Olympian Richard 'Dick' Ploog.

Rules and regulations
Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other road users, but some specific rules do apply.

Cycling equipment
Wearing of a helmet at all times, a working bell, and suitable lighting if riding at night are enforced by law.

Victoria's 1990 compulsory cycle helmet legislation was the first in the developed world, and – as with the other Australian states – it is believed to have had a strong negative impact on cycling modal share and modal share growth and recovery in Melbourne. Surveys carried out at the same 64 observation sites in May 1990 and May 1991 detected 29% fewer adults and 42% fewer child cyclists, with an overall reduction in cyclists of 36%. Further falls were recorded to May/June 1992, with teenage cycling reportedly showing a 46% decrease from pre-law levels. The limited injury reductions recorded among Melbourne cyclists did not match the actual decline in cycling. This has led some experts to the conclusion that the law has actually resulted in increased rates of injury among Melbourne's cyclists. The law has also reportedly resulted in significant police efforts against cyclists. As of 2003, Victoria Police were still issuing around 20,000 Bicycle Offence Penalty Notices a year. Since the law, cycling in Melbourne has never been able to recover its previous share of the transport split. In 1985–6, 3.4% of trips in Melbourne were by bicycle, 2004 data showed a decline to 2.0%. The experience of Melbourne's cyclists has given added impetus to the efforts of cyclists in Europe and elsewhere to resist, or repeal, such helmet laws.

Bicycle parking
Bicycle theft is a problem in Melbourne.

Official road rules (Rule 166. Application of Part to bicycles) regarding bicycle parking appear to state that bicycles should only be parked in supplied cages or parking rails. In practice these facilities are not always available and affixing the bike to street poles is common and does not seem to be penalised.

Bicycle parking at railway stations
Bicycle parking at Melbourne's train stations for what is known as Bike + Ride travel, can be problematic. A secure bicycle parking place needs to be pre-arranged or you risk bicycle theft or vandalism by parking a bike out in the open.

, secure Parkiteer bicycle parking stations are installed at 78 of Melbourne's 207 train stations. Prospective users of the Parkiteer scheme must register with Bicycle Network for access to a specific Parkiteer cage and, if a vacancy is available, pay a $50 refundable deposit for an electronic access card which enables access for that cage only.

Some Melbourne train stations, including those with Parkiteers, have bike lockers which can fit a single bike in them. If a spare locker is available it can be rented for free for up to three months at a time, but a bond must be paid.

If you have not pre-arranged access to a Parkiteer spot or to a bike locker, most train stations also have bicycle hoops or something similar, but often there are not enough hoops available and train travellers are forced to lock their bikes to railings, signposts, fences, or other fixed objects.

Organisations and groups

 * Bicycle Network – a self-funded health promotion charity, owned collectively by all of its members. Bicycle Network works to build more cycling infrastructure, organises their popular "Great Rides", co-ordinates programs such as Ride2Work and Ride2School and provide practical and legal information to achieve their aim of "More People Cycling More Often". Members receive benefits that include crash cover and support, Ride On a bi-monthly full-colour magazine, and help Bicycle Network to advocate for improved riding conditions for all bike riders.
 * Australian Cycle Alliance – an Australia-wide cycling advocacy group founded in Melbourne.
 * There are many Bicycle User Groups around the Melbourne metropolitan area, usually located in, and committed to working in, a single local government area or other locality.
 * Melbourne Critical Mass
 * The Bike Shed at CERES teach bike maintenance.

Government sites

 * Cycling information at VicRoads
 * the Principal Bicycle Network (PBN)
 * Cyclist safety laws and advice
 * Victorian Cycling Strategy – an overview from Victoria's Department of Transport

Non-government sites

 * Open Cycle Map and other maps combined
 * Bike paths guide
 * Melbourne Bicycle Touring Club
 * Melbourne bike routes @ bikely.com
 * Bicycles Network Australia – cycling discussion forums
 * Westgate Punt at onlymelbourne.com.au
 * The BikeShed at CERES – The BikeShed is a volunteer on-site group at CERES in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick East. The BikeShed's aim is to promote cycling in the local community by teaching people how to fix their own bikes. They also sell 2nd-hand bikes which the buyer fixes with their assistance and tools.
 * Where to Ride Melbourne cycling guide books

title: Cycling in Melbourne


text:
Talk:Psychological operations/Archive 1

Clearly plagiarized from America's army recruitment site's PSYOP description. I will be editing it soon, when I have the time.

--User:dagamezmasta 21:04, July 05, 2005.

The Organization of the Article
This is a badly organized article. It appears to have just happened rather than be organized in any logical form. I am, unfortunately, too much of a newby to start this project, but I am willing to assist a more talented author - Luxomni 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is to cover multiple nationalities (which is reasonable), put them in alphabetical order - Germany, United Kingdom, United States would be reasonable. UK, US, Germany is just random.
 * Descriptions of Campaigns such as "U.S. Psychological Operations in Afghanistan" and similar stubs for WWII, Vietnam, Grenada, and others should be subs of US Army or whatever organization they belong to.
 * Detailed particulars such as the diatribe about a particular operation in Afghanistan should properly be referred to their own articles.

U.S. Army, Airforce, Marine PSYOP

 * Does anyone know if the Marine's actually have PSYOPs, as of 5 years ago I don't believe they do, but maybe things have changed? --A User

 * I don't know if Commando Solo really should be under the Airforce header. Or if the Airforce should be said to have PSYOP. Do they? I believe the Army runs the operation on Commando Solo, the Airforce just own and fly the plane. That doesn't really make them Airforce PSYOP, they just drive the Army PSYOP around. I spent my time on a PSYOP team on the ground so I don't know exactly how the Commando Solo operation works, but that was always my impression. - atfyfe

ANSWER: My Army PSYOP company spent 2003 attached to the 1st Marine Division because the Marines lacked tactical PSYOP, so the answer is no. A few PSYOP guys wore some Marine uniforms only because their own BDUs and brown t-shirts had been rendered unservicable and we were in a Marine supply line not Army. At first opportunity the company resupplied Army clothing and Marine clothing was disgarded.

As for Commando Solo, I agree, the AF "technically" doesn't "do" PSYOP. They supply the plane, pilot, etc., while the Army does the actual product development. Be that as it may, they have the assets dedicated to an important PSYOP mission. User:Virgil

I disagree Virgil, when my TPT was attached to a Marine company we wore marine style BDU's but used army name tapes and insignia. Our reason was to create a more uniform appearance while working with the Marines. it really is a matter of commander's discression. Jocosetad 17:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I was answering his question as to whether Marines have PSYOP. The Marine uniforms aren't per regs and it shouldn't have happened except in the most extreme circumstances such as the one our guys were in. Commanders aren't allowed the leeway to circumvent Army regs and senior NCOs shouldn't have allowed it. I've been doing this PSYOP thing for over 15 years with foreign and U.S. units. With the Brits we didn't adopt their uniforms and we functioned effectively. Virgil 04:30, 06 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the Navy aspect of PSYOP. The Navy has become more of a PSYOP player since the start of the GWOT, but has always participated in a limited PSYOP role throughout its history. I'm writing a thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School on the subject to be published in MARCH 2006. ---Neptunerex 20SEP05. --Neptunerex 16:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a small note here. I'm a reservist army PSYOP and my roommate is a reservist Marine so we looked into the question of marine PSYOP a while back. Marines do have a PSYOP MOS, but it is only a secondary MOS to their Civil Affairs MOS. It is described as supplementary CA training to help coordinate activities with attached PSYOP teams, ie Army PSYOP teams. That is the extent of Marine PSYOP. From what I hear of them though, Marine CAG (civil afairs group) is a pretty sweet gig.--Krustykev 16:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some questions I have about PSYOP in the US military:

1) Are PSYOP considered part of the intelligence or special forces communities?

Army special operations

To add to this, until 1989/90 PSYOP was a part of military intelligence. The MOS designator was that of an intel analyst (96B) with an identifier showing the soldier had taken a PSYOP course in addition to the 96B course and in the late 80's a new MI MOS was developed for PSYOP--96F.

In 89/90 MI gave up control of it's 96F soldiers assigned to the 4th PSYOP group and they were taken from MI to become a U.S. Army Special Operations MOS now changed to 37F. Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

2) Historical uses of PSYOP?

Too many to name, go to the psywarior link and read.

3) Are PSYOP used on friendly/neutral civillians to bolster morale?

Yes, as well as on the enemy

Caveat, PSYOP is barred for use on US citizens.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

4) Who sets the PSYOP strategy of TPTs (at what rank, unit level, etc)

04's and above set strategy, tpd, or detatchment hq send this to tpt's

The answer is more complicated, TPTs and BPSEs are assigned to supported manouver units where they take their mission orders from that CDR and simultaneously are under PSYOP command as well. The influence of the TPT approach like many things in the Army is dependent on the POVs of the supported CDR, the input a team or BPSE OIC/NCOIC has into planning and the PSYOP chain of command. Every outing seems different than the last depending on the mix. Setting strategy isn't quite right at TPT level, more like setting tactical approaches.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

5) Is "disinformation" and deceptions(like fake Marine landings in Gulf war 1) considered PSYOP, or "propaganda"?

yes

Propaganda--or information operations--is a subset of PSYOP. Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Q's on the training section:

6) Do PSYOP members require security clearances?

secret and above

7) What languages do US PSYOP train in?

 arabic, spanish, french, farsi

More than just those given, I've learned Russian, others Ukrainian, Swahili, Dutch, German, Korean, Chinese, Vietnames...basically any of the major language groups and dependent on the PSYOP unit's AO.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

8) So are all active-duty PSYOP required to take airborne school even if they end up attached to regular forces, or is it that all PSYOP end up attached to airborne?

they are required to train to be airborne qual, as are most special ops soldiers

PSYOP soldiers, 37F, are assigned to the 4th PSYOP Group (ABN) or 4th POG, and must be airborne qualified and on jump status. There are positions outside the 4th POG in places like Korea, Italy, Germany, CAPOC, JFKSWC, etc but these are limited and generally staffed by senior NCOs.Virgil61 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info, this article is very well-done. Identity0 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All the above said only applies for US PSYOP - and a lot of other things stated in the article, too; e.g. no forces under NATO command are allowed to target friendly population or own troops - while this can be done by national PSYOP/PSYOPS forces under national responsibility and doctrine. This includes troop information. Talking about PSYOPS/PSYOP we need to differenciate much more - and you need to be an expert with international experience not having worked only in a national TPT, BPSE or even CJFPOCC. By the way, the US Airforce provides the technical assets (COMMANDO SOLO) but transmitting the PSYOPS messages from Ft. Bragg (Army PSYOPS) - and can use the airplanes as a dual role platform. User:Peter

PSYOP and PSYOPS
"less acceptable usage" == NPOV. No justification given.

--babbage 05:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In the PSYOP community the 's' at the end is considered wrong. -- A User

 * Only in the US, apparently. The British Armed Forces appear to use PSYOPS. See here. Don't automatically equate American usage with general usage. -- Necrothesp 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Good point, however the information that when refering to U.S. PSYOP one should not use "PSYOPS" should be included in the entry. If you use wikipedia for research and write an article on US PSYOP, you'll be lucky enough not to make an idiot of yourself by spelling PSYOP wrong. atfyfe

 * My understanding is that PSYOPS is NATO usage and PSYOP is US usage. -- www.psywar.org

 * To clarfy the situation: PSYOP is solely the US terminology while the European (main nations UK and GE) and NATO abbreviation says PSYOPS. This is common sense in NATO and PfP countries (see NATO and respective national documents).

 * In Vietnam the usage was that "I was in Psyops" or "Call in Psyops"; but the unit I was in was the "10th Psyop Battalion" or "It was a Psyop operation". The S attachment wasn't optional. It served some kind of linguistic function similar to the S appended to verbs in declension - i.e. I run, he runs. It was not as straightforward as allowing either Psyop or Psyops. Apparently the change in allowable usage postdates 1969. Luxomni 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)     Psyop 10-B-2 RVN 1969

psyoper's editing
Who here is or has been a psyoper? I am in an american reserve unit.--65.220.54.20 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As you probably noticed from the preceding Psyop/Psyops controversy, I was in Company B field team 2 of the 10th Psyop Bn., 4th Psyop Group in VietNam in the year 1969. Back then it was nowhere near as professionally run and organized as it is now. I had the opportunity to visit Fort Bragg buring the runup for Operation Desert Shield and was astounded at the difference that 20 years made! I presume they are still improving. Luxomni 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

edit
I removed the Marine Corps as having organic PSYOP units in the United States. Army PSYOP teams may be attached to the Marines and sometimes even wear Marine style uniforms during this time. (but the name tape still says Army) This no doubt caused the confusion.

Also for clarification to a previous comment the 193rd Special Operations Wing of the Air Force owns and uses the equipment on Commando Solo. Although they don't come up with the actual media used, which is still the army's responsibility, they are a unit in the Air Force with a dedicated PSYOP mission.

24.15.230.227 05:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Joel (former PSYOP guy)

I deleted the Bart Simpson reference. The story by Baghdad Betty, during the first Gulf War, was debunked long ago. See: http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/radio/baghdad.htm#add or http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1515. I was in Iraq as a PSYOPer and frankly don't recall ever meeting anyone who ever heard it and the first I knew about it was from U.S. news sources. In spite of the fact that it is false it is still being referenced by PSYOP related studies, there's a lesson there on the power of the media. PSYOPers have been the victims of media PSYOP. 65.207.35.122 16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who put the Bart reference in. Yes, I've heard both that it really occurred and that it is a myth. I don't really know what to believe. On the one hand your “F.A.I.R.” article claims Johnny Carson took responsibility for inventing the story, on the other hand: Going over right before the invasion in 2003 I was briefed by an Iraqi defector who claimed to be involved in the Bart Simpson debacle. According to him (an Iraqi Air Force Col.), he knew Bart Simpson was a cartoon character but he couldn’t convince his higher-ups.

Now after finding out that Iraq has no WMD we are all painfully aware of how Iraqi defectors like to exaggerate. Also, if you were over in Saudi during the first war I have to imagine this story would have spread like wildfire among U.S. troops if it really happened. Verdict: I think I would like to read the transcript of Carson taking responcibility for myself. But you are probably right this is B.S. User:atfyfe 8 November 2005

Debate over burning bodies section
Point:

I'm removing this section:

U.S. PSYOP mistakes Every country's PSYOP attempts fall flat on their face sometimes. The United States is not immune to mistakes in its PSYOP operation. The most recent example of a U.S. PSYOP misstep is the public burning of enemy bodies in Afghanistan. While the bodies had been left on the battlefield and were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns, the decision by a tactical PSYOP team with the 173rd Airborne to burn the bodies in public to try and lure enemy fighters to attack has become a public relations nightmare for the U.S. Army.

During the War on Terror U.S. PSYOP teams often use the broadcasting of inflammatory messages over loudspeakers to try tempting enemy fighters into a direct confrontation where the Americans have the upper hand. In the Afghanistan incident, a PSYOP sergeant read out the following inflammatory message to the Taliban: "Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be." U. S. authorities were to investigate the incident which may have contravened the Geneva convention.

pending further facts. There are a couple of other errors/issues I address below, but my main gripe is that this incident is still under investigation, and that the benefit of the doubt should be granted until such time as an investigation report is available. There were subsequent reports in the press that contradicted some of the facts in the initial story or added richer context, like the assertion that the bodies were not recovered by the village inhabitants because they were interloping Pakistanis. Either way, let the TV/press websites bicker the finer points for now- there's no need to echo that process here in WP.

Whether or not this is a PSYOP 'mistake' I think is unclear; whether or not it is still a 'PR nightmare' is quite clear: not now (as I write this not one month after the incident); if it even ever was one. For it to be a PSYOP mistake, it would have to be shown to be inneffective to the point of interfering with the supported commander's mission and intent. (Keep in mind, we are only talking about the PSYOP team's use of the burned bodies as fodder for their LS taunt broadcasts - the actual act of burning the bodies was conducted by the supported unit -see below.) If the broadcasts had succeeded in riling up the Talibanis enough to take on the 173rd, and they were subsequently defeated with minimal cost to the supported unit, then it would have been a tactical success. That success could then be overshadowed by the strategic level/big picture problem of perception that the US is insensitive to Islamic burial rites; if this had never hit the media the way it did, that would never have been a problem at all. That perception could cut 2 ways: Only time will tell the balance.
 * Lessened cooperation in the GWOT by Muslims b/c of 'outrage'.(bad) ^or^
 * Lessened enrollment in terrorist organizations by devout muslims fearing a resultant cremation.(good)

My other gripes -
 * This: The most recent example of a U.S. PSYOP misstep is the public burning of enemy bodies..., ...the decision by a tactical PSYOP team with the 173rd Airborne to burn the bodies in public to try and lure enemy fighters to attack... is directly contradicted by the article itself: Members of the U.S. 173rd Airborne said they burned the bodies of the suspected militants for health reasons after they had been left out in the open for more than 24 hours, according to the program.

218. Graves Registration Service - Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body. Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. '''In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead. They shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged,''' that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found."" (FM 27-10) They seem to have followed the letter of the law. 'If possible' gives the commander leeway on cremating muslims, I would think.

 * The United States is not immune to mistakes in its PSYOP operation. Reads in the mind as "Psychological operations operation" Perhaps: - The United States is not immune to mistakes in conducting PSYOP. There are other places where it's a clumsy read, but I'd prefer the whole incident not be included yet. I'm sure there are other instances of more clearly cut PSYOP mistakes that could be used. -user 12.208.168.37

Response: “this incident is still under investigation”

It appears rather clear cut to me, or would the fact it is under investigation really warrant it being cut from the entry. Even if there are a few minor details left undetermined (and it isn’t clear to me that there are any details left unclear), the major points are clearly known.

'''“the benefit of the doubt should be granted until such time as an investigation report is available.”'''

The original posting of this information did not grant the benefit of the doubt to the soldiers. I edited it making it sound as neutral as possible, however, in my eyes I think what the soldiers did was just fine. I spent plenty of time in Iraq trying to lure insurgents out to fight just like these PSYOPers were trying to do. So I am not giving them the “benefit of the doubt”, I am flat out agreeing with their actions. However, I worded the article entirely neutral. If you find it critical I think you are reading that into the information, it was last edited by someone (me) who agrees with their actions.

'''“the assertion that the bodies were not recovered by the village inhabitants because they were interloping Pakistanis.”'''

Does that fact even matter? What does it matter why the village inhabitants didn’t retrieve the bodies? Not that I believe their story anyway. Anytime any attack happened in Iraq the locals would always blame it on foreigners. Either way, this information does not matter to the article. The point is that the locals did not retrieve the bodies so the soldiers had to dispose of them.

'''“Whether or not this is a PSYOP 'mistake' I think is unclear; whether or not it is still a 'PR nightmare' is quite clear”'''

This is not a bias opinion, this is simply stating what is obvious. I don't know how to argue this point other than to ask you to consider the coverage of this event again.

“For it to be a PSYOP mistake, it would have to be shown to be inneffective to the point of interfering with the supported commander's mission and intent.”

Yes it may have lead enemies out of hiding, (a tactical success) but surely this was “overshadowed by the strategic level/big picture problem of perception that the US is insensitive to Islamic burial rite.” I agree it was a good tactical decision, but part of PSYOP is taking in account the broader strategic consequences of your actions. At the very least PSYOP made the mistake of doing this PSYACT in the presence of media!

“had never hit the media the way it did, that would never have been a problem at all.”

But it did. The PSYOPers did the act with media presence. Maybe that was their only mistake, but regardless this was a mistake.

“Also: “directly contradicted by the [2] article itself: Members of the U.S. 173rd Airborne said they burned the bodies of the suspected militants for health reasons after they had been left out in the open for more than 24 hours, according to the program.””

You misquote the entry. Right before it says the PSYOPers burned the bodies publicly to lure out the enemy, it says “were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns”. So the information was there.

"They seem to have followed the letter of the law. 'If possible' gives the commander leeway on cremating muslims,"

I agree with you that the act was within the law and a sound tactical decision. Perhaps that information should be put into the entry, but it was still a mistake. (1) Your right, there are other examples of PSYOP mistakes that can be included. However, you haven’t written about them, so this is all there is. (2) Plus this is a topical example. It has the advantage of being a current event. (3) Someone added this to the article. They took the time, and so the presumption should be in favor of cleaning it up if needed rather than deleting. I thought the original posting was poorly done, so I edited it rather than deleting it.

I am not putting this back in yet. But depending on people’s reaction to our little debate here I might. Anyone else’s thoughts?

-- Response C-point: "You misquote the entry. Right before it says the PSYOPers burned the bodies publicly to lure out the enemy,..." Misquote? That was verbatim from the article. Please show me where the article specifically states that the PSYOP team burned the bodies, or where my quote varies from the text of the article.

"It appears rather clear cut to me, or would the fact it is under investigation really warrant it being cut from the entry. Even if there are a few minor details left undetermined (and it isn’t clear to me that there are any details left unclear), the major points are clearly known."

I appreciate the fact that you tried to NPOV this, but to me, it's a turd - and no amount of polish will make it shine. It's not that it's under investigation, it's that the investigation could yield a lot more important details, or put current ones in better context. At this time, we have only one primary source for the story, Mr. Dupont, the reporter. All other stories, including the japantoday internet one quoted here, are based on his account. If you peruse the stories that are out there, you may find as I have that the details don't always agree. For that reason, I feel that it is premature to include this incident, and moreso to classify it as a mistake, at least a PSYOP one.

This is my read of the sequence of events, based on the reporting that is out there to date:
 * 1) the people were killed in action prior to the date of the story
 * 2) 24+ odd hours later, they were starting to get 'ripe'.
 * 3) the supported unit commander ordered the bodies burned for hygiene reasons
 * 4) his troops carried this out
 * 5) the reporter filmed that event
 * 6) later, how long is not defined, the PSYOP team conducted their taunt broadcast(s), which were also filmed
 * 7) later still, the PSYOP team discussed what was broadcast with the reporter

"GEORGE NEGUS: Do you think they understood the ramifications of what they're doing? The burning of the bodies, pointing towards Mecca and going to the trouble of reading to you in English the deliberately provocative stuff that they were shouting across the valley to the Taliban? STEPHEN DUPONT: Look, I think the airborne unit that were responsible with the burning of the two Taliban soldiers weren't really thinking in that way. I think the psychological operations unit, who were responsible for the broadcast along with some other broadcasts to the Taliban, they're quite well aware of it. They're older guys. That's their job. They're PsyOps. They use it as a weapon. And the Americans are so frustrated. They're frustrated because they can't find the enemy. They're chasing shadows all the time. GEORGE NEGUS: The guys burning the bodies probably did they think were doing it for reasons of hygiene that were mentioned in the story? STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe that. That was the feeling I got as I climbed up the hill. As I got to the crest of the hill, they started burning the bodies. My initial reaction was, 'My God, I've got to film this. This is really important stuff. It's my responsibility as a journalist to - GEORGE NEGUS: The PsyOps had a different purpose? STEPHEN DUPONT: I believe so. Niece(sic) guys - they said to me, 'We've been told to burn the bodies, the bodies are have been here for 24 hours and they're starting to stink so, for hygiene purposes, this is what we've got to do.' Later on, when I was down with the PsyOps operations people, they used that as a psychological warfare I guess you'd call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west -..." http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=transcript&dte=2005-10-19&headlineid=1037 (Even the direct quote from the transcript leaves it up in the air as to who did the burning. When Dupont starts with 'I Believe so...' he had just been interrupted by another question from Negus, it looks to me like he was finishing the thought from the last question and segued into the new one, and that may give the impression the PSYOP team burned the bodies. But the 'Look, I think...' line pretty clearly shows who did the burning.)

Calling it a 'PSYOP Mistake' I think gives them too much blame. Like in baseball, you can have something go bad for the team, but it still doesn't qualify as an 'error' unless someone flubbed something they should have by all rights made happen. Allow me to expand on what I previously qualified as a PSYOP mistake:
 * 1) The incident should be classifiable as bad PSYOP, in concept or execution.
 * 2) PSYOP personnel should be primarily responsible for the problem, even in spite of getting approval from supported unit for the operation.

For the first, I think we agree that the broadcast was tactically sound PSYOP, even if, as some accounts say, the messages did not produce the desired effect of inciting the enemy to engage in battle. I think we also agree that it became problematic on the strategic level, due to the event becoming an international news story. This is a constant dichotomy - good tactical level PSYOP can be bad strategic PSYOP, and vice versa. For the second part, this is where I would like to see more information before declaring this a PSYOP mistake. I believe that it was not the decision of the PSYOP team to burn the bodies. They may have advised the SU commander against it, and been overrulled. They may have discussed the ramifications amongst themselves and opted to withhold protest - "Yeah, this could become a bad thing for the Army, but we still have to stay on this hill with these funky bodies. Let the grunts burn them...". They could have given incorrect cultural advice, in re. to the facing or positioning of the bodies, or Muslim burial rules. Disrespecting Muslim burial rites? Probably an Army mistake. PSYOP's fault? Undetermined.

"The PSYOPers did the act with media presence." While I respect the need for secrecy where appropriate, is the lesson to be drawn here that no PSYOP can be conducted in the presence of outside media? At worst, this may be classifiable as an unavoidable mistake - the guys were faced with two poor choices - do nothing, or do what they can of their job even though the media is there.

'''re. 'PR nightmare' "This is not a bias opinion, this is simply stating what is obvious. I don't know how to argue this point other than to ask you to consider the coverage of this event again."''' My point is that this was a story for a week or less, and now it's almost forgotten. (Google it and see!) It didn't cause the uproar or death that the 'flushed Koran' story or 'Abu Ghraib' did. That's not to say that it won't pop up again, or get worse. But it's not as you say 'obvious' - that's a highly subjective judgment. The coverage has been, in 'big picture' terms, no big deal.

'''re. 'topical example/current event - I think it's too topical. For it to be an effective example of PSYOP Mistake, we need more facts. It doesn't make a good 'teachable anecdote'. As it is, it's an open answer essay question that people would answer with the PSYOP version of "I'd move quickly and quietly down the hall". (I'd pick the perfect mix of 2 mutually exclusive goals'.) Real life doesn't work that way... (22 November 2005- 12.208.168.37)

Addition; 11/27/2005: The other shoe has dropped, CENTCOM has issued their report. Right click/save as here: http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/News%20Release/Nov05/Investigation%20into%20the%20Gumbad%20Incident.pdf

I still maintain the mistake here makes a poor example for learning purposes.

"Action #2: The broadcast of PYSOPS (sic) message pertaining to the burning of enemy combatant remains subsequent to the firefight in Gumbad. 1) CJTF-76 investigation revealed that U.S. psychological operations forces did broadcast two loudspeaker messages designed to incite fleeing Taliban to fight. These messages mentioned the burning of enemy remains and were in violation of standing policies for the content of loudspeaker messages. 2) The criminal investigation revealed that there was no evidence to substantiate that the remains were burned for the purpose of providing content for the loudspeaker message. However, the investigation did reveal that the loudspeaker operator did willfully violate known standards for message content and standards for reporting his activities during the conduct of missions. Additionally the operator and his supervisor failed to follow documentation and reporting procedures surrounding this incident. Their conduct falls well below the acceptable standards of behavior for Soldiers." (pp. 4-5)

Bold examples are emphasized by me. This is a poor example because without being able to state what the 'standing policies' were, and then to specify how their actions violated them, it's hard to definitively point out what the mistake was. I can surmise it's a broad 'don't act against other culture's religious mores' but it also just could have been that they were prohibited by policy from using derogatory names like 'lady boys'.

--12.208.168.37 09:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Putting it back "The above incident involved the PsyOps unit. And it was clearly not just a mistake. The entire section cannot be just removed, as this was an important operation, and clearly shows the teams at work. Some members of the US administration disagree with this approach. That is mentioned to. To remove the section smacks of a cover-up. Wallie 11:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)"

Other options? The only way this could be a coverup is if I could totally purge all mention of the incident from the discussion and article archives, which I obviously can't do, and wouldn't even if I could. Even then, the press articles are all over the internet, so what would the point be? To just throw it back in without correcting factual errors, or updating the story based on newer information, is worse than nothing at all, IMHO. One incident cannot possibly be representative of 4+ years of PSYOP in Afghanistan, either.

My suggestions:
 * 1) A complete new article on US PSYOP history, genesis to current. Could include the beginnings/antecedents on up to current events in the GWOT and beyond. (Like the most recent 'paid for stories in Iraqi press' story.) Distinguishes 'modern' PSYOP from older eras.
 * 2) A section here in this article covering same.
 * 3) Other ideas?

Thoughts?

12.208.139.138 06:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Official Response I noticed that there was a reference to the CENTCOM report on the burning of the bodies. It is pretty clear what happened. Soldiers were asked to burn the bodies. OK. They were just cleaning up the area. PsyOp thought they could use this as an opportunity to draw the enemy out into a fire fight, or at least introduce them to the killing zone. The wording of the text used over the loudspeakers would have been written by, or at least sanctioned by a senior officer in PsyOp. The CENTCOM report is trying to limit the damage to PsyOp's reputation. But the facts remain that this event did happen, and was probably typical of the way that PsyOp was handling other operations from 9/11 up until then. After all, anyone who is familiar with PsyOp will know that to be effective, some of their tactics may be somewhat irregular. Wallie 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you. As I read the article in Wikipedia, I got the distinct impression that its purpose was primarily to discredit and embarrass the American involvement. The writer does not seem to have familiarity with how Psyop is done or what its relationship with regular units is. Psyop does not either act in a vacuum or independently. Operations are done at the request of a field grade officer or better of another unit (almost exclusively combat), and in support of either a planned tactical operation; or planned civilian action program for a civilian advisory boards such as CORDS/JUSPAO in Vietnam. Even in Vietnam it was not a "seat of your pants" reactive usage. Now the organization is vastly improved with cultural experts. The article more than implies rogue psyop units cruising the counryside looking for mischief. Luxomni 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Gatekeepers?
How do alleged "gatekeepers" fit in with Psyop? Schizombie 07:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Gatekeeper link. I think the person who put it there implies that US PSYOP is somehow involved in "gatekeeping". However, U.S. PSYOP is not used on domestic audiences. If it were, it would definiately not be the Psychological Operations community that would be doing it. I think those looking for an evil goverment plot to control their minds should try pinning their (crazy) idea on a different branch of the goverment(CIA, NSA, whatever). U.S. PSYOP does not have the skill, training, secrecy, or people to be involved that sort of thing.

Listen, I don't believe in an evil shadow goverment (or whatever), but even if there is one, it does not involve the U.S. Defense Department PSYOP community. Look elsewhere for your evil plots. (Atfyfe 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC))
 * I put an AfD on the Gatekeepers article. Probably going to get kept or kept by reason of no consensus, I have a suspicion, since people are allowed to outnumber WP policies, however sound.  Sigh. Шизомби 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Emergency Broadcast System
Does anyone else think it's a bit suspicious that once a week, on every channel, in every household, the loudest, most obnoxious sound needs to played for a long duration in order to test our national emergency alert system? -Henry George

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Psychological operations/Archive 1


text:
Army of the Frontier

The Army of the Frontier was a Union army that served in the Trans-Mississippi Theater during the Civil War. It fought in several minor engagements in Arkansas, Indian Territory, and Kansas. In June 1863 the Army was discontinued but many of its regiments were formed into the District of the Frontier.

Background
During the American Civil War, on March 7 and 8, 1862, the Union Army of the Southwest defeated the Confederate Army of the West at the Battle of Pea Ridge in northwestern Arkansas. This victory secured control of Missouri for the Union and opened the path for the Union to eventually capture Arkansas. After Pea Ridge, the Confederate commander, Major General Earl Van Dorn moved his army east of the Mississippi River, stripping Arkansas of most of its Confederate troops and military supplies. On May 31, command of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi District was given to Major General Thomas C. Hindman, who rebuilt Confederate strength in Arkansas, as well as outburts of pro-Confederate activity in Missouri. However, Hindman had outraged many prominent Arkansas civilians, and he was replaced by Theophilus H. Holmes, who was promoted to lieutenant general and sent to Arkansas.

Hindman moved about 6,000 men into southwestern Missouri in early September. The Union forces in Missouri were commanded by Brigadier General John M. Schofield, as the District of Missouri in the Department of the Mississippi. The neighboring Department of Kansas was commanded by Brigadier General James G. Blunt. In response to Hindman's incursion, on September 19, the Union recreated the Department of the Missouri, which continaed the states of Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, the Indian Territory, and the city of Alton, Illinois. Major General Samuel Ryan Curtis, the victor of Pea Ridge, was placed in charge of the new department, which it was hoped would unify Union leadership in the region. Curtis took command on September 24, and on September 26 sent Schofield to Springfield, Missouri, to command Union operations there. Blunt and his force, known as the Army of Kansas, was sent to join forces with Schofield, who commanded two divisions, which were led by Brigadier Generals James Totten and Francis J. Herron.

Formation
Part of Blunt's army was defeated on September 30 in the First Battle of Newtonia. The next day, the combined forces of Blunt and Schofield, with Scholfield in overall command, was named the Army of Southwestern Missouri. Two days later, Blunt and Totten's troops were reported to be stationed at Sarcoxie, Missouri, with Herron's division on the Cassville Road. On October 4, Blunt and Totten moved towards Newtonia, and the Confederates abandoned the town and fell back into Arkansas. The Army of Southwestern Missouri was renamed the Army of the Frontier on October 12; on that day Blunt's division was at Keetsville, Missouri, and Totten and Herron at Cassville. Blunt's division was given the designation of the First Division, Totten's the Second Division, and Herron's the Third Division, although Blunt's division was commonly known as the Kansas Division and the other two as the Missouri Divisions.

Advancing, the Army of the Frontier entered Confederate territory on October 17, where the men camped on the old Pea Ridge battlefield, with army headquarters in the Elkhorn Tavern. The army's communication and supply lines were kept over two routes: Blunt was supplied Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Kansas City, Missouri; and Fort Scott, Kansas; while the other two divisions were supplied through St. Louis, Missouri; Rolla, Missouri; and Springfield. Confederate Colonel Douglas H. Cooper and part of the Confederate cavalry were preparing for an offensive against Fort Scott. James S. Rains and the rest of the Confederate force moved in the opposite direction. Schofield decided to split the Army of the Frontier, sending Blunt and two of his three brigades after Cooper, while Totten and Herron pursued Rains. Both wings of the army left the Pea Ridge area late on October 20. Blunt defeated Cooper on October 22 in the Battle of Old Fort Wayne. Totten and Herron reached Huntsville, Arkansas, that same day. Schofield called of the pursuit, having reached the end of his logistical framework, and believing the Confederates had withdrawn enough to no longer be a threat, withdrew Totten and Herron in the direction of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Prairie Grove
Blunt wished to attack Fort Smith, Arkansas, while Schofield wanted Blunt to be stationed in the northern portion of the Indian Territory. Schofield further wanted to keep the army's other two divisions in northwestern Arkansas. Schofield was able to easily communicate with Curtis because of a rebuilt telegraph line along the Telegraph Road, and Curtis wanted Blunt to remain stationed along the Indian Territory/Arkansas border and for the other two divisions to be withdrawn back into Missouri, so that they could be transferred to service in the Vicksburg campaign. Totten's division was at Osage Spring, and Herron's at Cross Hollow, Arkansas. On October 27, Schofield went to Osage Spring to begin the process of withdrawing the two divisions into Missouri, but learned that Confederate cavalry was in the Fayetteville area. Schofield planned a converging attack on the Confederates with Totten and Herron's men, but the plan did not go through as expected and Herron's men fought and won the Battle of McGuire's Store on October 28.

After occupying Fayetteville, Schofield panicked at rumors of a Confederate advance and withdrew from the city. Blunt's division moved to a position where it would better support Schofield's two divisions, with the Army of the Frontier on October 31 being arrayed with Totten at Osage Springs, Herron at Cross Hollow, and Blunt near Bentonville, Arkansas. On November 3, Blunt and Schofield held a conference with Curtis at Elkhorn Tavern over the telegraph line, where Schofield asked for and received permission to withdraw back to Missouri. Beginning on the next day, Totten and Herron's divisions made a forced march back to Springfield; Schofield had been alarmed by false rumors of a Confederate campaign against that city. November 6 saw Blunt with his division still in Arkansas with 6,200 men, Herron camped on Crane Creek with 2,800 men, and Totten on the Spring River with 4,600 men. Blunt's men were 15 miles south of Maysville, Arkansas, at Lindsey's Prairie. As of November, the Army of the Frontier was organized with three brigades in Blunt's division, three in Totten's division, and two in Herron's, although one of Totten's brigades remained in Springfield and did not participate in field maneuvers.

The plan was for Totten and Herron to spend only a little time at Springfield, and then move east to Helena, Arkansas, to join the Vicksburg operations. Schofield was ill, so Curtis ordered Totten to take his division and Herron's to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as part of the transfer; the two divisions left Ozark, Missouri, on November 14. Confederate cavalry under Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke moved into the Cane Hill, Arkansas, area in early November; the threat posed by this movement to Blunt led Totten's eastwards movement to be cancelled. By November 18, Totten's divisions were back at Cassville. After receiving news that Marmaduke had withdrawn, Schofield turned over command to Blunt and left for St. Louis on November 20. Totten, who had unpopular with his men and who had a drinking problem, was ordered to St. Louis for court martial duty on November 27. He was replaced as divisional commander by Colonel Daniel Huston Jr.. Herron's division camped along Wilson's Creek, with Huston's division 12 miles to the south.

Also on November 27, Blunt left Lindsey's Prairie to confront Marmaduke's Confederates. The next day, his men defeated the Confederates in the Battle of Cane Hill; Marmaduke fell back towards Van Buren, Arkansas while Blunt remained at Cane Hill. Blunt's division was now over 100 miles from the rest of the Army of the Frontier, but only about 35 miles from the Confederates. Hindman and three of his subordinate commander developed a plan to attack and destroy Blunt's division while it was still separated from the rest of the Army of the Frontier. Blunt learned of the Confederate offensive late on December 2, the day before the Confederate actually began their movement. He informed Curtis of the situated and requested that the two divisions camped in Missouri join him.

Herron placed the two Missouri divisions on the road on the afternoon of December 3. By December 6, Herron's two divisions had reached Fayetteville; late that same day contact was made between the forces of Hindman and Blunt. When Hindman learned that Herron's men had arrived in the area, he changed his plans to defeat Herron first, and then attack Blunt. In the Battle of Prairie Grove on December 7, Herron attacked Hindman and was repulsed; a Confederate counterattack met the same fate. Blunt arrived later in the day on the Confederate left and another series of attacks by each side failed to be decisive. Hindman withdrew his men during the night. Two days after the battle, the Army of the Frontier again split up, with Blunt's division going to Rhea's Mill, Arkansas, with the other two divisions remaining on the field. On December 23, Blunt was informed that Schofield was on his way back to resume command of the army. Having learned that the Confederates were withdrawing from the Fort Smith area, Blunt decided to make one final offensive before the more cautious Schofield arrived. The Army of the Frontier began the Van Buren raid on December 27. Two days later, while the Army of the Frontier was on its way back from the raid, Schofield arrived, but declined to take command until after the army had returned from the raid.

Later activities
Schofield resumed command on January 1, 1863, and the Army of the Frontier withdrew from Arkansas. Blunt's division returned to Kansas, and the other two divisions to Missouri; the three divisions would never serve as a whole again. In January 1863, Blunt went to Fort Leavenworth to oversee the District of Kansas, and Colonel William Weer took command of his division. By the end of that month, John G. Clark was in command of Totten's old division, and James O. Gower led Herron's former division. Schofield's headquarters was at Springfield. By the end of the following month, Washington F. Geiger was in command of the Third Division. In March, the two Missouri divisions were transferred to southeastern Missouri, in preparation for an expected incursion by Marmaduke's cavalry. On March 30, Schofield was reassigned to command the District of Southwestern Missouri, and Herron took command of the Army of the Frontier. As of that date, the First Division was at Carrollton, Arkansas, the Second Division (now under the command of Dudley Wickersham) at Elk Creek, Missouri, and the Third Division at Rolla, Missouri. Brigadier General William Vandever took command of the Second Division on April 9.

Marmaduke began an expedition into Missouri on April 18. Vandever responded by moving his division to Pilot Knob, Missouri, on April 23, and then to Fredericktown two days later. Late on April 26, Vandever's men fought with Marmaduke's troopers at Jackson. On May 1 and 2, the Union troops battled Marmaduke's men at the crossing of the St. Francis River at Chalk Bluff, Arkansas; the Confederates escaped across the river. By the end of April, the First Division was at Houston, Missouri, the Second Division at Pilot Knob, and the Third Division at Lake Spring, Missouri. The army's headquarters was at Rolla. Brigadier General Thomas Ewing Jr. took effective command of the First Division on May 13, and was ordered to send the Kansas units back to that state. On June 2, Herron and all of the infantry regiments from the Second and Third Divisions, along with two artillery batteries, were sent to reinforce the Union campaign ongoing at Vicksburg, Mississippi; these units became the Second Division of the XIII Corps in the Army of the Tennessee in July. The Second and Third Divisions ceased to exist at this time. On June 9, Ewing's division was assigned to the District of the Border, and Blunt was assigned that day to command the District of the Frontier. The Army of the Frontier ceased to exist.

title: Army of the Frontier


text: Category:Stuyvesant High School

title: Category:Stuyvesant High School


text:
Coyote Point Recreation Area

Coyote Point Recreation Area is a 670 acre park operated by San Mateo County, California in the United States. Located on San Francisco Bay, it is south of San Francisco International Airport on the border of Burlingame and San Mateo. Facilities within the park include a large playground, the CuriOdyssey junior museum, a sandy bathing beach, a marina and yacht club, hiking trails, and picnic areas. In addition, the San Mateo County Sheriff's office has a shooting range on-site for training of law enforcement. It is adjacent to the Peninsula Humane Society and the municipal Poplar Creek Golf Course.

The distinctive point, covered by a grove of eucalyptus trees, can be seen from airplanes approaching San Francisco International Airport and is a good location for aircraft spotting and birdwatching. The site has been used for the large Pacific City amusement park in the early 1920s, as the basic training facility for the Pacific branch of the United States Merchant Marine service during World War II, and as the campus for College of San Mateo during the decade that followed the war. The county completed its acquisition of the park lands in 1962.

Precolumbian
Coyote Point was originally an island in San Francisco Bay rising to a height of 80 ft above mean sea level with a marsh connecting it to the mainland. Because it has no fresh water, it is doubtful that Native Americans lived here, but shell mounds on the point indicate that it was at least occasionally used, possibly for special ceremonies or feasts; skeletal human remains were discovered in 1987 during routine dredging of the marina and dated to be approximately 4,000 years old, indicating a long presence of humans at the Point.

Spanish settlement
Coyote Point, is mentioned on maps before 1895 as San Mateo Point or San Matheo Point, was part of the Presidio and Mission lands until it passed to Mexico. The Governor of Mexico then granted the land, then known as Rancho San Mateo, to Cayetano Arenas, from whom the name can probably be traced. The Arenas family sold it to the firm of Mellus and Howard, and William Davis Merry Howard purchased it from the firm in 1850. After his death in 1856, the land passed to his brother George, who ordered a road and pier built on the land. At approximately the same time, Chinese immigrants established a fishing village near Coyote Point to harvest bay shrimp for San Francisco restaurants in the 1860s.

By 1868, the pier at Coyote Point was operating for freight and lumber loading; it also served as a receiving point for sand that would be used in the construction of Crystal Springs Dam from 1888 to 1890. Under the Howard family, the marsh between the island and the mainland (now the Poplar Creek Golf Course) was reclaimed to create dairy pasture. They also built a bathhouse and pool on the beach in 1880, and had eucalyptus, cypress and pine trees planted on the knoll by noted horticulturist John McLaren between 1880 and 1882.

By 1890, the beach at Coyote Point near the pier was famed locally as the best in Burlingame and San Mateo, which made it the target of "sand pirates", who would truck away sand and sell it to artificial stone manufacturers in San Francisco. The land remained in the Howard family until it was sold to the county and the federal government in 1942.

Pacific City Amusement Park
On July 1, 1922, a group of promoters opened the "Pacific City Amusement Park", which occupied approximately 90 acre along the beach leased from the Howard family. Dubbed the "Coney Island of the West", the park included a beach (with trucked-in sand), boardwalk, children's playground, scenic railway, merry-go-round, Ferris wheel, dancing pavilion, and several food concessions. A crowd estimated at more than 100,000 people visited Pacific City on July 4 of that year, drawing comparisons to Atlantic City.

Although it was reputed to have had one million visitors in aggregate over the first season (1922), a fire during the second season destroyed about one quarter of the development, and it opened only briefly for a third season. The reasons given for the closure were strong afternoon winds and sewage contamination in the bay.

Genesis
The name and site were first proposed in September 1921 at San Mateo City Hall by Nat Messer, a San Francisco real estate dealer who pitched the idea to the Three Cities Chamber of Commerce (3CCC). The Pacific City Corporation (PCC), which developed the site, was led by a three-member board of directors composed of A.H. Dougall, Jr.; Arnold C. Lackenbach; and David J. Stollery. Stollery was serving as the secretary for PCC's largest creditor, the William H. Howard Estate Company. PCC was supported by the 3CCC, led by manager Daniel C. Imboden for the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, and Hillsborough; 3CCC had been organized in 1921 with one of its stated priorities to be "the development of the San Mateo Beach" and was satisfied "that the building of Pacific City would well repay the membership of the Chamber for the money and time expended." At the time, the planned opening date was May 30, 1922, Decoration Day.

The land was acquired for US$200000 1922 from the William H. Howard Estate Company in February 1922; at the time, it was the largest real estate transaction in San Mateo County. The site of Pacific City stretched for 3000 ft north from Coyote Point, including 90 acre of land and 250 acre covered by water. The Pacific City Corporation bragged in April 1922 that an investment of US$473000 1922 in total had been made so far, including land, construction, and equipment.

By late May, it was clear the new park would not be open in time for the holiday, although the work was nearing completion, including a 60 ft entry gate with an illuminated sign, which would be visible to cars traveling on the Bayshore Highway. D. Wooster Taylor resigned from his position as superintendent of the children's playground at Golden Gate Park (now the Koret Children's Quarter) to manage Pacific City. Opening day was set for Saturday, July 1; that last week of June, workers hurried to put the finishing touches on the new park.

Attractions
Visitors to Pacific City rode the Southern Pacific Peninsula Commute trains to Burlingame, where Fageol shuttles would take them to the park for an additional 5 cents, the San Mateo Interurban, or the ferry from San Francisco, which tied up at the pier originally built by the Howard family, rebuilt and extended for Pacific City. The park was open daily until midnight. Parking for 5,000 automobiles was also provided.

Rides at Pacific City included The Whip, Dodg-em cars, a Dentzel menagerie carousel, a 22-inch narrow-gauge railway, a Ferris wheel, a shoot the chutes that ended with a splash in the Bay, and a "scenic railroad" (a wooden roller coaster designed by John A. Miller) called The Comet, which included an 80 ft drop and was billed as the largest, fastest coaster west of Detroit. Ground was broken for Comet on April 21, 1922.

When not on rides, visitors could choose from bathing on the beach or dancing in a large wooden pavilion; hunger was satiated by concessionaires vending hot dogs and pigs-in-the-blanket. An old ferry, the Ocean Wave, was tied up to the pier to serve as a floating restaurant as well. In addition to regular live music performances, Harry Houdini entertained crowds during the first season with masterful escapes.

The opening weekend, which stretched through Independence Day, was a smashing success. More than 51,000 attended on Sunday, July 2 (estimates put the crowd at 60 to 75,000), and more than 100,000 attended on July 4. Daily attendance continued to exceed 20,000 on the weekends. Prominent citizens of Burlingame, Hillsborough, and San Mateo wrote a series of three newspaper articles, published two weeks later in mid-July, outlining their plans to take advantage of the publicity from Pacific City. 3CCC manager Imboden described plans to build temporary housing nearby. San Mateo mayor Thomas J. Brady wrote of that city's plans to acquire the Kohl estate, which would later become Central Park. By the time the season closed, more than one million had visited Pacific City.

Financial peril
The first signs of financial ill-health began in September 1922, when PCC was sued over the failure to pay back a small promisorry note. In December 1922, the Howard Estate filed suit to foreclose on the property over non-payment of a US$90,000 promissory note that had been signed by Dougall and Lackenbach; the first payment of $5,000, due the previous March 22, had not been made as scheduled and the only payment that had been received was $1,000 the preceding October. 3CCC brokered an agreement in which a three-member committee was appointed to investigate and report on the financial status of PCC in February 1923; 3CCC President John J. McGrath, who was one of the appointees, warned "that we will not stand for one local creditor or stockholder in Pacific City to lose a penny ... if they jockey and humbug, we are in position to make their investment worth about ten cents [on the dollar]." Lackenbach fired back days later: "... you have unwittingly placed the management of Pacific City in a very unfavorable light by reason of this article. It is not only unjust, but has absolutely no foundation. The management of Pacific City has at all times strenuously held that any reorganization or refinancing of Pacific City must first contemplate the payment of creditors in full with interest from the maturity of their claims."

To calm the situation, 3CCC stated they supported both the Howard Estate and PCCC, but if the foreclosure suit was successful, it would antagonize many investors, who likely would lose their stakes. The resort opened on May 19, 1923, due in part to the uncertainty about the resort's future. Despite the cold weather, approximately 135,000 visitors had been recorded by June 2. A fire destroyed "The Canyon", a restaurant, and the "Pig-in-the-Blanket" lunch stand on July 28, 1923. The fire, which started in the lunch stand, blazed out of control as low water pressure on-site and disconnected telephone lines hampered the initial response. Significant confusion regarding the proper jurisdiction also delayed the arrival of firefighters: a messenger was sent to the Burlingame fire department, which informed the messenger that Hillsborough might be responsible; Hillsborough in turn directed the messenger to San Mateo, and by the time firefighters arrived, both structures were fully engulfed in flames.

By late March 1924, the creditors of Pacific City had assumed control and announced the company would be reorganized under the leadership of Edmond Levy. Plans were made to open the resort on July 1, 1924, but the opening was delayed until July 4. Admission to the park itself was made free that year, with a small fee for automobile parking. In March 1925, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George H. Buck granted the Howard Estate's foreclosure petition, forcing the site to liquidate its assets.

Legacy
The carousel which operated there, as well as the "little puffer" miniature train ride, can still be enjoyed at the San Francisco Zoo. The Dentzel Carousel Company built the menagerie carousel for Pacific City, and it was moved to what was then Fleishhacker Zoo in 1925; it has since undergone restoration in 1978, 1994, and 2000.

Historians have traced the train back to a class built and operated originally at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition by the Miniature Railway Company. This particular train was known to have run along the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk as the Bay Shore Limited between 1907 and 1915 before it was sold for scrap to a Ford dealer in San Francisco. After running at Pacific City, it was hidden in Burlingame for two years to avoid being impounded, then sold to Herbert Fleishhacker for his eponymous zoo in 1925, where it ran until 1978, when it was stored to clear space for a new gorilla exhibit. The train was restored in 1997 by volunteers at the Golden Gate Railroad Museum and resumed passenger service at the zoo.

The Pacific City beach is known presently as the Coyote Point Promenade. A informational plaque with a summary of Pacific City history was placed by E Clampus Vitus in October 1999 near the present-day boardsports rental shop. Rehabilitation of the beach is being performed in two phases; the first phase, covering the western half, was completed in 2014 and rebuilt the portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail that ran along the shoreline, along with placing rock revetment to protect the trail and rebuilding the public access ramps to the Bay. The second phase is scheduled to be completed in spring 2022, and will include parking reconfiguration and a new beach. During the eastern promenade work, the remnants of 35 wooden piers that once supported the Pacific City Boardwalk were removed, as they posed a tripping hazard to beachgoers.

Educational use
In 1936, the Howard Company proposed to sell the 65 acre to the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, and Hillsborough for US$65000 1936; although the proposal was rebuffed, it led to negotiations to acquire the wooded knoll of Coyote Point itself in addition to the ex-Pacific City land. The first steps were taken in 1940 to convert the area to a park, when San Mateo County's Parks and Recreation Department purchased 727 acre from the Howard family, of which 329 acre were underwater. The purchase included 7000 ft of shoreline.

In 1942, the federal government purchased 10 acre of land on Coyote Point for one of three Merchant Marine Cadet Basic schools, the Pacific Coast Cadet Corps (the other two were for the Atlantic Coast Cadet Corps at Kings Point, New York and the Gulf Coast Cadet Corps at Pass Christian, Mississippi). The merchant marine training program had been shortened from 48 to 18 months, in three stages:
 * 1) Basic School (lasting 3 months, serving as Fourth Class Cadet-Midshipmen at Kings Point, San Mateo, or Pass Christian)
 * 2) Shipboard experience (6 months, Third Class aboard merchant vessels)
 * 3) Academy (9 months, Second and First Class at Kings Point)

The Pacific Coast Merchant Marine Cadet Basic School had started aboard the ex-riverboat Delta Queen on 1 July 1941; enrollment quickly outgrew the ship, and the school moved to land-based facilities on Treasure Island. With the outbreak of war, enrollment exceeded the capacity of facilities on Treasure Island and US$450000 1942 was appropriated to enlarge the school in May 1942. Plans were swiftly drawn up by Cdr. Ralph M. Sheaf, and construction began on the facilities at Coyote Point on June 25, 1942. The campus was built in a cleared area of the Knoll. The Basic School at San Mateo Point opened on August 15, 1942 and was officially dedicated on August 21, 1943 with a capacity of 528 cadets. Cadets regularly practiced "abandon ship" drills, climbing to the top of a three-story tower and jumping feet-first into the Bay, sometimes into water deliberately fouled with oil and set afire. By June 1944, 4,111 had completed basic training at San Mateo Point, but budget cuts forced the school's closure by January 1947.

In 1946, the Cadet School buildings were purchased by San Mateo Junior College to serve as the main college campus, accommodating the expected influx of students taking advantage of the GI Bill after the war. The entrance to the Coyote Point campus featured two pillars topped with eagles, leftover from the Cadet School. Under an agreement with the county, when enrollments had decreased to a certain level, the land and buildings would revert to the county. However, Elon Hildreth, who became the new president of San Mateo Junior College in 1952, loved the site and lobbied to have Coyote Point established as the College's permanent site; Hildreth moved into the Commandant's House, which was renamed the President's House, and had served as the residence for the commanding officer of the Maritime Academy. After Hildreth resigned in 1956, he was replaced by Julio Bortolazzo, who turned the college's efforts to a new campus at its present site in the San Mateo Highlands. The new campus opened in 1963, and Coyote Point reverted to the county.

Park
At the time, the county acquired 402 acre, of which 350 acre were underwater. A master plan was prepared in 1971. Under Ralph Shaw, Director of Parks and Recreation, and his successor, Harry Dean Jr., the park's trail system was laid out. Dean recounted: "After a while, Coyote Point was my favorite park. When I came to the county, the Point was just a small beach and a few picnic areas ... the park had to be designed around the already existent rifle range, the museum and the marina." By the time Dean retired in 1991, Coyote Point was the most-visited park in the county park system, welcoming more than 500,000 visitors per year. Since the initial acquisitions, an additional 80 acre have been acquired from the Ideal Cement Company, bringing the present size of the park to 687 acre, of which 538 acre are underwater.

A large globe and anchor were kept at the Cadet School and remained during its time as the Junior College as a memorial; the anchor was later moved to a spot near the Marina. In 1974, a new Merchant Marine Memorial was installed at an overlook facing north from the Knoll; it was extensively restored and re-dedicated on December 2, 2011. Improvements included new stone walls, new plaques, a replacement eagle statue, and the addition of a section of chain and anchor, donated from a Victory ship of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet.

Facilities
Coyote Point is divided into three sub-areas:
 * 1) Peninsula Beach Shoreline, which occupies the flat western part of the park, extending east to the access road for the beach parking lot near the shooting range
 * 2) The Knoll & Eucalyptus Area, which is the elevated, forested bluff that occupies the central section of the park
 * 3) Coyote Point Marina and Shoreline Meadow/Marsh, which is the eastern portion that includes the marina, yacht club, and connects to the city of San Mateo's Shoreline Parks system to the south

The park contains many trails for walking and bicycling, and includes sections of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Tour de Peninsula bicycle race starts and ends within the park. In addition, there are many small picnic areas throughout the park, eight larger picnic areas available by registration, the Captains House Conference Facility, the Coyote Point Pistol and Rifle Range, CuriOdyssey, the Magic Mountain Playground and the Coyote Point Marina.

There is a large parking lot on the Knoll, near the Captain's House and former site of the Castaway restaurant; before it was paved, it served as the football field for the College of San Mateo.

Shooting range
Quarrying for the shooting range began in 1961 and it was completed in 1962; the range was initially open to the public and was one of the first safety ranges approved by the National Rifle Association, but it later was limited to law enforcement personnel only. The range was operated by the county parks department until 1997, when it was turned over to the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. It serves as the primary qualification and training facility for 24 law enforcement agencies. In 2017, a new indoor pistol training facility was completed using funds from private donors. The existing outdoor rifle range was refurbished in 2018 and 2019 using funds provided by the same donors.

Since then, it has been reopened to the public, operating three nights per week. All brass and lead are trapped and contained on-site and recycled to prevent contamination of the park. Public shooting is operated by the Coyote Point Rifle & Pistol Club.

The Castaway
The Castaway Restaurant was in the northwest section of the Knoll. It opened in 1964 with nautical theming and featured valet parking due to its location within the park; by the 1970s, The Castaway was advertising its tiki theme. The restaurant shut down in 1997 for a planned renovation to add a second story; however, the building subsequently was vandalized and burned and torn down in February 2008.

Coyote Point Marina and Yacht Club
The harbor on the east side of Coyote Point was dredged in the 1930s; the spoils were placed in the middle of the new harbor, forming the divider between the two basins. The narrower Basin 1 is to the west of Basin 2. A third basin has been planned but not built; rubble from the first, demolished San Mateo Bridge (1929–1967) was placed along the eastern property line and would define the limit of the Basin 3. The Coyote Point Yacht Club (CPYC) was formed on July 20, 1941, and initially held its meetings at the old San Mateo city hall near the downtown railroad station; a permanent clubhouse was built on jetty in the new basin and completed in the mid-1940s. Work on the new CPYC building was started on September 23, 1967, and completed by March 2, 1968. The current building includes a dining room with a seated capacity of 300. CPYC sponsored its first Shark Derby, a shark-fishing competition, in 1947; the Derby gained fame in 1948 when President Harry S Truman made a fifteen-minute stop at Burlingame to visit.

Passengers from Japan Air Lines Flight 2 were ferried to the Yacht Club after the DC-8 made a unscheduled landing in the water nearby.

CuriOdyssey
CuriOdyssey, formerly the Coyote Point Museum for Environmental Education is a hands-on science museum and native animal zoo located in the park at 1651 Coyote Point Drive in San Mateo, California, United States. The museum was incorporated in April 1953 as the San Mateo County Junior Museum using a surplus Quonset hut.

 * The Main Concourse Science Exhibits offer a variety of hands-on science exhibits that allow children and families to experience natural phenomena up-close.
 * The Wildlife Habitats consist of 25 naturalistic habitats that house over 50 non-releasable animals native to California, including a bobcat, river otter, snakes, golden eagles, Channel Island fox, banana slugs, turtles, owls, snowy egret, tarantula, Western toads, herons, turkey vultures, raccoons, and others.
 * The Aviary is a 4000 ft2 walk-through facility that houses over a dozen non-releasable, native California birds.
 * The Invertebrate Corner houses a variety of native invertebrates including a California blond tarantula, black widow spider, dermestid beetles and others.
 * The Gardens cover about 1.3 acre and consist of a variety of plants, some native. They include a hummingbird garden, butterfly habitat, and the Nature's Marketplace Garden which features native plants used by Native Californians.

title: Coyote Point Recreation Area


text:
Booby prize

A booby prize is a joke prize usually given in recognition of a terrible performance or last-place finish. A person who finishes last, for example, may receive a booby prize such as a worthless coin. Booby prizes are sometimes jokingly coveted as an object of pride.

Booby prizes may also be given as consolation prizes to all non-placing participants of a competition.

This type of prize is common in the CBS game show, Let's Make a Deal which are known as "zonks."

Origin
The word "boob" stems from the Spanish bobo meaning silly, which in turn came from the Latin balbus meaning stammering; the word booby to mean dunce appeared in 1599.

Booby prize literally means "idiot's prize". The OED dates this usage to 1893. Booby trap and "booby hatch" are related terms.

title: Booby prize