Jump to content

Caching Ban - SC Wildlife Management Areas and Heritage Preserves


gpsfun

Recommended Posts

In bill H3794 signed by the governor on June 2, 2009, the South Carolina General Assembly prohibited geocaching on all wildlife management areas, heritage preserves, and all other lands owned by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

 

The bill changed Section 50 11 2200 C and an excerpt is provided below. While the new language has not yet been added to the state's web site, it is the current law.

 

The door is open to the possibility of some future exceptions, and demonstrating adherence to the current regulation can smooth that path.

 

I am requesting anyone who has a cache in one of these areas to remove and archive it promptly. Since this message will not reach everyone, I am also asking anyone who becomes aware of caches in SC WMAs or Heritage Preserves to let me know confidentially so I may contact the cache owner.

 

There will be the question of why this was done. I don't know specifically, but I have heard from someone at SC DNR that members of their staff have found geocaches placed in sensitive areas on at least three Heritage Preserves.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

-Brad / gpsfun

Groundspeak volunteer reviewer for South Carolina

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpt from the bill:

 

Section 50 11 2200 C

 

C The following acts or conduct are prohibited and shall be unlawful on all wildlife management areas, heritage preserves, and all other lands owned by the department; provided, however, the department may promulgate regulations allowing any of the acts or conduct by prescribing acceptable times, locations, means, and other appropriate restrictions not inconsistent with the protection, preservation, operation, maintenance, and use of such lands:

...

(30) geocaching;

...

 

(E) A person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than twenty five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both.

 

edit: restored C instead of © to document

Edited by gpsfun
Link to comment

ok just letting everyone know i did not write this just a copy and paste i will try and g rate it the best i can

 

"YOU DON'T SPANK ALL THE PUPPIES WHEN ONE OF THEM craps THE BED!!"

 

Based on the article members of the SC DNR staff have found geocaches placed in sensitive areas on at least three Heritage Preserves. So based on a few geocaches in the wrong places, the SC DNR decides to have a knee-jerk reaction and ban geocaching in all state parks and land. BRILLIANT Idea Idiots! You already whine about funding and services and now you take an entire group of people who love to be in parks and the outdoors, and pay parking fees to do so, and tell them that they (and their money) aren't welcome anymore. Next year when State Park revenues are down and you're scratching your collective heads trying to figure out where the money went, just remember you brought this upon yourselves.

 

Its not like people that place geocaches are anonymous. Contact information for EVERY cache owner is documented on geocaching.com and easily accessible. Creating an account is FREE, easy, and just in case figuring out how to compose and send an email is beyond your technical abilities, there is a neat "Send Message" feature built right into the site on every users Profile page. Its that easy. Hell, all a state official has to do is contact Groundspeak and request that the caches be removed and no more allowed in certain areas and that request would be honored. Approvers would be informed of the No Caching zones and no further cache approvals would be granted. Its that freaking simple. No law required. No time wasted legislating what could be EASILY controlled without wasting tax payers money and representatives time crafting an unnecessary law.

 

Don't you have better things to be doing with your time and tax money?

 

How about fixing your roads! Every time I pass through your state its like driving on 1800's cobblestone streets. Sheez, how hard is it to pour smooth roads???

 

got this from another geocacher just thought it was well put

Link to comment

Wait.

 

We are directly impacted by the SC DNR action. We had a cache in a heritage preserve - placed with specific permission by the Heritage Preserve Manager in a location he designated for us. He selected that location because it would not impact any sensitive areas and was compatible with all uses of the preserve. We gave interim coordinates to ensure cachers stayed on the trail to GZ and we provided a clear hint so minimal searching would be involved at the final location.

 

We believe we did everything right and our cache still had to be archived because of this legislation.

 

But you can't just blame SC DNR and expect them and other state agencies to go to extra efforts because of geocaching. We all know that getting proper permission is a chronic geocaching problem. And even if someone properly places a geocache, that's not the end of the issue. Some geocachers will not respect the words of caution on a cache page. Some geocachers will bushwack when trails are clearly marked. Somehow, caches will "migrate" from their original location and may end up in a sensitive area.

 

It's extremely disappointing that SC DNR chose a legislative path rather than working with the caching community and allowing flexibility, but if they did find inappropriate caches or sensitive areas damaged by caching then the caching community had a role too. Some of our very favorite caches are those that brought us to these heritage preserves throughout the state and it is sad that future cachers will not have this opportunity. It is our understanding that this legislation applies only to SC DNR managed lands, which do not include state parks. We can only hope this does not extend to state parks.

Link to comment

ok just letting everyone know i did not write this just a copy and paste i will try and g rate it the best i can

 

"YOU DON'T SPANK ALL THE PUPPIES WHEN ONE OF THEM craps THE BED!!"

 

Based on the article members of the SC DNR staff have found geocaches placed in sensitive areas on at least three Heritage Preserves. So based on a few geocaches in the wrong places, the SC DNR decides to have a knee-jerk reaction and ban geocaching in all state parks and land. BRILLIANT Idea Idiots! You already whine about funding and services and now you take an entire group of people who love to be in parks and the outdoors, and pay parking fees to do so, and tell them that they (and their money) aren't welcome anymore. Next year when State Park revenues are down and you're scratching your collective heads trying to figure out where the money went, just remember you brought this upon yourselves.

 

Its not like people that place geocaches are anonymous. Contact information for EVERY cache owner is documented on geocaching.com and easily accessible. Creating an account is FREE, easy, and just in case figuring out how to compose and send an email is beyond your technical abilities, there is a neat "Send Message" feature built right into the site on every users Profile page. Its that easy. Hell, all a state official has to do is contact Groundspeak and request that the caches be removed and no more allowed in certain areas and that request would be honored. Approvers would be informed of the No Caching zones and no further cache approvals would be granted. Its that freaking simple. No law required. No time wasted legislating what could be EASILY controlled without wasting tax payers money and representatives time crafting an unnecessary law.

 

Don't you have better things to be doing with your time and tax money?

 

How about fixing your roads! Every time I pass through your state its like driving on 1800's cobblestone streets. Sheez, how hard is it to pour smooth roads???

 

got this from another geocacher just thought it was well put

 

Just thought I would chime in here for a second. I know for a fact that the caches in state parks are not banned

, at least not in this area. Some cachers here in the Lancaster SC area when they heard of this contacted the rangers in those parks in this area that have caches and they are still being allowed in those particular parks so you might want to get your facts correct. There are caches in Andrew Jackson, Landsford Canal, and also Hanging Rock that have all been approved by the appropriate rangers in those specific parks.

 

As far as roads go, well I'm from Maine originally and you ought to go there if you think the roads are bad here. :blink:

Link to comment

I would like to share what I posted on the

USCGA forums with y'all. It was in response to a question whether Earthcaches

were included in this latest bill. The following is my opinion, only!

 

The regulation only seems to address the placing of geocaches, but doesn't

specify whether Earthcaches are to be included. Honestly, I'm not sure if many

in SCDNR know the difference. We all know that an Earthcache doesn't physically

have a container left behind, so I can't imagine that they would be included.

However, I also can't understand why "hiking" was listed as a prohibited act. I

honestly don't think that "hiking" is truly illegal, but admit that there are

some habitat that probably has been or could be damaged by foot-traffic. I am

sure that those pieces of land are in the minority in the grand scheme of

things.

 

It was suggested to me, and I pass along the same advice: Contact the local

specific steward over the property. For example, in Spartanburg there are caches

placed with permission of the local land management, the folks that actually

maintain the property. While they may get support some from SCDNR, and the DNR

may have signage up that states that it is their property, it is, in fact, the

property belonging to a local landowner who has given easement rights to protect

it from future development.

 

The bill has left open the door for local adjustments, or changes to the

regulations.

 

Currently, a letter is being drafted requesting that a possible solution to this

issue could be to establish a permit-type system, such as the one in place for

SC State Parks.

 

SC State Park Geocache Rules]SC State Park Geocache rules

 

The success of this system could be a good example and also show our shared

commitment to the good of the land. Commenting about our commitment to CITO and

using Leave-no-trace ideals to other geocachers, as well as friends and family

couldn't hurt, either.

 

Once this has been completed, I'll submit it here for evaluation, editing and

adjustment to your own particular needs.

 

This isn't the end of the world, but an opportunity for us and geocachers to

show our commitment to being good stewards and to show our desire to work with

the SCDNR to achieve a common goal.

Edited by Hockeyhick
Link to comment

Just want to reiterate - we had explicit permission from the SC DNR Heritage Preserve Manager for placement of our cache - in a location he chose for what appeared to be all the right reasons - and it still had to be archived due to this rule change. He said he was not in a position to overrule the new law.

 

But there is not much value being upset about the past. Hockeyhick's approach is correct, to focus on making the future better.

Link to comment

Actually ... the posted portions of the SC bill have been incomplete. Among other things, the bill also outlaws hiking (but makes no mention of letterboxing, terracaching,etc.). Go figure. :(

 

The full text of the law can be found here. Note the phrase "... however, the department may promulgate regulations allowing any of the acts or conduct by prescribing acceptable times, locations, means, and other appropriate restrictions not inconsistent with the protection, preservation, operation, maintenance, and use of such lands ..." My read is geocaching and hiking are fine as long as you have permission. After all, why have a "Heritage Preserve" folks can't walk in and enjoy? As for "Wildlife Preserves," that's a different story. In our home state of Alabama, physical caches in wildlife preserves are also frowned upon (unsure however if it's the law or local thinking??).

 

As for ensuring adequate permission, policing ourselves, etc., let's just say that system is broke.

 

M

Link to comment

I am surprised that everyone is so shocked! This has been in the works for years. I have been trying to work with one SCDNR Land Manager for at least 3 years and did everything to please him in concerns to removing caches from his managed properties. Did he respond in kind and try to work with me? NO. Will I give up and not continue trying to get a policy set up so that we may cache on these lands? NO.

 

DNR EMAIL CONTACT LIST

 

The link above is what it says. Start contacting folks pleading our case.

 

I am going with Earthcaching as a happy medium. Nothing left on their lands except footprints and nothing taken except memories. As far as the system being broken, we are the only ones who can fix it.

Link to comment

Earthcaches aren't the answer considering hiking is prohibited. You can't get to the earthcache unless there are trails provided. Then it might as well be a waymark.

 

Considering the last version with changes shown they lumped two different types of managed lands together. WMA and Heritage Trust lands are two different types of lands with two different focuses.

 

I'd say the vast majority of WMA lands is not owned by the DNR. These are lands owned by private persons, organizations, and businesses. The land is there specifically for recreation, yet because it's part of the DNR's WMA program they all of a sudden can tell folks--other that the owner themselves--what they can and can't do. Now, the (non)permission we have from Westvaco and other folks who actually own lands that is part of the Palmetto Trail is tossed out the window simply because it is also part of the WMA program.

 

It also seems to duplicate some laws that are already on the books. Don't shoot game out of season? Really? We needed another law for that? Don't trespass? Don't vandalize? No indecent exposure?

 

Oh, and don't take your geodogs into any WMA, HP, or other DNR owned lands without explicit permission.

 

I really liked the Governor until the latest shenanigans. I liked his (presumed) conservativeness and frugality. I guess this is what we get with a distracted governor and legislature. This is a bad law, pure and simple.

 

EDIT: But then again, a lot of the prohibited activities have been on the books for a long time without much of an issue. I also notice they changed the possession of alcohol to the consumption of, or possession of an open container, of alcohol. Can't have our rednecks not have their coolers full of beer being barred from areas where firearms are expected. :(

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

I think the best thing we can do right now is not be so re-active but be pro-active. Having CITO's where we can and working closely with all the land managers if they have a problem with any caches that are placed on any of the WMA or Heritage Preserve lands. I think working closely with them will instill a confidence that we can be good stewards of the these lands. If you have a cache on either of these,just go ahead and archive it and get together with the proper forces to work with them and ensure that you are doing the correct thing. I think if we get re-active with them then that will only instill more bad feelings and make things much harder. All it takes is one bad apple to spoil the barrel and apparently that is what has happened. Let's all try to work together on this issue and make caching fun, the original intent. Oh and one other thing,make sure you get explicit permission to hide your cache wherever it may be. Just my thoughts, if I am offbase just let me know, I've got broad shoulders. :(

Edited by Haffy
Link to comment

I agree with Haffy on this one. (And only this one! :( ) Everyone is going to have their version of what should be done. My version will be Earthcaching. It has been mentioned by several of the folks from DNR as an alternative to Geocaching. They see them as separate sports. Terracaching and any other variation is looked upon as geocaching. It won't do to try to cover up illicit activity by calling it something else and would only hurt us as a group in the long run. We're just trying to get our ducks in a row in the Kershaw/Lancaster area.

Link to comment

If this would happen here in Maine, I would go directly to te source. The person that submitted the bill must have reasons. That's where I would start.

 

Then I would go to my representatives and find out how to change things. I have been involved with this process a few times and you might be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.

Link to comment

Wait.

 

We are directly impacted by the SC DNR action. We had a cache in a heritage preserve - placed with specific permission by the Heritage Preserve Manager in a location he designated for us. He selected that location because it would not impact any sensitive areas and was compatible with all uses of the preserve. We gave interim coordinates to ensure cachers stayed on the trail to GZ and we provided a clear hint so minimal searching would be involved at the final location.

 

We believe we did everything right and our cache still had to be archived because of this legislation.

 

But you can't just blame SC DNR and expect them and other state agencies to go to extra efforts because of geocaching. We all know that getting proper permission is a chronic geocaching problem. And even if someone properly places a geocache, that's not the end of the issue. Some geocachers will not respect the words of caution on a cache page. Some geocachers will bushwack when trails are clearly marked. Somehow, caches will "migrate" from their original location and may end up in a sensitive area.

 

It's extremely disappointing that SC DNR chose a legislative path rather than working with the caching community and allowing flexibility, but if they did find inappropriate caches or sensitive areas damaged by caching then the caching community had a role too. Some of our very favorite caches are those that brought us to these heritage preserves throughout the state and it is sad that future cachers will not have this opportunity. It is our understanding that this legislation applies only to SC DNR managed lands, which do not include state parks. We can only hope this does not extend to state parks.

The Legilsation allows caches as noted below:

 

the department may promulgate regulations allowing any of the acts or conduct by prescribing acceptable times, locations, means, and other appropriate restrictions not inconsistent with the protection, preservation, operation, maintenance, and use of such lands:

 

The main probelm I have with a lot of forum members and ignorant types is the simple concept that casual recreational activities are encouraged by the very existance of most parks, open space, preserves, and undesignated lands. At the same time this bill was introduced, there were even more people no doubt working on means and methods to get the increasingly fat population off the couch and participating in casual recreation if not outright sweat inducing recreation.

 

The only thing that sets caching apart from other forms of casual recreation is the box. They didn't solve any probelems with the bill but a lot of folks can feel better by having made the world a little worse off for their efforts.

Link to comment

I am surprised that everyone is so shocked! This has been in the works for years. I have been trying to work with one SCDNR Land Manager for at least 3 years and did everything to please him in concerns to removing caches from his managed properties. Did he respond in kind and try to work with me? NO. Will I give up and not continue trying to get a policy set up so that we may cache on these lands? NO.

 

DNR EMAIL CONTACT LIST

 

The link above is what it says. Start contacting folks pleading our case.

 

I am going with Earthcaching as a happy medium. Nothing left on their lands except footprints and nothing taken except memories. As far as the system being broken, we are the only ones who can fix it.

 

If they don't want to play ball on caching as a compatiable recreational activity that works on their land and thus make the land less valuable to the public, no reason you all can't lobby to convert the land to open space and save the administration costs as a budget saving measure.

Link to comment

Hiking is allowed under current SCDNR regulation...

 

R123-203 C, Hiking is allowed subject to the following restrictions or conditions:

 

(1) Hiking is not allowed on any restricted lands or areas. The Department may post or place signs declaring any area closed to hiking;

 

(2) The use of all designated hiking trails, except for posted multi-use trails is restricted solely to foot travel and the legitimate activities associated with the pursuit of hiking;

Edited by wkhaz
Link to comment

Please post the link to your info...

 

Here are part of the regulations... http://www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/c123.htm

 

Wished you could have been a little more specific on the rules regarding hiking and geocaching on WMA and Heritage preserves as this is what we were concerned with. It takes forever to track down any specific rules looking through all that garbage.

 

"Hiking" means traversing the lands subject to this regulation by foot for the purpose of pleasure or exercise, except traversing in connection with any other activity regulated by this regulation.

C. Hiking is allowed subject to the following restrictions or conditions:

 

(1) Hiking is not allowed on any restricted lands or areas. The Department may post or place signs declaring any area closed to hiking;

 

(2) The use of all designated hiking trails, except for posted multi-use trails is restricted solely to foot travel and the legitimate activities associated with the pursuit of hiking;

 

I found that with Firefox search. There is no mention of geocaching in that posted link.

Link to comment

Wished you could have been a little more specific on the rules regarding hiking and geocaching on WMA and Heritage preserves as this is what we were concerned with. It takes forever to track down any specific rules looking through all that garbage.

 

:o They wanted a link to the regulations and I gave it. My original post already had the SPECIFIC regulation regarding hiking. DNR has no regulations on GEOCACHING.

 

You should learn how to utilize the SEARCH/FIND capabilities of your web browser. That is how I was able to find the specific parts of the regulations that I was looking for when I opened the regulation. Since I was asked to provide the link to the regulations, I thought that what was needed. In the future will PM the person needing assistance and supply him/her with the requested information.

 

If you think the rules and regulations are "garbage", maybe you should complain to your elected official and have the regulations changed.

 

Sorry for the rant, but I was just trying to provide the information. I guess it was information overload for some. Just be glad I did not provide the link to ALL of the SCDNR regulations! :anibad:

Link to comment

 

Sorry for the rant, but I was just trying to provide the information. I guess it was information overload for some. Just be glad I did not provide the link to ALL of the SCDNR regulations! :anibad:

 

Thanks I appreciate that!!! :o

 

By the way did you find anything out regarding earthcaches as being banned as well? I see you have an earthcache on the Peachtree Heritage Preserve as well.

Edited by Haffy
Link to comment

 

:anibad: They wanted a link to the regulations and I gave it. My original post already had the SPECIFIC regulation regarding hiking. DNR has no regulations on GEOCACHING.

 

The title of the linked document contains this important line:

Current through State Register Volume 32, Issue 9, effective September 26, 2008.

 

Please reference the original post in this topic where the newly enacted legislation is referenced:

In bill H3794 signed by the governor on June 2, 2009, the South Carolina General Assembly prohibited geocaching on all wildlife management areas, heritage preserves, and all other lands owned by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

 

An extract from the revised regulation is provided for convenience.

Link to comment

 

:) They wanted a link to the regulations and I gave it. My original post already had the SPECIFIC regulation regarding hiking. DNR has no regulations on GEOCACHING.

 

The title of the linked document contains this important line:

Current through State Register Volume 32, Issue 9, effective September 26, 2008.

 

Please reference the original post in this topic where the newly enacted legislation is referenced:

In bill H3794 signed by the governor on June 2, 2009, the South Carolina General Assembly prohibited geocaching on all wildlife management areas, heritage preserves, and all other lands owned by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

 

An extract from the revised regulation is provided for convenience.

 

Thanks Brad,and by the way do you have a number as to how many caches had to be archived because of this new ruling? Just a round number would suffice. And how has everyones reaction been to this and are you getting any flack from the cachers? I know you are just doing your job and we all appreciate it too.

Link to comment

I have been working with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) regarding EarthCaches and Geocaches on the Peachtree Rock Reserve (PTR).

 

This is, in part, what I have received from TNC:

 

"Thanks for this information. I discussed this with Brett Moule, SCDNR, who co-manages the site with TNC. He is actually working on the language for SCDNR to define "geocache" and "earthcache". We both agreed that earthcaching is a nice educational opportunity for the public. Our only concern is that it may promote folks to consider geocaching in the same location (some of the comments on the site made reference to this). If you could include a statement on your PTR Earthcache site: "Please note that geocaching is prohibited at PTR due to the sensitive plant communities and geologic formations. No digging or hiding of cache boxes is allowed." We appreciate the statement you made about not climbing on the PTR as well.

 

You can continue using PTR as an EarthCache site."

 

I have updated my PTR Earthcache description to reflect the recommendation by TNC. The SCDNR point-of-contact mentioned by TNC is:

 

Brett M. Moule

Region 3 Heritage Preserve Manager

S.C. Dept of Natural Resources

2730 Fish Hatchery Road

West Columbia, SC 29172

803-755-2834 Office

803-755-0617 Fax

MouleB@dnr.sc.gov

Link to comment

I have been working with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) regarding EarthCaches and Geocaches on the Peachtree Rock Reserve (PTR).

 

This is, in part, what I have received from TNC:

 

"Thanks for this information. I discussed this with Brett Moule, SCDNR, who co-manages the site with TNC. He is actually working on the language for SCDNR to define "geocache" and "earthcache". We both agreed that earthcaching is a nice educational opportunity for the public. Our only concern is that it may promote folks to consider geocaching in the same location (some of the comments on the site made reference to this). If you could include a statement on your PTR Earthcache site: "Please note that geocaching is prohibited at PTR due to the sensitive plant communities and geologic formations. No digging or hiding of cache boxes is allowed." We appreciate the statement you made about not climbing on the PTR as well.

 

You can continue using PTR as an EarthCache site."

 

I have updated my PTR Earthcache description to reflect the recommendation by TNC. The SCDNR point-of-contact mentioned by TNC is:

 

Brett M. Moule

Region 3 Heritage Preserve Manager

S.C. Dept of Natural Resources

2730 Fish Hatchery Road

West Columbia, SC 29172

803-755-2834 Office

803-755-0617 Fax

MouleB@dnr.sc.gov

 

That's great news!!! It's good to at least hear that they are receptive to earthcaches at least in this preserve and hopefully we now have a precedant that will allow other earthcaches in the preserves and WMA's to be allowed in the future. Thanks for all your hard work.

Link to comment

...and we go down the same road as "If virtual caches are good enough..."

 

Good job, guys. :laughing:

 

My glass is at least half full...what is yours? :laughing:

Half full? Really? A couple of Earthcaches compared to how many real caches you just threw under the bus? You not remember the whole argument of why virtual caches had to go away? Why virtuals would not be coming back no matter how hard it is to get a cache on NPS land or outright prohibited in USF&W lands? It is exact situations like this.

 

Yeah, I guess as long as you get yours, nothing else matters.

 

That's great news!!! It's good to at least hear that they are receptive to earthcaches at least in this preserve and hopefully we now have a precedant that will allow other earthcaches in the preserves and WMA's to be allowed in the future. Thanks for all your hard work.

Yeah, great news that you've pretty much told the authorities that Earthcaches are every bit as good as real caches. Ya'll just made it harder for the rest of us to convince them to allow physical caches. Yeah, thanks for looking at the bigger picture and your fellow cacher.

 

Yeah, also thanks to Groundspeak for bringing Earthcaches back to the real geocaching side. Nice set up for a situation like this. :laughing:

Link to comment
Half full? Really? A couple of Earthcaches compared to how many real caches you just threw under the bus? You not remember the whole argument of why virtual caches had to go away? Why virtuals would not be coming back no matter how hard it is to get a cache on NPS land or outright prohibited in USF&W lands? It is exact situations like this.

 

Yeah, I guess as long as you get yours, nothing else matters.

 

We DID NOT "throw" anything under the bus.

 

We are lucky that ANY caches are allowed. SCDNR and TNC are concerned (and rightfully so) about protecting endangered plants that have been trampled and other damages done by folks going off-trail after physical caches. It's just a "no brainer" to stay on the marked trails and comply with all of the rules and regulations regarding sensitive areas that are being protected.

 

I for one, make sure that I have received authorization from the landowner prior to placing a cache of any type. I don't know if the owners of any physical geocache placed inside this or any other Heritage Trust Site received permission from the landowners before the cache was listed.

 

It is up to all of us to make sure we comply with the Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines and be good representatives of our sport.

Edited by wkhaz
Link to comment

<snip>

 

I for one, make sure that I have received authorization from the landowner prior to placing a cache of any type. I don't know if the owners of any physical geocache placed inside this or any other Heritage Trust Site received permission from the landowners before the cache was listed.

 

 

Please go back and re-read post#3. The person who originally gave us permission to place our physical cache at the Ditch Pond Preserve was the same person you have contacted regarding Peachtree.

 

We know other cases where permission was received. As we tried to say before, the fault is not always with the cache owner - in at least one case the cache kept migrating from its approved location into more sensitive areas.

 

Personally we too wondered if permission had been received to place the recent caches at the TNC Peachtree Preserve. We did not seek those micros and don't know the details. Your efforts to work cooperatively with TNC/SCDNR to repair any damage that might have been caused in that case are commendable.

Link to comment

...and we go down the same road as "If virtual caches are good enough..."

 

Good job, guys. <_<

 

My glass is at least half full...what is yours? :D

Half full? Really? A couple of Earthcaches compared to how many real caches you just threw under the bus? You not remember the whole argument of why virtual caches had to go away? Why virtuals would not be coming back no matter how hard it is to get a cache on NPS land or outright prohibited in USF&W lands? It is exact situations like this.

 

Yeah, I guess as long as you get yours, nothing else matters.

 

That's great news!!! It's good to at least hear that they are receptive to earthcaches at least in this preserve and hopefully we now have a precedant that will allow other earthcaches in the preserves and WMA's to be allowed in the future. Thanks for all your hard work.

Yeah, great news that you've pretty much told the authorities that Earthcaches are every bit as good as real caches. Ya'll just made it harder for the rest of us to convince them to allow physical caches. Yeah, thanks for looking at the bigger picture and your fellow cacher.

 

Yeah, also thanks to Groundspeak for bringing Earthcaches back to the real geocaching side. Nice set up for a situation like this. :o

 

CR, I respect your opinion and know that you must be pretty pissed about the ruling as am I. If I had placed some caches and was told I would have to archive them I would feel the same way. I haven't lived here in this state very long so forgive me if I sounded like I like the ban and that is so far from the truth.

 

My only feeling is that since we have to abide by the ban then I think that earth caches are at least a partial compromise to visiting areas that we normally wouldn't go to were it not for caching. For me personally it's not the container or the swag that I cache for. I mean how many caches nowadays have anything at all left by the time they are pilfered of any good swag at all. For me personally it is the adventure in getting to that special place that the CO has brought me there to in the 1st place.

 

I never once said earthcaches are everybit as good as a regular caches but in the meantime I think we have to respect the law and work on getting it changed if that is what is needed. I wonder how many of your elected officials have seen any of this topic. I doubt they even halfway know what geocaching is about. I can say that it was probably one or more careless geocachers who didn't get the proper permission and other cachers looking for the cache and trampled some sensitive areas that brought about the ban to begin with. We all must take the proper precautions when hiding caches. Like I said in a previous post ,all it takes is one bad apple to spoil it for the rest of us. Unforunately if was probably only 1 or 2 cachers who caused this to happen. :anibad:

Link to comment

Here's my major problem with the legislation as I've mentioned before. A preserve is a lot different than WMA land. A preserve is just that. Regardless, we've gotten permission for caches in areas where there are sensitive areas. All one has to do is talk to manage and ask where the less sensitive areas are. My experience is management loves to have visitors especially when it doesn't cause any problems. Sure, some bureaucracy gets in the way. In the thread about how to get permission I mention not talking about the full description of geocaching right off because it can makes some folks balk. This exact thing happens when the idea of geocaching goes up the chain of command. Still, at least two parks with highly sensitive areas--sensitive plant life, dangerous snake infestation, and archeologically sensitive areas--we've been able get permission because we approached management and they told where and what we could do.

 

WMA lands on the other hand generally don't have anything sensitive. A lot of the Francis Marion forest is timber land! It's owned by both timber and paper companies. Some is owned by the US Forestry, the rest is mostly private. The purpose? Recreation! The Palmetto Trail passes through. The whole idea of the WMA (Wildlife Management Area) is hunting. There's very little "sensitive" about WMA lands when considered solely as part of the WMA program.

 

Here's the major problem with trying to substitute Earthcaches, or any virtual for that matter, the opportunities are so much more limited than with physical caches. There are more things out that are interesting than some earth formation. If you're only into caching for the balancing rock or weird waterfall, then you're missing out. I got into it because of the broad range of things to see. When virtuals started to fail to entertain me I started to filter them out. I filter out Earthcaches as they don't thrill either. I don't care to be "taught" anything either.

 

Here's the problem. If only Earthcaches were allowed in preserves that had formations that fit the criteria of a earthcache, then that's all well and fine. What about preserves that don't have such an educational opportunity, yet are still very interesting in their own right? Preserves are there for more than earth formations. What about wildlife? Or simply a neat hike? A neat place to visit? Just how many Carolina Bays can you visit?

 

By setting the precedent that earthcaches are an acceptable alternative to real caches, then it makes it that much harder for the rest of us to stand in front of someone and argue that they're not as good as a physical cache or there's not an acceptable location on their property for one. Sometimes the box is the goal with the journey making it worth it.

Link to comment
We are lucky that ANY caches are allowed.

Earthcaches aren't caches no more than virtualcaches are. Any virtual cache is just a waypoint. An earthcache is nothign more than a waypoint with an educational element on a very limited subject.

 

SCDNR and TNC are concerned (and rightfully so) about protecting endangered plants that have been trampled and other damages done by folks going off-trail after physical caches.

If that's all they were concerned about then why prohibit geocaching outright? Notice the language of some of the other activities. They included "...by permit." Where's that language on geocaches? It's not there.

 

Additionally, as I've mentioned they've included lands that have little to no sensitive plants or wildlife. It's not just preserves, but WMA lands, too.

 

By going in front of someone and saying, "oh, oh, can I have earthcaches? They don't hurt the land. We eartcachers aren't like those mean old real cachers. You can trust us. You can't trust them! Oh, can I, can I, can I?" yes, I see it as exactly that. You threw us who enjoy real caches under the bus. You've set a precedence with a park to only allow earthcaches. By setting that precedence it makes it easier for other parks to accept their decision and do the same thing. Now managers of the WMA lands will look at that and make the easy decision. Never mind there's no sensitive plants, the trees are going to be cut down for timber or paper, hunters trample through the lands and take game, etc., etc. but geocachers can't put out a real cache, because earthcaches are every bit as good.

Link to comment

By going in front of someone and saying, "oh, oh, can I have earthcaches? They don't hurt the land. We eartcachers aren't like those mean old real cachers. You can trust us. You can't trust them! Oh, can I, can I, can I?"

 

There is no reason to take it to that level CR. If you don't think that people who enjoy Earthcaches aren't real cachers you have a very narrow view of the sport.

Link to comment

CR, there is no reason to get so pissy. As TNC informed me, SCDNR is working on language (rules, etc. I assume) for geocaching. Just like thy had to do for hiking, mining, hunting, and all other "permitted" activities on WMA.

 

Instead of getting so bent out of shape, why don't you contact the person (see previous post for information) working on this with SCDNR and offer some helpful guidance and/or suggestions. If they are in the rule development stages for this new activity, why not help mold the rules so they benefit everyone. I know I am.

 

They had to do the same thing for HIKING in WMA. They had to start somewhere to develop the rule/regulation.

 

Example... R123-201 "Hiking" means traversing the lands subject to this regulation by foot for the purpose of pleasure or exercise, except traversing in connection with any other activity regulated by this regulation.

 

R123-203 C. Hiking is allowed subject to the following restrictions or conditions:

 

(1) Hiking is not allowed on any restricted lands or areas. The Department may post or place signs declaring any area closed to hiking;

 

(2) The use of all designated hiking trails, except for posted multi-use trails is restricted solely to foot travel and the legitimate activities associated with the pursuit of hiking;

 

See, that's not so bad. Is it? It allows you to hike on WMA. Now let's help them with the NEW rule/regulation to allow ALL GEOCACHING within reasonable limits on the land they own/manage.

 

And yes, I only have about 165 finds. Only four of those were EarthCaches. You have found well over 800 caches, NONE have been EarthCaches. I don't put you down because you don't like EarthCaches. Just because you don't want to log an EarthCache doesn't make ME less of a geocacher. It's a sport enjoyed by all of us so let's make it work for all of us. Please.

Edited by wkhaz
Link to comment
And yes, I only have about 165 finds. Only four of those were EarthCaches. You have found well over 800 caches, NONE have been EarthCaches. I don't put you down because you don't like EarthCaches. Just because you don't want to log an EarthCache doesn't make ME less of a geocacher. It's a sport enjoyed by all of us so let's make it work for all of us. Please.

Well said. Thank you.

Link to comment

Whatever. I can only go with the information at hand.

 

I've sent out an email to the contact provided.

 

Yes, I have a narrow view of what geocaching really is. That doesn't mean I'm narrow-minded. I understand the conceptual differences of virtual versus physical caches. I'm a firm believer that any virtual "cache" is not really a cache. Period. Just tacking on "cache" on the end of something doesn't make it a cache. It was a mistake for Groundspeak to grandfather virtuals and to bring ECs back to this side.

 

I guess now we're going to just see how it plays out.

 

Here's the thing, if you have any chance of having real caches on DNR controlled lands we all have to stand firm on notion any type of virtual cache is not as good as a physical cache. An EC is an option only in areas where there is no place a physical cache can be deployed and there's something to qualifies and an EC. Like I've said before, I've placed physical caches in parks where there are sensitive areas, because I talked to the management and got permission to place them in an area that was not sensitive. Even in one park where you can't go off trail. The cache was right next to the trail and lasted a long time. It's not hard to place a physical cache on lands that have sensitive areas if you coordinate with the people who know the land the best.

 

You also have remember that the section refers to WMA lands which is vastly different than preserves. WMA might not even be owned by DNR. Land owner permission should trump DNR permission.

Link to comment

:signalviolin: There is a lot we can do.

You can contact the govenors office and complain.

You can also write your congressmen and house reps.

You can also contact the DNR to voice your great displeasure.

You can write an editorial to the local and state newspapers.

You can contact the local mayors office and ask them to put pressure on the govenor to repeal the bill.

 

I am outraged at yet another slap in the face by the very people we put into office.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

 

I have kept quiet long enough.

Link to comment
There are people working on this in the background in a mutually respectful manner, which has the most potential for positive results.

 

The torches and pitchforks approach will guarantee negative results.

 

It will be best for us to choose carefully.

I'm curious as to what is being worked on. Before, when geocaching was nearly banned in SC the process was fairly transparent. Now, it seems like it is behind closed doors. I've emailed the person mentioned before about some information and relayed my involvement in the previous movement. Crickets.

 

Now I get wind of a new requirement for Palmetto Trail caches.

We encourage and welcome Geocaching along the trail with the following request;

 

1. That geocachers contact Palmetto Conservation Foundation (MS Nancy Collum-Stone) at 803-771-0870 with a request for permission to locate a cache site (I believe this is one of the requirements of Geocaching.COM). MS Stone then contacts one of the various trail maintainers and we arrange to meet the Geocacher to approve the location.

2. That the hider agrees to visit the site every other month to maintain the location and to insure that the site is not over used.

3. Geo-Caching Litter is not allowed. We have had a real problem with Geocachers littering the trail with what we call distracters.

4. The hide is deactivated or removed when requested.

5. That the following is place in the description of the cache at Geocaching.com “Be a trail watcher! The Palmetto Trail is maintained by volunteers. Help the volunteer trail maintainers by reporting trail problems, maintenance issues and suggestions to info@palmettoconservation.org”. If you check GC1MNV9 you will observe that this has been done.

 

You pretty much call someone and hope they get back to you. Arrange a meeting with a trail volunteer--who may or may not have an anti-geocaching mentality--and then have to add a blurb to your cache page which in similar situations would have made the cache an agenda cache. Who came up with this?

 

Oh, and what's a "distracter?" Littering the trail? Where's the self-policing that we did during the last go-round?

Link to comment
There are people working on this in the background in a mutually respectful manner, which has the most potential for positive results.

 

The torches and pitchforks approach will guarantee negative results.

 

It will be best for us to choose carefully.

I'm curious as to what is being worked on. Before, when geocaching was nearly banned in SC the process was fairly transparent. Now, it seems like it is behind closed doors. I've emailed the person mentioned before about some information and relayed my involvement in the previous movement. Crickets.

 

Now I get wind of a new requirement for Palmetto Trail caches.

We encourage and welcome Geocaching along the trail with the following request;

 

1. That geocachers contact Palmetto Conservation Foundation (MS Nancy Collum-Stone) at 803-771-0870 with a request for permission to locate a cache site (I believe this is one of the requirements of Geocaching.COM). MS Stone then contacts one of the various trail maintainers and we arrange to meet the Geocacher to approve the location.

2. That the hider agrees to visit the site every other month to maintain the location and to insure that the site is not over used.

3. Geo-Caching Litter is not allowed. We have had a real problem with Geocachers littering the trail with what we call distracters.

4. The hide is deactivated or removed when requested.

5. That the following is place in the description of the cache at Geocaching.com “Be a trail watcher! The Palmetto Trail is maintained by volunteers. Help the volunteer trail maintainers by reporting trail problems, maintenance issues and suggestions to info@palmettoconservation.org”. If you check GC1MNV9 you will observe that this has been done.

 

You pretty much call someone and hope they get back to you. Arrange a meeting with a trail volunteer--who may or may not have an anti-geocaching mentality--and then have to add a blurb to your cache page which in similar situations would have made the cache an agenda cache. Who came up with this?

 

Oh, and what's a "distracter?" Littering the trail? Where's the self-policing that we did during the last go-round?

 

I too would like to know what a distracter is as well. I can't imagine geocachers doing any amount of littering either so I would like some more information as to where they got that one. Sounds like more misinformation to me. :P

Link to comment
I too would like to know what a distracter is as well. I can't imagine geocachers doing any amount of littering either so I would like some more information as to where they got that one. Sounds like more misinformation to me. :(

This is what worries me when the wrong, though well meaning, folks get involved.

 

I would has pointed out to Ms. Stone it's "adequate" permission, not "explicit" permission. You don't have to have permit system. I think a better way, for everyone, is simply have veto powers. Face it, few cachers who place caches on the rural sections of the trail are placing thoughtless caches. Additional guidelines might be warranted, but this is the woods.

 

I don't understand the "problem with geocaching litter." That kind of goes against CITO. The best I can think of is flags of surveyor tape or reflective tacks. Neither of these are any different than what hunters use and there's a lot more of them than us. We generally don't leave empty shotgun shells behind either. Then there's the homeless camps and gay rendezvous spots. I'm just not seeing it's the geocachers.

 

I would have also pointed out the real problem with trail verbiage on a mystery cache.

Link to comment

We noticed that the caches in the Peachtree Rock Heritage Preserve have been re-enabled (e.g., GC1KZWB).

This one may have been disabled during the period that the SC DNR created the list of caches that needed to be archived and removed. The cache page has now been archived and the owner has been asked to remove the physical cache.

 

-Brad

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...