Jump to content

Geocaching May Be Outlawed In South Carolina


wkhaz

Recommended Posts

Good summary. Want a job?

Do those federal laws restrict or prevent people from placing cammo'd 35mm film canisters in the bushes around these sites? How about the hiding of large Tupperware containers in these same locations? Or do they simply provide for the arrest and conviction of those people who are caught rooting around the sites?

I already have a pretty cool job. I am a federal firefighter, I get to travel from state to state and sleep in the dirt.

 

It has been a few years since I have read the Antiquities Act, but basically it says that it is a federal offense to deface, damage, destroy,collect, remove, etc. any antiquity or historic object. There is one noteable exception, it is legal to collect arrowheads except on National Park Service lands. In 1976 Jimmy Carter made arrowhead collecting legal, much to the disdain of archeologist.

I sincerely do hope that THIS: American Antiquities Act of 1906, isn't the act to which you refer. It isn't..................is it? If not, do you have the official name of the act? Thank you.

Link to comment

OK gang, let's just lay it out. I want someone to show me the Federal law that protects some stinking Johnny Reb statue in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Can someone please do that? This is amazing stuff.

 

Back to the hole digging.

Edited by Team cotati697
Link to comment
The next time that you happen to travel up north, check out western New Jersey. There is no more glaring example of my observations than that which exists between eastern and western New Jersey.

 

Please elaborate. I've apparently missed something in my nearly 50 years living here.

Link to comment
The next time that you happen to travel up north, check out western New Jersey. There is no more glaring example of my observations than that which exists between eastern and western New Jersey.

 

Please elaborate. I've apparently missed something in my nearly 50 years living here.

What is it that you have missed? Give me a hint and I'll be glad to help you out.

Edited by Team cotati697
Link to comment
OK gang, let's just lay it out. I want someone to show me the Federal law that protects some stinking Johnny Reb statue in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Can someone please do that? This is amazing stuff.

 

Back to the hole digging.

OK, I'm not sure if every Johnny Reb statue is protected, but if it is located on federal land, on a historic site, or within a historic district it most likely is. And yes it is the Antiquities Act of 1906 that protects it. Or at least that's were it all starts, and it gets sort of complex from there in the way that federal law gets intertwined with state law unlike most other federal law.

 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 protects all historic and prehistoric sites on federal land, though it is more famous in that it allows presidents to set aside national monuments. In 1966 the Antiquities Act was supplemented with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This law really only protects protects sites from the damage that could be caused by federal projects or projects that use federal funding. For this discussion it is important in that it defines what a historic site is, it ties federal law to the states, and creates SHPO's. Again in 1979 the Antiquities Act was supplemented with the Archaelogical Resource Protection Act. This Act makes it a felony to steal, vandalize, excavate, remove, damage, or alter any artifact, arch site, or historic site on federal land. It also deals with selling, trading, or transporting artifacts taken from federal lands. The other thing this act does is tier federal law with state law. So if a state says that a Johnny Reb statue is protected as a historic site then by the ARPA it is federally protected also. And it is the states not the feds that get to decide what is listed on the historic register though it does have to meet the critria of the NHPA. Also to be protected the site does not have to actually be listed on the National Register of Historic Places it only has to be elgible to be listed.

 

So in this case you would actually have to look at what SC law says about the protection of that Johnny Reb statue. I am really only familiar with NM, WY, CO, and UT as those are the only states I have worked in. And I am usually only concerned with section 106 of the NHPA. I implement federal projects, usually thinning and prescribed fires. Though I would guess that SC has it's own antiquities type law. As in the case of Utah or NM this was done with the enabling legislation that created the SHPO.

 

A very quick search of SC law shows that at least they have several laws that protect cemeteries, graveyards, and burial grounds. Section 16-17-600 makes it a felony to destroy, damage, remove, or desecrate human remains, as well as to vandalize, destroy, deface, or otherwise damage graveyards, tombs, mausoleums, grave stones, memorial monuments, markers, park areas, fencing, plants, trees, or shrubs.

 

So short answere is yes, that stinking Johnny Reb statue in Spartanburg, SC is federally protected. That is assuming that it is a memorial monument.

Link to comment
The next time that you happen to travel up north, check out western New Jersey. There is no more glaring example of my observations than that which exists between eastern and western New Jersey.

 

Please elaborate. I've apparently missed something in my nearly 50 years living here.

What is it that you have missed? Give me a hint and I'll be glad to help you out.

Your entire point.

Link to comment
OK gang, let's just lay it out. I want someone to show me the Federal law that protects some stinking Johnny Reb statue in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Can someone please do that? This is amazing stuff.

 

Back to the hole digging.

OK, I'm not sure if every Johnny Reb statue is protected, but if it is located on federal land, on a historic site, or within a historic district it most likely is. And yes it is the Antiquities Act of 1906 that protects it. Or at least that's were it all starts, and it gets sort of complex from there in the way that federal law gets intertwined with state law unlike most other federal law.

 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 protects all historic and prehistoric sites on federal land, though it is more famous in that it allows presidents to set aside national monuments. In 1966 the Antiquities Act was supplemented with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This law really only protects protects sites from the damage that could be caused by federal projects or projects that use federal funding. For this discussion it is important in that it defines what a historic site is, it ties federal law to the states, and creates SHPO's. Again in 1979 the Antiquities Act was supplemented with the Archaelogical Resource Protection Act. This Act makes it a felony to steal, vandalize, excavate, remove, damage, or alter any artifact, arch site, or historic site on federal land. It also deals with selling, trading, or transporting artifacts taken from federal lands. The other thing this act does is tier federal law with state law. So if a state says that a Johnny Reb statue is protected as a historic site then by the ARPA it is federally protected also. And it is the states not the feds that get to decide what is listed on the historic register though it does have to meet the critria of the NHPA. Also to be protected the site does not have to actually be listed on the National Register of Historic Places it only has to be elgible to be listed.

 

So in this case you would actually have to look at what SC law says about the protection of that Johnny Reb statue. I am really only familiar with NM, WY, CO, and UT as those are the only states I have worked in. And I am usually only concerned with section 106 of the NHPA. I implement federal projects, usually thinning and prescribed fires. Though I would guess that SC has it's own antiquities type law. As in the case of Utah or NM this was done with the enabling legislation that created the SHPO.

 

A very quick search of SC law shows that at least they have several laws that protect cemeteries, graveyards, and burial grounds. Section 16-17-600 makes it a felony to destroy, damage, remove, or desecrate human remains, as well as to vandalize, destroy, deface, or otherwise damage graveyards, tombs, mausoleums, grave stones, memorial monuments, markers, park areas, fencing, plants, trees, or shrubs.

 

So short answere is yes, that stinking Johnny Reb statue in Spartanburg, SC is federally protected. That is assuming that it is a memorial monument.

"This law really only protects protects sites from the damage that could be caused by federal projects or projects that use federal funding." I think that this means that just as I expected, there is not one single memorial, cemetery or archeological site, belonging exclusively to the fine folk of the Great State of South Carolina that is 'protected' by any federal statute. Not one. Perhaps this explains why the people of the Great State of South Carolina thru their duly elected representatives feel compelled to take the actions that have disturbed you so much. Hard to say.

 

The short answer is no it isn't. Never was and never will be unless the fine folk of the Great State of South Carolina take matters into their own hands as they seem to be trying to do. So there.

 

I sure hope that the people of the Great State of South Carolina do not outlaw the geocaching game.

Edited by Team cotati697
Link to comment
The next time that you happen to travel up north, check out western New Jersey. There is no more glaring example of my observations than that which exists between eastern and western New Jersey.

 

Please elaborate. I've apparently missed something in my nearly 50 years living here.

What is it that you have missed? Give me a hint and I'll be glad to help you out.

Your entire point.

I truly wish that this was a surprise.

Link to comment
The next time that you happen to travel up north, check out western New Jersey. There is no more glaring example of my observations than that which exists between eastern and western New Jersey.

 

Please elaborate. I've apparently missed something in my nearly 50 years living here.

What is it that you have missed? Give me a hint and I'll be glad to help you out.

Your entire point.

I truly wish that this was a surprise.

Is there a response to briansnat's original request for elaboration in our future, or are we at an impasse here? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
The next time that you happen to travel up north, check out western New Jersey. There is no more glaring example of my observations than that which exists between eastern and western New Jersey.

 

Please elaborate. I've apparently missed something in my nearly 50 years living here.

What is it that you have missed? Give me a hint and I'll be glad to help you out.

Your entire point.

I truly wish that this was a surprise.

Is there a response to briansnat's original request for elaboration in our future, or are we at an impasse here? :rolleyes:

I really do wish with all my heart and soul that I could help you and brian. However since brian doesn't seem to know what he needs assistance with, I am at a loss. Perhaps you can help brian. Just let me know, will you?

Link to comment

 

"This law really only protects protects sites from the damage that could be caused by federal projects or projects that use federal funding." I think that this means that just as I expected, there is not one single memorial, cemetery or archeological site, belonging exclusively to the fine folk of the Great State of South Carolina that is 'protected' by any federal statute. Not one. Perhaps this explains why the people of the Great State of South Carolina thru their duly elected representatives feel compelled to take the actions that have disturbed you so much. Hard to say.

 

The short answer is no it isn't. Never was and never will be unless the fine folk of the Great State of South Carolina take matters into their own hands as they seem to be trying to do. So there.

I think you missed something, my post must have been confusing and not clear.

As you quoted NHPA would not federally protect a site, But ARPA does. The state only has to say it does, which in this case it has.

Link to comment

 

"This law really only protects protects sites from the damage that could be caused by federal projects or projects that use federal funding." I think that this means that just as I expected, there is not one single memorial, cemetery or archeological site, belonging exclusively to the fine folk of the Great State of South Carolina that is 'protected' by any federal statute. Not one. Perhaps this explains why the people of the Great State of South Carolina thru their duly elected representatives feel compelled to take the actions that have disturbed you so much. Hard to say.

 

The short answer is no it isn't. Never was and never will be unless the fine folk of the Great State of South Carolina take matters into their own hands as they seem to be trying to do. So there.

I think you missed something, my post must have been confusing and not clear.

As you quoted NHPA would not federally protect a site, But ARPA does. The state only has to say it does, which in this case it has.

So there you go. No one in the entirety of the Great State of South Carolina can legally place cammo'd 35mm film canisters or Tupperware containers or ammo cans and other like containers on any state monument, cemetery or archeological site. That is perfectly clear to me. Thank you very much. Now if we can just make the state's legislature aware of this they will surely see how silly they are being.

Link to comment

Well since GC.com guildelines up hold most of the spot, except the graveyards, whta is the problem. Then I guess virtuals will have a new function. O'well it would be in GC.com's best interest to get involved as if geocaching is banned they are out of a job.

cheers

Link to comment
So there you go. No one in the entirety of the Great State of South Carolina can legally place cammo'd 35mm film canisters or Tupperware containers or ammo cans and other like containers on any state monument, cemetery or archeological site. That is perfectly clear to me.

 

Sorry, but you are confusing the placing of a geocache with vandalization, artifact theft and destruction.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

a few points come to mind on this issue:

 

1. Why was this bill introduced in the first place?

 

Is it about anti-geocaching? Is it a conspiracy? Are they all out to get us?

Or, maybe there is a legitimate concern about some harm that is actually being done by some geocaching in certain locations?

 

2. Has anyone else ever noticed a "trail" that goes directly to caches, where a trail wouldn't exist without there having been placed a geocache?

 

3. Are there people who don't geocache that MIGHT be bothered be the effects of our activity, and do they have their own viewpoint and perspective?

 

 

My feelings are that we should first try to understand the OTHER side before taking up a battle for OUR side, and then secondly, maybe we should do a better job of governing ourselves regarding the impact of our placements, so that others don't feel the need to step in.

 

Lastly, I AM against laws/regulations that further infringe upon our freedoms. We have too many already.

Link to comment
So there you go. No one in the entirety of the Great State of South Carolina can legally place cammo'd 35mm film canisters or Tupperware containers or ammo cans and other like containers on any state monument, cemetery or archeological site. That is perfectly clear to me.

 

Sorry, but you confusing the placing of a geocache with vandalization, artifact theft and destruction.

No I am not. You are.

Link to comment
a few points come to mind on this issue:

 

1. Why was this bill introduced in the first place?

 

Is it about anti-geocaching?  Is it a conspiracy?  Are they all out to get us?

Or, maybe there is a legitimate concern about some harm that is actually being done by some geocaching in certain locations?

 

2. Has anyone else ever noticed a "trail" that goes directly to caches, where a trail wouldn't exist without there having been placed a geocache?

 

3. Are there people who don't geocache that MIGHT be bothered be the effects of our activity, and do they have their own viewpoint and perspective?

 

 

My feelings are that we should first try to understand the OTHER side before taking up a battle for OUR side, and then secondly, maybe we should do a better job of governing ourselves regarding the impact of our placements, so that others don't feel the need to step in.

 

Lastly, I AM against laws/regulations that further infringe upon our freedoms.  We have too many already.

It is a conspiracy, trust me. Just check with brian.

Edited by Team cotati697
Link to comment
1. Why was this bill introduced in the first place?

 

Is it about anti-geocaching?

 

Its about ignorance

 

2. Has anyone else ever noticed a "trail" that goes directly to caches, where a trail wouldn't exist without there having been placed a geocache?

 

With over 300 finds under my belt I've seen these in very few instances. Often these "trails" predate the cache.

 

3. Are there people who don't geocache that MIGHT be bothered be the effects of our activity, and do they have their own viewpoint and perspective?

 

What are these "effects"? The vast majority of geocaches have little or no affect on their area. Even in cases where they do are the affects egregious to warrant legislative action and diversion of law enforcement resources to enforcement?

Link to comment

"With over 300 finds under my belt I've seen these in very few instances. Often these "trails" predate the cache."

 

And Magellan hasn't "field tested" their new line of GPSr's either. Not being an expert on determining the age of "trails", I once again must bow to your expertise in this matter. How DID you determine that info wrt Magellan anyway? Trail age I can understand.

Link to comment
I'm curious, if a cacher is going through a cemetary to a historic grave and takes information off a tombstone that leads to a physical cache that is off the cemetary property.  What is the differance from a regular history buff going to a cemetary to visit the tomb of some historic figure from history?

 

Volume.

 

There are not that many history buffs that go to cemeteries, let alone to a specific head stone.

I must disagree. I recently did a geocache NEAR a historic cemetery and I noticed there were several people, amateur historians and genealogists, walking around taking notes from the headstones. These folks were not together, they just happened to be there at the same time. I talked to one fellow and he had notes on every cemetery in the area, and had a published book that had all these cemeteries listed, with all the headstones. At another abandoned cemetery I saw signs that someone had recently uncovered many fallen headstones, and set some of them back up ... probably another amateur historian. There is a lot of interest now in this kind of history, and I think it is CLEARLY A GOOD THING. The more people that appreciate these sites, the more likely they will be preserved. You cannot just leave these old cemeteries untended and expect them to be preserved. Trees fall and damage headstones ... erosion can cause big problems ... and then there are the scavengers and vandals.

 

Of all the cemetery related caches I have done, none had the cache hidden in a way that would cause any damage, either from the cache or from searchers. Most of these had the cache or hint hidden well away from graves. I have seen no signs of damage from visitors, but lots of damage from trees, erosion, scavengers, and vandals.

 

There is no way to go through this life and have no impact on the world. The important thing is that our impact nets positive. I think geocaching nets positive.

Edited by CharlieP
Link to comment

First of all, every time I read "the Great State of South Carolina", I wince. I live here, and dislike it more than anyone can imagine. Why? Because of the ignorance, and this bill is proof of that.

 

I know that, technically, it doesn't exactly ban geocaching everywhere, but they've nearly left it open to interpretation as to where it's okay and where you'll be fined or arrested. If I obtain permission from landowners here to hide cache on their property, yet an unnamed, obscure Revolutionary or Civil War battle was once fought there, placing or searching for a cache placed there will be illegal because it's still an historic site. Those sites are all over this bloody state. It would virtually outlaw caching anywhere in Charleston. I agree that there are places caches shouldn't be hidden...but this bill just doesn't seem to be specific enough. That leaves a lot of gray area where the authorities could, feasibly, penalize a cacher for being in an area that they consider to be protected by this bill.

 

I wish these stuffed shirts would go after the people who dump litter in state and national parks instead of the ones who are picking up the trash left by these "law-abiding" citizens. If this bill is, indeed, passed, the authorities will be policing historic monuments searching for outlawed cachers when they should be looking for the morons who race their ATVs on hiking trails. I've always been ecologically-minded (read tree hugger), but since I started caching, I've been even more aware of the damage caused by individuals who have every right to be in a particular location, yet I'm the one who picks up after them. The total ignorance by the bill's sponsors is ludicrous; they're unaware of what true geocaching is, and what benefits we provide to the landscape. It's a case of many individuals hopping on the bandwagon driven by one person got their facts crooked before they stepped up onto their soapbox. I'll definitely do my part in attempting to stop this bill from passing...while impatiently waiting for my husband to get his degree so we can hightail it out of here.

Link to comment

CharlieP,

 

Thanks that was a good post and I learned something. One of the things I was wondering about is the cachers headstones. The ones that have been discussed in the forums and which have a compartment for a cache. It's only a matter of time before it's done. Who wins? A law banning what someone has a right to do? Or the right of someone to have a headstone with their own message to the world "I cashed in, but you cache on!"

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

My apologies if I offended any residents of South Carolina by voicing my strong disdain for living here; this bill just adds more reason why I want to leave. I don't have anything personal against anyone here, really, but I find the state to be very backwards. My post above reflects my opinion of the ignorance I have seen here personally; it hasn't been as evident in other locations. Just my two shillings' worth...I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Link to comment

The bill seems much to vague in the language about historical sites, also with cemetaries. I know of at least one case in Wyoming where a few skeletons were found scattered in a valley. Scientists thought they were about 150 years old and some group erected markers there for them. Does that valley now become a cemetary?? Someone needs to uncover the "burr under the saddle" that sparked this legislation - before other states act in kind.

Link to comment
...If I obtain permission from landowners here to hide cache on their property, yet an unnamed, obscure Revolutionary or Civil War battle was once fought there, placing or searching for a cache placed there will be illegal because it's still an historic site. ...

Actually, the way the bill is worded, it would be illegal to place a cache, but not to seek it. :( I wonder if this will cause any previously placed caches to be grandfathered under the law? :D Very interesting...

 

Its also interesting that, according to the current wording of the bill, the searching for a letterbox would be illegal, while the placing of same would not. :D

 

If we could only place letterboxes and search them out as geocaches, all would be fine. :D

Link to comment

I am originally from PA and having spent a great deal of time in Gettysburg, I can tell you that some historic areas draw tourists like flies to ..... , well, you know. These monuments almost literally swarm with visitors in the summer. Is the monument / statue important? It is a piece of marble / brass / concrete that simply indicates that something significant happened here. IT CAN BE REPLACED! This is not the history. It is just a marker. I am not saying that vandalizing the marker is acceptable, but it does not destroy the significance of the area. The event is the history. The monuments are intended to BRING PEOPLE TO THAT SPOT and educate people about the event. Geocaching, likewise, brings people to interesting spots. Isn't that a good thing?!?

 

That said, there are some places that "monument" IS historically significant. A home, a bridge, a fort. Then, I can see limiting the contact people have with the place. But, even in these cases, if the state can make a buck by bringing more people to the area, they will certainly do so.

 

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
CharlieP,

 

Thanks that was a good post and I learned something. One of the things I was wondering about is the cachers headstones. The ones that have been discussed in the forums and which have a compartment for a cache. It's only a matter of time before it's done. Who wins? A law banning what someone has a right to do? Or the right of someone to have a headstone with their own message to the world "I cashed in, but you cache on!"

I call dibs on the epitath. I promise that I will have a special compartment for a cache. Heck I'll have the whole tombstone made with a fliptop! Hollowed out and full of goodies!

 

X

:(

Link to comment

Considering an earlier post that the sponsor of the bill is from Beaufort, this cache series MAY be a factor.

 

Cemetery Geocaches near Beaufort SC

 

I was in this area last summer but did not do any of these caches. The cache pages are very well done, but the wording of the warning may not be the best public-relations. This post should not be considered critical of these caches, but it seems appropriate to look at this as part of this discussion. I have not attempted to contact the cache owner.

 

To put this in perspective, while doing a geocache last summer on nearby Hilton Head in a historic old cemetery, a large tour bus pulled up. A tour guide gave about 40 folks a guided tour, pointing out the most historically significant headstones and telling the history of the cemetery.

Link to comment
I call dibs on the epitath. I promise that I will have a special compartment for a cache. Heck I'll have the whole tombstone made with a fliptop! Hollowed out and full of goodies!

I'd like to see them charge you for placing a cache after you've gone to that great power trail in the sky! :(

Link to comment
... The cache pages are very well done, but the wording of the warning may not be the best public-relations. ...

I actually think that the warning was very responsible. I don't believe that it is really necessary as I think that anybody that is going to search for a cemetary cache when there is grieving family around would not obey the recommendation.

Link to comment
here we go again with the BS forum titles

Perhaps the title is a little over the top, but think about it though. Having grown up in the Charleston area, practically everything is an historical area. First, we outlaw it in historical areas, then parks, then... In other words, this legislation could be the first stage in what may result in an eventual ban on the sport. I no longer reside in SC, but I will be dropping my two cents to those responsible for this proposal, as 1/5th of my cache finds have been in SC!

 

Indiana cachers are facing a similar numbskull piece of legislature, which has required them to pull dozens of already approved caches. In some Indiana parks, the only people currently paying the fees (and yes, SC state parks charge admission) are cachers, and they are out there cleaning up the messes of the idiots who snuck in...

Link to comment
Indiana cachers are facing a similar numbskull piece of legislature

 

Do you have details? Is it actual legislation, or just park policy? Big difference. Changing policy is always possible, repealing and modifying legislation is durn near impossible without a major uproar from the voters and/or special interests.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I do live in SC and I am in Charleston. And for the record I LOVE THIS PLACE! I have been here 11 years and came here from CA seeking a better place to raise a family and I found it here. If you have never been to Charleston you need to understand it is very historic. For that matter I could see them banning cacheing from the whole city under this law. I love that fact that we have places to hide nice ammo boxes all over for thoes of us who prefer them. There are grave sites all over! Some with only a half doz. graves. Some are between houses, some are forgotton about., some are part of parks now. There is so much history here that I have learned about by doing caches that required me to read graves and get numbers off them. For thoes of you who don't care because you don't live here or "can't wait to get out" remember your state could be next!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...