Jump to content

High-tech Hunt Gets Mixed State Response


geospyder

Recommended Posts

USA TODAY has an interesting article titled, "High-tech hunt gets mixed state response", dated 15 December 2005 posted on their website at 1720 hours. This is an article that both embraces and bashes our pursuit of geocaching. The URL for this article is http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinno...ing-craze_x.htm.

 

I strongly recommend reviewing this article in it's entirety and pay close attention to the mentioning of the South Carolina house bill that was passed in May that requires geocachers to receive permission before going into cementarys, historic or archaelogical sites, or property publicly identified as a historical marker.

 

Hopefully more states such as Wisconsin and communities like Milwaukee will see the benefits of geocaching as a way of promoting their areas, increase tourism, and bring more dollars into the community. I hope that South Carolina sees that geocaching causes no harm. The fact is that the majority of us take the time to clean up the areas making them look better than before.

 

As with all intrusions into a past-time, it is important that we lobby our law makers so that they will not make the situation in South Carolina the norm for the rest of the country. It's up to us to become involved.

Link to comment

It is too bad that Ceips gets more air time out of this. She is typical of all that is wrong in the political realm. Using a series of half-truths and hype, she pushes through legislation that accomplishes no real purpose. Heaven forbid she should focus on land developers who roll through sensitive areas ("Oh, I didn't know there was a cemetary/burial ground/historic home/etc. here!") all in the name of a buck.

 

That said, opinions are like noses. Everyone has one. (No offense to any possible noseless people out there!) I don't agree with the tone of the article, but I would say it is fairly written.

Link to comment
and pay close attention to the mentioning of the South Carolina house bill that was passed in May that requires geocachers to receive permission before going into cementarys, historic or archaelogical sites, or property publicly identified as a historical marker.

 

The bill is still in senate sub-committee so it has not passed yet, but people like Greymane who take shots at Ceips is going to make it easier for them to pass it. Quiggle has asked people once to stop taking shots at people, so from someone who lives in South Carolina and knows more about this, STOP with the stupid personal attacks on people you only read about

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Just because you think someone's view is wrong, trashing them in a public forum that SHE reads is NOT a good idea. She and other supporters of this bill have used things that have been said in this forum against us. While you might not agree with her choices, don't disrespect her as a person

Edited by geoholic28
Link to comment

All I'll say, for those others who MIGHT not be sure (uh-huh), is that the middle word is THAT.  :anibad:  :D  :lol:  :anibad:  :)

(VERB) THAT (NOUN)!

 

:lol::lol::)

 

Man I really think that this is a (VERB)-ing bunch of (NOUN) that shows what a bunch of (ADJECTIVE) some (NOUN) can be. We should really (VERB) (ADJECTIVE) with that (NOUN).

 

(VERB)! (VERB)! (VERB)!

 

So there! :D

 

EDIT: Ummm... the noun has to do with fluffy kittens and flowers and things, and the verb has to do with being sweet to everything and the adjective is just all niceness and mushy things and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :D

Edited by Sparrowhawk
Link to comment

I think it's tacky to cache around a gravesite. It's disrespectful to the people who have family buried there. And they not the dead people vote. On the other hand, I respect others have different opinions on this matter and wish to cache there.

 

This whole issue could have been avoided in SC if permission was requested to hide the cache in the first place before the "cat got out of the bag". That's something especially true in a private cemetery and required by geocaching .com as well.

Link to comment

I read the article and find that Wisconsin has the right take on Geocaching (as well as many other states do). It is an opportunity for the state to promote Tourism in areas that normally may have not gotten much to begin with. This means that more money is spent in those areas by the Geocachers who visit them. Geocachers frequently eat at local restaurants, buy gas, various supplys, and Souvenirs to remind them of the places they've visited. All helping the local economy (and the state through sales tax).

 

As a Geocacher, I have gone to many areas in the persuit of the sport that I never would have visited in the first place without it. I have also spent plenty of money in those areas. Every time my wife and I go on a "hunt" we are generally amazed at the areas and locations that this sport has taken us to.

 

We have seen wild Elk standing in people's yards, Bears, Turkey, Deer, Coyotes, amazing historical statues and buildings, beautiful waterfalls in a deep part of an ancient forest. All of these are things that we never would have experienced without the sport of Geocaching.

 

It also always amazes me at the local level at how much there is to see or experience that we never knew was there. Most of the time it is a great history lesson and gives us a real sense of what life was like in the area and the changes that have taken place and the reasons for them through the years.

 

On the subject of Geocaching in Cemetaries, another poster mentioned the sense of history involved in those cemetaries. This is very true. There is a lot to be gathered from the stones. From the inscriptions to the dates, they give voice to long silenced voices. We live in a very old area and we have seen stones from the late 1700's! We look at many of them and find clues to what the area may have been like then and the living conditions. There are indications of mass illness, natural (or un-natural) disasters, war, the stature of individuals in the community, the religious beliefs of the community, and the employment of the community. All of this can be gathered from the voices of the stones. Without Geocaching, we never would have seen these spots and got interested in the local history. We have on many occasion, after visiting a Cemetary Cache, gone to other places in the community to inquire about some of that history. It is ALWAYS compelling.

 

My wife also does some Geneology and we have found Geocaching in cemetaries useful for this as well. She has been working on our family tree learning where various relatives and branches of our family long forgotted had lived. Through the data that she has gathered in her research and applying some Geocaching to it, we have found Cemetaries where some of those relatives are buried. In a few cases, these Cemetaries were small "Home" plots that we never would have found without the sport. And again, this has given some "voice" to those long forgotten relatives. We are very greatful for that.

 

I recall visiting a Cache not too far from here of a single marked grave with a stone handcrafted from the local available stone. The stone was back in the woods a bit all by itself and was not visible from the road. It told of a logger who had passed while logging in the heyday of that industry in Pennsylvania. Logging was not an easy profession then and required a lot of very difficult and dangerous work. Many a life was lost in Pennsylvania in the name of Logging in those days. I was honored to find this cache and know that the gentleman who had passed would now never be forgotten or lost. I'm sure that there are many Gravesites throughout the world like this. Some found and some not. Every time someone places a cache at one of these sites, it is an act of respect.

 

We have also seen some very unique gravesite caches. In particular, there is one located in Wellsboro, PA called Wilson's Home. It is indeed very different.

 

For those who feel that Cemetaries should be off limits, why do we as humans feel the need to have them? If they aren't there for the ability for us to visit to pay our respects to those buried there, whether it be personal or historical for everyone who cares enough to visit, then why do we have them? Cemetaries hold great personal and historical value for everyone and should not be off limits to anyone. Geocachers or not.

 

If the people who are trying to get these laws passed would take the time to see what Geocaching is really about and thoroughly read the guidelines set forth for the placement of Caches along with the CITO concept, they would see that Geocachers in the most part are very attuned to their communities and provide a valuable service to that community in many different ways.

 

There has also been some talk of Geocaching creating damage to properties due to increased traffic in those areas. I have personally never seen this occur. I have also never seen droves of Geocachers lined up to get a "First to Find" at a Cemetary. In fact I have never seen an area that has been adversely affected by Geocaching due to increased traffic. What I HAVE seen is areas that were once littered with all kinds of trash, clean and pristine due to the efforts of Geocachers. This is what CITO (Cache In Trash Out) is all about. It is based on an old Camping Credo that you leave an area as clean or better than you found it.

 

Another part of this is that if a Cache Owner does find that an area is or has been adversely affected due to Geocacher traffic, he or she has the ability to disable, move or "Archive" the cache (remove the cache altogether). Good, responsible cache owners will do this if necessary. You will also find that Geocachers who have found Cache locations in disrepair or bad shape due to traffic (or anything else for that matter) will promptly notify the cache owner of the problem to be corrected. If there is no response from the Cache owner and the Cache hasn't had the necessary actions taken in a reasonable time, An Approver or Geocaching.com itself may disable or archive the cache. The Geocaching community is very good at policing itself based on the guidelines set forth on the site.

 

In some cases, yes, there are questionable placements of caches. It was up to a Reviewer to determine if the placement met all of the criteria set forth for an acceptable placement. The Reviewers are volunteers and make their decisions based on the information supplied by the Cache Owner and any other information requested by the Reviewer. Sometimes the information may seem adequate to approve a cache and it is approved. Reviewers don't have to and are not obligated to visit every cache they approve. There are many that do visit some caches prior to approval though. Again, they are volunteers and use their own time and money for this. They are not on Geocaching.com's payroll in any way, shape, or form. Sometimes the decision the Reviewer makes may be incorrect. Again, the great thing is that the Geocaching community does a pretty good job of policing itself in these matters. If a Geocacher finds that a placement may be unacceptable or could create undue stress for local authorities, the Cacher has the ability to contact the cache owner and the reviewer. If a resolution is not made there, the cacher can contact Geocaching.com directly for a definitive determination. I should also note that the events of 9/11 have made caches that were perfectly acceptable before that date now totally unacceptable. A sad sign of the times.

 

In conclusion, when we go Geocaching it is NEVER about the points. It is about getting out of the house, sometimes with our kids, and seeing new places, meeting new people, learning, getting some much needed exercise, and enjoying our time together. It is NEVER about the points and we don't think of Geocaching as a "game." It is a new and exciting experience everytime we set out!

 

I sincerely hope that the various legislators of SC that watch this forum have read this and I hope that this helps our fellow Geocachers in SC and any other state that may be thinking along the lines of SC. Good Luck! :o

Link to comment

Most communities want to promote their prestegious history and local landmarks as a way of keeping the past living into the newer generations. States like Wisconsin certainly have the right idea. As far as politics, our represenatives are suppose to represent the wishes of their voters. As voters we must communicate and educate our law makers on items that are important to us. In my community, members of city haul are dedicated cachers and have used local bronzes and virtual caches as a way of promoting the diverse heritage of our community. As geocachers, I would hope that we all share reverence and respect for all sites not just cementaries. Having friends on the police force, I helped educate them about geocaching so there is a less likely scenario of overreaction by zealous law enforcement officers.

 

I would hope that those of us that pursue geocaching are civic minded enough to bring our concerns to the law makers keeping the political barriers down so everyone can hear our voice. Involve others into geocaching as a way of sharing the fun. The more people that we can be pulled onboard will help geocaching to become more widely accpeted.

Link to comment
...The bill is still in senate sub-committee so it has not passed yet, but people like Greymane who take shots at Ceips is going to make it easier for them to pass it. ...

Meh. You could not be more wrong. It is people who are afraid to post anything for fear that someone in SC might read it that will cause this legislation to be passed. When a legislator is on the fence about an issue, he will likely not vote for it if he thinks that others will be seriously angered by his actions.

 

As I've posted before, Ceips is not your target. You will not sway how she votes. You must concentrate on those pols who don't believe that this is an important issue. When they see that you are fired up about it to the point of fighting to get them kicked out if they vote against you, they will consider voting against this bill.

 

Do not ask your fellow citizens to curb their dissatisfaction. It is not your place.

Link to comment

sbell111

 

It's great that folks up in Tennessee already know how South Carolina legislators are going to vote and what will influence those legislators in ongoing negotiations.

 

Being more naive down here, we have asked that the discourse on these forums be civil and not disintegrate into name-calling and bashing of individuals.

 

We probably based our erroneous ideas on the fact that the last round of forum discussions last May was DEFINITELY reflected in changes to the language of the bill on several occasions and in the tone of the meetings we were having with our legislators.

 

Thank you for straightening us out on this.

 

Jon

Edited by ikim & noj
Link to comment
I like cemetery caches. I find people and their lives to be facinating. I am respectful. I have been so moved I have openly wept at gravesites that cachers had brought me to.

 

And this is disrepectful how?

You like cemeteries and I like babbling brooks. And like you, I'm very respectful too. But how would you like it if I decided to hide a cache on your property next to your babbling brook without asking you first?

Link to comment

Personally, I would not mind if someone hid a cache next to my babbling brook. In fact, I'd probably enjoy the opportunity to meet all the local cachers!

 

However, as lenient as I am about having (respectful) people on my property, I do see how other landowners may be concerned with unknown visitors, which is why I ask permission for cache placement.

 

Just my $0.02

 

Happy Caching

Jeff

Link to comment

Unfortunately Legislators think their job is to make new laws to regulate everything under the sun. When a new thing, like Geocaching comes along, the state DNR's and other governmental types trample all over each other to make new policies to regulate it, mainly so they can exercize more power and control so they can feed their pathetic egoes, and spend more honest taxpayers' money hiring underlings to boss around to enforce their silly rules.

 

I wish these guys would REPEAL laws and policies instead of making more and more, piled on top of each other. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

South Carolina General Assembly

116th Session, 2005-2006

Download This Version in Microsoft Word format

 

Bill 3777

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)

 

A BILL

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-605 SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERMS "GEOCACHE", "GEOCACHING", AND "LETTERBOXING", TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN GEOCACHING OR LETTERBOXING IN CEMETERIES, ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, OR ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES OF THE STATE, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.

 

SECTION 1. Article 7, Chapter 17, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

 

"Section 16-17-605. (A) For the purposes of this section:

 

(1) 'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.

 

(2) 'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache.

 

(3) 'Letterboxing' means an activity similar to geocaching in which the participant takes directions and uses those directions to find a hidden object. The directions normally are in the form of a riddle, and the hidden object is a stamp that the participant uses to stamp a piece of paper to prove he has visited the site.

 

(B It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State, as defined in Section 60-12-10(4).

 

© A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

 

(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection ©, the judge, in his discretion, may order a person convicted of a violation of this section to perform up to one hundred hours of community service.

 

(E) The provisions of this section do not preclude a person from being charged with a violation of Section 16-17-600 in addition to a violation of this section."

 

SECTION 2. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

 

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

 

----XX----

 

This web page was last updated on March 15, 2005 at 6:15 PM

 

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2...77_20050315.htm

Link to comment
...Being more naive down here, we have asked that the discourse on these forums be civil and not disintegrate into name-calling and bashing of individuals....

Again we disagree. You see, if one of my elected representatives lied and twisted to get his/her way, I would shout it from the rooftopas until he/she was ousted from office. Apparently, you would rather just live with it and let them do whatever they want.

Link to comment
South Carolina General Assembly

116th Session, 2005-2006

Download This Version in Microsoft Word format

 

Bill 3777

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{outdated bill text snippy-snipped}

----XX----

 

This web page was last updated on March 15, 2005 at 6:15 PM

 

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2...77_20050315.htm

Tell me, exactly what purpose is served by posting the *original* bill text, prior to amendment and passage by the house, without explanation? The current version includes important concepts that resulted from the hard work done by South Carolina geocachers. One example is the concept of geocaches being present with permission.

Link to comment

My apologies. Here is the current version....

 

(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)

 

AMENDED

 

May 11, 2005

 

H. 3777

 

Introduced by Reps. Ceips, Loftis, Breeland, Scott, Whipper, Hosey, Vaughn, Anthony, Battle, Chalk, Clyburn, Dantzler, Hardwick, Harvin, Herbkersman, J. Hines, Howard, Jefferson, Kirsh, Lee, Martin, McCraw, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J.H. Neal, Perry, M.A. Pitts, Rivers, Scarborough, Simrill, Toole, Umphlett, Mahaffey and Bailey

 

S. Printed 5/11/05--H. [sEC 5/12/05 2:20 PM]

 

Read the first time March 15, 2005.

 

 

 

A BILL

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-605 SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERMS "GEOCACHE", "GEOCACHING", AND "LETTERBOXING", TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN GEOCACHING OR LETTERBOXING IN CEMETERIES, ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, OR ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES OF THE STATE, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.

 

Amend Title To Conform

 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

 

SECTION 1. Article 7, Chapter 17, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

 

"Section 16-17-605. (A) For the purposes of this section:

 

(1) 'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.

 

(2) 'Geocaching' means the activity of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device to locate the geocache or another specific location that contains information on the geocache.

 

(3) 'Letterboxing' means an activity similar to geocaching in which the participant takes directions and uses those directions to find a hidden object. The directions normally are in the form of a riddle, and the hidden object is a stamp that the participant uses to stamp a piece of paper to prove he has visited the site.

 

(:rolleyes: It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property.

 

© A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

 

(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection ©, the judge, in his discretion, may order a person convicted of a violation of this section to perform up to one hundred hours of community service.

 

(E) The provisions of this section do not preclude a person from being charged with a violation of Section 16-17-600 in addition to a violation of this section."

 

SECTION 2. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

 

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

 

----XX----

This web page was last updated on May 17, 2005 at 10:53 AM

 

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3777.htm

Link to comment
...Being more naive down here, we have asked that the discourse on these forums be civil and not disintegrate into name-calling and bashing of individuals....

Again we disagree. You see, if one of my elected representatives lied and twisted to get his/her way, I would shout it from the rooftopas until he/she was ousted from office. Apparently, you would rather just live with it and let them do whatever they want.

You seem to be have inside information that indicates we in South Carolina are doing nothing and have decided to "live with it". I wasn't aware that we were taking that approach. Again, I have to thank you for keeping me informed on what we in South Carolina are doing and have decided to do with our legislators and the proposed law.

 

I probably need a little help in understanding how shouting and calling the entire legislature names (as has been done on other threads here) helps us in working with those legislators. Still, based on your intimate knowledge and experience in South Carolina politics, if you think we should abandon our attempts to find common ground with all the stakeholders, I guess we had better reconsider our approach.

Edited by ikim & noj
Link to comment
...The bill is still in senate sub-committee so it has not passed yet, but people like Greymane who take shots at Ceips is going to make it easier for them to pass it. ...

Meh. You could not be more wrong. It is people who are afraid to post anything for fear that someone in SC might read it that will cause this legislation to be passed. When a legislator is on the fence about an issue, he will likely not vote for it if he thinks that others will be seriously angered by his actions.

 

As I've posted before, Ceips is not your target. You will not sway how she votes. You must concentrate on those pols who don't believe that this is an important issue. When they see that you are fired up about it to the point of fighting to get them kicked out if they vote against you, they will consider voting against this bill.

 

Do not ask your fellow citizens to curb their dissatisfaction. It is not your place.

We (SCGA Steering Committee) just had a meeting about all this today. We ask that all you folks be respectful when addressing this topic in the forums. Some things posted here have been taken out of context whether intentionally or unintentionally.

 

You are right, Mrs. Ceips is not our target. Our GOAL is to try to come to a fair and respectable middle ground on this matter.

 

Believe me, there will be a law passed. This has already been stated by one of the senators on the senate sub-committee looking this matter over.

 

ANY and ALL comments and jokes, in good taste or bad, funny or not, can and will be used against US. Not just me, Geoholic, or Jon and Miki, ALL OF US.

 

If this bill passes without a fair compromise in South Carolina, nothing stops another state from passing a law identical to the one that may pass here.

 

And we would help your state in any way we could so that you wouldn't have to go through what we are going through.

 

Some of you think we've been slacking off and are not ready for the months to come.

 

You couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

I spent my time in the Army and one thing I do hold dear is the freedoms that alot of men have fought and died for. One of those freedoms is freedom of speech. However as we all know that and any freedom can be abused. We wouldn't take that away from you. Just please watch what you say, the walls have ears.

 

If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, make sure they're out of the room. Here we can't make sure they are out of the room.

 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it."

 

I don't know who said that. But I believe in it. You can still get your point across without being destructive to the cause.

 

Respectfully,

 

X

Link to comment

Section 16-17-605. (A) It is unlawful for a person to engage in any gaming, sporting, or other recreational activity in a cemetery, burial grounds, or archeological site without the express written consent of the owner or the state agency which oversees these properties or sites.

 

(:rolleyes: A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

 

© Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (:unsure:, the judge, in his discretion, may order a person convicted of a violation of this section to perform up to one hundred hours of community service.

 

(D) The provisions of this section do not preclude a person from being charged with a violation of Section 16-17-600 in addition to a violation of this section."

SECTION 2. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber sections to conform.

Link to comment
You seem to be have inside information that indicates we in South Carolina are doing nothing and have decided to "live with it". <blah-blah-blah>

You are taking some license with my post. I did not say anything about what you may or may not have done locally. I am merely stating that you have no right to tell anyone that they cannot voice their displeasure.

Link to comment
...

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it."

 

I don't know who said that. But I believe in it. You can still get your point across without being destructive to the cause.

That was Voltaire. The actual quote was "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

In my opinion, another of his quotes is more fitting for the South Carolina issue: "Clever tyrants are never punished."

Link to comment

On the subject of cache placement, Geocaching.com's placement guidelines are very clear...

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

Caches on land maintained by the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain in notes to the reviewer section of the cache page. For example, if you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate it in the notes for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache.

 

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations. If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local reviewer for information on regulations. If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a ‘note to the reviewer’.

 

If the Geocaching.com web site is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be archived or disabled and you may be contacted with any information provided by the individual or organization who contacted us.

Link to comment
On the subject of cache placement, Geocaching.com's placement guidelines are very clear...

...and as far as I can tell none of the cache presented by Rep. Ceips violated any of these issues except maybe permission.

 

What constitutes "adequate permission" anyway? Explicit permission? Implied permission? Just what? Do you have to ask to every little thing on the property?

 

All else is moot except for the permission. We've already established, and she has admitted on the House floor, cachers have not been damaging anything, specifically cemeteries. So, the only issue she has left is permission and respect.

Link to comment
You seem to be have inside information that indicates we in South Carolina are doing nothing and have decided to "live with it".  <blah-blah-blah>

You are taking some license with my post. I did not say anything about what you may or may not have done locally. I am merely stating that you have no right to tell anyone that they cannot voice their displeasure.

Actually, I didn't see anyone "tell" anyone not to express their displeasure. Several folks have asked that folks maintain a civil discourse and avoid name calling on these forums.

 

No one has disputed your right to post your opinions, but it also seems to me that the folks working with the SC legislators on this bill have the same free speech right to ask folks to tone it down a bit as other posters have to shout their opinions from the roof tops.

 

I honestly do not believe that attacking the legislators, trying to oust them from office, etc. will mitigate the impact or slow the passage of the proposed bill. The bill will most likely be passed long before any of the legislators are up for election again.

 

I firmly believe that our best strategy is to work with the legislators to develop language that protects the legitimate interests of all stakeholders, including the cemetery custodians, other land managers, geocachers, and legislators. I think we are having some success with this approach.

 

The trash-talk here does make our task harder and reduces our chances for an acceptable outcome.

Link to comment

You might want to reread this thread. There has been some really off-point bashing of democrats and actors (when did we stop calling them actresses?), general expressions that politicians should stick to important matters, and specific comments regarding Ms. Ceips that mention that she has lied to the public and her fellow representatives. Since this point has been proven true, I don't how it can be called bashing.

 

What I've seen is that anytime someone posts about SC, they are shouted down. What's up with that?

 

By the way, you are wrong about it being pointless to work for their ousting. Politicians are always on the campaign trail. Believe me, if they see a swell of dissatisfaction, they will pay attention.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

In reading the Bill, the only sticking point I see is in the language of "B" the rest pretty much follows Geocaching Guidelines anyway. That section reads as follows...

 

"B" It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It is very clear as well on the point of "express written consent." The problem is in that the language itself is too broad. It implies that both the person placing a cache must obtain written permission of the land manager involved and also that a Geocacher hunting for the placed cache (after it has been approved through our Volunteer Reviewers) must also obtain written permission to look for the cache from the involved land manager.

 

This would create a situation where the land manager would either be totally unwilling to allow a cache due to the possibility of being "pestered" by numerous Geocachers who seek permission to look for the cache or the eventual Archiving of the cache if the land manager wasn't fully aware of the requirement.

 

Once a land manager has given written permission to place a cache on his/her property, that should automatically infer that the involved land manager has given permission for Geocachers looking for the cache access to his property in a limited manner without the need to contact him/her for permission to do so.

 

I propose a change to the language of section "B"...

 

"B" It is unlawful for a person engaged in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing to place a Cache in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property. In providing that written consent, the land manager understands that he/she will be providing limited access to the property to people engaged in the sport of Geocaching looking for the cache placed there. The land manager has the right at any time to contact the owner of the placed cache to report problems with the cache placement or request total removal of the cache. The land manager also has the right, in certain circumstances, to bring trespassing (or any other related charges) against anyone who has been found to not be performing Geocaching on his/her property or to Geocachers themselves who were clearly engaged in activities unrelated to Geocaching while on the property.

 

In reading SECTION 16-17-600. Destruction or desecration of human remains or repositories thereof; liability of crematory operators; penalties, this is standard fair when it comes to cemetaries and concerns willful damage or removal to graves and gravestones. It does not apply to the property that contains them. Ie. worn paths due to an increase of traffic to a certain area contained within the property. So this section should, in all reality, be a non-issue where Geocaching is involved.

 

As our friends from SC have pointed out numerous times, this is not about politics anymore. It is about a bill that WILL be passed in some form by their legislature. It is in our best interest as Geocachers throughout the United States (and the world for that matter) to put all of the politics aside and concentrate on the problem at hand with the language of the bill itself. As our friends in SC have stated, their bill may end up being a model for some other states. Lets all work on getting that impending legislation correctly worded so that it is clear and concise and covers all parties involved and provides a suitable outcome for all.

 

You will note that all of my posts have not mentioned anything at all about the underlying politics. I expect and hope that the rest of the Geocaching community that frequents these boards and watching this thread in particular, do their best to help them as I have attempted to do without the politics and off topic comments.

Link to comment

I think you're complicating it and just opening the bill to additional reasons to stop the caching entirely. Leave it as it is and just have the hider save a picture of the authorization on the cache web page. Then the finders can print it and take it with them when they hunt the cache.

Edited by Alan2
Link to comment
I think you're complicating it and just opening the bill to additional reasons to stop the caching entirely. Leave it as it is and just have the hider save a picture of the authorization on the cache web page. Then the finders can print it and take it with them when they hunt the cache.

No, I think it needs to be reworded. If I'm on vacation in SC, I'm not going to have my printer with me. My laptop, probably, but not a printer.

 

As it is, I've been watching this law with interest. I've been to SC several times though not recently. My husband and I have discussed going to Myrtle Beach during bike week but we need other things to do. We plan vacations with caching in mind. How else do you get to see the little known places and see cool things? Personally, I've been hanging around cemetaries since the 60s. I loved the quietness when I visited relatives in the city. I found reading headstones informative and many times gave me more questions than answers! Historical sites are always on my list of must see places. I love thinking of how it could have been. I guess that's why I have a BA in history.

 

If SC passes a law that truly restricts caching, it may be even longer before I revisit it. There are lots of cool places to see and visit that I haven't been to yet like St Augustine, FL. They have a bike week in FL too! Or Sturgis, SD or .........

 

Most places are looking for ways to encourage tourism and spending. I guess the economy in SC is much better than other places in the country.

 

Terri

Link to comment

First, I apologize for allowing my temper to cloud my comments.

 

Second, I, too, served my country, Clan X-Man. After seventeen years of active duty, I left for two reasons. 1) The needs of my children outweighed the needs of my country at that particular time. 2) I had reached a point where I was being asked to be more politician in my job than soldier (or, sailor, in this case).

 

Third, I have actively followed this debate from the onset. I have read the forums. I have listened to feeds the early discussions on the matter. I have written to both tourism groups and newspapers in SC (of course, clearly pointing out that I am NOT a resident, but a frequent traveller through those parts).

 

I clearly want what is best for SC, as well as the geocaching community. I just hope that your political leaders can see past their stoic chambers. I truly hope a few carefully presented quotes and law references (by the opposition) do not prevent the majority of your lawmakers from seeing the long term effects of this legislation.

Link to comment

Recently, my son became a resident of SC and will soon be a voter there :blink: When I was following this issue a few months ago, there were some SC pols who seemed to be willing to consider our position, and others who seemed to be politically grandstanding and inflexible. Could someone who was involved in the process list our friends and enemies in the SC statehouse? I would assume that Ms. Ceips is at the top of the enemies list?

Link to comment
"When I have a problem is when people visit someone's grave just to earn a point and a smiley face," said Rep. Catherine Ceips. "You still have to respect people's privacy."

 

I for one do live in SC and I think this quote is out of line. If you visit Charleston or Beaufort you can get a tour of the local cemeteries for a price. That's right, local tour companies have guides that take you on walking tours of the cemeteries for a fee. So you tell me if those companies are respecting anyones privacy? I don't think so. No they are earning a buck, not a smiley face. Just because Rep. Ceips doesn't like our sport doesn't mean we should be banned from cemeteries or other historical places.

Link to comment
That's right, local tour companies have guides that take you on walking tours of the cemeteries for a fee.

I can confirm that. I was in a cemetery on Hilton Head and a tour bus loaded with tourists pulled up and a guide gave them all a tour. I don't really have a problem with that ... the folks in the tour learned about the history of the people and the area ... as I learned by doing the geocache. Disrespect for the dead is to forget them.

 

But another old cemetery on Hilton Head has a condo built almost on top of it. I do have a problem with that ... but apparently the SC statehouse does not. I have seen similar construction near cemeteries here in Georgia. I am aware of this because of geocaching.

 

FWIW,

CharlieP

Link to comment

I have no problem with the tours of cemeteries either. I myself have taken a few of these tours. I learned quite a lot from them. SC is rich in Revolutionary and Civil war history.

My problem is when politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth. If big bussiness or industry wants something and has the infulence in the state house then it happens. However let a group of citizens engaging in a fun pastime ask for a little consideration and you know the answer to that one.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...