+E = Mc2 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 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. My understanding was that it was from the legislature, but in reviewing the IN DNR website, it may be policy.Here is the pertinent PDF from the DNR homepage. Perhaps one of the more prominent IN cachers (Deermark, Indy Diver, etc.) could explain it, but my understanding is that they are limiting the # of caches that can be placed in State parks, and requiring permits for all of them (only good for a year, etc.). While searching for the pertinent reg, I came across this article, which may be of use to those in SC. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 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! This sounds like the start of a letter to your legislators. Tell them how you learned so much about the history of the area through geocaching. Link to comment
+CacheStan & TexasJ Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I would suggest that GC.com broaden their rules on virtual caches. Or caching will go the way of the horse and buggy. It won't be worth the trouble to look or hide a cache on a questionable parcel of land. However, a virtual is not a container containing trade items. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I would suggest that GC.com broaden their rules on virtual caches. Or caching will go the way of the horse and buggy. It won't be worth the trouble to look or hide a cache on a questionable parcel of land. However, a virtual is not a container containing trade items. Exactly. Without that I'd not even do the virtuals that I do take the time to do. What got me into this game was that someone hid something, it was out there, and I was going to find it. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 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. My closest Wal-mart has a small site right out front. In fact, it's part of the entrance. The "in" is one side of the site and the "out" is on the other. It's got 8 or 10 markers. You'd be amazed on where you'd find a grave site. Link to comment
+Deliveryguy428 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 So is this what happenes when we do not let them have a FTF on a cache?? I wonder how they would feel if they knew how many things "in their backyard" are tied to geocaching?? In all seriousness though, if this does pass, look for it to piggyback on another bill, but it still have to get past the governor so I don't see this being something that will happen right this second. Also keep in mind, this bill is coming from the same state that at one time wanted to lower the legal age of conscent to 14....so take that for what it is worth. I do agree though, this something that should be looked into ASAP. Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 CR this is actually a good point. An entrance to wally workd can be built around a graveyard but don't allow people to go to a graveyard that may clean it up and respect it. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Also keep in mind, this bill is coming from the same state that at one time wanted to lower the legal age of conscent to 14....so take that for what it is worth. Wrong. The age of consent in SC has always been 14. What you are thinking about is the repeal of part of Art III, Section 33 which read, "The marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void." (Kind of sounds like the laws written to prohibit gay marriages, doesn't it?) This was repealed in 1999. The remainder of Section 33 reads, "No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years." Of course, the effective age is 16 like most states. Anyway, we should know in a couple of days the cause behind this bill, then we can address it and, hopefully, kill it. Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 WOW! CR's a lawyer! I'm impressed. Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 (edited) List of memebers of the house involved with this bill as of now. H 3777Next General Bill, By: Ceips-Catherine C. Ceips (Mrs. Richard N.) [R] Full-time Legislator Dist. No. 124 - Beaufort Co. Loftis-Dwight A. Loftis [R] Insurance Agent Dist. No. 19 - Greenville Co. Breeland-Floyd Breeland [D] Retired School Administrator Dist. No. 111 - Charleston Co. Scott-John L. Scott, Jr. [D] C&S Consulting Group Dist. No. 77 - Richland Co. Whipper-J. Seth Whipper [D] Attorney Dist. No. 113 - Charleston Co. Bowers-William K. Bowers [D] Professor, CPA Dist. No. 120 - Colleton & Hampton Cos. Hosey-Lonnie Hosey [D] Dir., Adult & Continuing Education Center, S.C. State Univ. Dist. No. 91 - Allendale & Barnwell Cos. Vaughn-Lewis R. Vaughn [R] Retired Businessman Dist. No. 18 - Greenville Co. Anthony-Michael A. Anthony [D] Teacher/Coach Dist. No. 42 - Spartanburg & Union Cos. Battle-James A. "Jim" Battle, Jr. [D] Merchant, Farmer Dist. No. 57 - Marion Co. Chalk-Richard Eugene Chalk, Jr. [R] Commercial Realtor Dist. No. 123 - Beaufort Co. Clyburn- William "Bill" Clyburn [D] Public Relations Consultant Dist. No. 82 - Aiken & Edgefield Cos. Dantzler-Thomas M. "Tom" Dantzler [R] Veterinarian Dist. No. 117 - Berkeley & Charleston Cos. Hardwick- Nelson L. Hardwick [R] Businessman/Engineer Dist. No. 106 - Horry Co. Harvin-C. Alexander Harvin III [D] Full-time Legislator Dist. No. 64 - Clarendon & Williamsburg Cos. Herbkersman-William G. "Bill" Herbkersman [R] Developer/Redeveloper Dist. No. 118 - Beaufort Co. J. Hines-Jesse E. Hines [D] Retired Educator, Small Businessman Dist. No. 62 - Darlington & Florence Cos. Howard-Leon Howard [D] Pres., Howard's Garage/Paint & Body Shop/Wrecker Service Dist. No. 76 - Richland Co. Jefferson-Joseph H. Jefferson, Jr. [D] Full-time Legislator Dist. No. 102 - Berkeley Co. Kirsh-Herb Kirsh [D] Full-time Legislator, Retired Businessman Dist. No. 47 - York Co. Lee-Brenda Lee [D] Businesswoman Dist. No. 31 - Spartanburg Co. Martin-Becky Rogers Martin (Mrs. Johnny Wayne) [R] Realtor Dist. No. 8 - Anderson & Oconee Cos. McCraw-E. DeWitt McCraw [D] Farmer, Retired (S.C. Tax Commission) Dist. No. 29 - Cherokee, Chester & York Cos. Miller-Vida O. Miller (Mrs. James Dores) [D] Self-employed Retailer - Gray Man Gallery Dist. No. 108 - Charleston & Georgetown Cos. Moody-Lawrence-Bessie A. Moody-Lawrence (Mrs. James Earl) [D] Associate Professor of Education Dist. No. 49 - York Co. J.H. Neal- Joseph H. Neal [D] Minister/Vice Pres., New Horizons Systems, Inc. Dist. No. 70 - Richland & Sumter Cos. Perry-Robert S. "Skipper" Perry, Jr. [R] Sports Consultant Dist. No. 81 - Aiken Co. M.A. Pitts-Michael A. Pitts [R] Retired Greenville Police/Full-time Legislator Dist. No. 14 - Abbeville, Greenwood & Laurens Cos. Rivers-R. Thayer Rivers, Jr. [D] Attorney Dist. No. 122 - Beaufort, Hampton & Jasper Cos. Scarborough-Wallace B. Scarborough [R] Vice Pres./Sec., Atlantic Coast Life Ins. Co. Dist. No. 115 - Charleston Co. Simrill-J. Gary Simrill [R] President & CEO of Carolina Motorworks Dist. No. 46 - York Co. Toole-McLain R. "Mac" Toole [R] Businessman Dist. No. 88 - Lexington Co. Umphlett-C. David Umphlett, Jr. [R] Retired V.P. of Govt. & Consumer Affairs, Berkeley Electric Co-op, Inc. Dist. No. 100 - Berkeley Co. 33 members out of a total membership of 124. Maybe this can help those of you who need to know who to contact. This is a link to the page this info was copied form. There you can find phone numbers and addresses as well. I didn't think that it would be right to publish those here. I don't know if this is allowed in the forums though I think they would be counted as public record as they are public officials. You can also find out how many bills these folks were in on introducing. It's amazing how few passed. X http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/housemembers.html Edited March 22, 2005 by Clan X-Man Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 ( 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). (4) "Historic properties" means those buildings, sites, objects, structures, and districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. So if a place is not listed in the NRHP then cache on right? This i how I interpret this. X Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 (edited) ...(4) "Historic properties" means those buildings, sites, objects, structures, and districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. So if a place is not listed in the NRHP then cache on right? This i how I interpret this. X It would probably be closer to say state owned historic properties. A private owner can do what they wish including allowing geocaches. State or Federal money involving in some way a historic property may cloud the issue. Plus there are hisoric properties that are not listed but which if the request would be made, would be. The law says nothing about these locations but again it's a cloud on the issue. Roads and public rights of way over 50 years old can be historic. That would most likely include rest areas. Edited March 22, 2005 by Renegade Knight Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Ah yes! BUT! To be punished to the letter of the law the punisher must also abide by that law. What it says is what it says. X Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Ah yes! BUT! To be punished to the letter of the law the punisher must also abide by that law. What it says is what it says. X True. To find you "guilty" under the current law they would have to show. 1) That the paper inside was a log and not a codeword. 2) That the container was in fact a cache covered under the law. 3) They would have to define the specific boundary of the cultural resource. 4) They would have to show that your cache was inside the boundary. 5) They may have to show that you had specific knowledge that your action is breaking the law. However I don't know for sure. For #3 they would have to have or hire experts willing to make public information that also by law is not made public. I'm sure a lawyer could rip it apart several more ways than I can even fathom. Link to comment
MagicMeeko Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 We wouldn't be in this mess if we followed a crucial rule of Cacheplacing. From the Hide / Seek a cache page Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager and read the guidelines for reporting a cache (last update 02/14/05) prior to placing your geocache. Technically speaking. If we Cachers are all on the Up and Up like we say we are, this entire Bill should be of no consequence. In Effect, We are getting an answer of "No, you may not place a cache here" before we ask. If You where to follow these (few) rules first, and THEN get a negative.... would you still place the cache? Knowing you would Jeopardize part or all of the sport? Geocaching will never die. Will it get pruned? Sure... This will lead to other Cache Ideas, for the better. ""Off your Rocker"" and ""Publix Enemy"" Next door in GA seem to be doing really well. I highly doubt any Commercial Organization will refuse foot traffic on their land, durring their posted hours. At the very Least, we can Work the historical outlets to virtuals. Rubbing, or even a Snap with a Digital picture can take the place of Signing a log. Yes I admit I like placing Items..... But I will give this up if it saves our sport. At the very least, we can have SC Cacheing homeowners make a cache on their land..... Instead of having this issue split the GC fanbase, we can literily invite them to our front door. We may have lost one battle...... but they will never ever win the War of "Non-Geocaching" -Magic Meeko Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I can't see a split happening. I think this particular topic has gone quite well. Nobodys poked out an eye or anything. I've just been reading the section of law that the anti geocaching bill will fall under and you would not believe some of the stuff this is going to be crammed in with. Truancy, contributing to the deliquency of a minor, illegal use of communications just to name a few. X Link to comment
MagicMeeko Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Im just trying to keep this in perspective. This is no where near the death of Geocaching. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 ...In Effect, We are getting an answer of "No, you may not place a cache here" before we ask... Correct. No you may not cache here but you can fish here. No you may not cache here but you can hike here. No you may not cache here but you can picknic here. No you may not cache here but you can but you can mountain bike here. No you may not cache here but you can ride your ATV here. You can do every single activity that anyone else can do here but for the discretely hidden container. I don't buy it. Lets not start with geocaching at all, or anything else that's valid and permitted on the lands and locations in question. However for what it's worth geocaching already has a policy of not having a cache on a known archaelogical site and a history of removing caches on locations that were initially unknown. Better to not have this law. It's a headache nobody needs. Not even the land managers. Link to comment
MapheadMike Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 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). (4) "Historic properties" means those buildings, sites, objects, structures, and districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. So if a place is not listed in the NRHP then cache on right? This i how I interpret this. X That's how it looks to me. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's historic. Has anybody checked the letterboxing site to see if they are getting bendy about this? I'm going to wait for CR and the rest of the local group to learn more and share more info before sounding the alarm over there. Why panic them over there with less than full information, like the OP did here with his inaccurate thread title? Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 List of memebers of the house involved with this bill as of now. ... 33 members out of a total membership of 124. Maybe this can help those of you who need to know who to contact. http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/housemembers.html Might I suggest that you do not use this list as a starting point. In my opinion, it would be helpful to contact those members of the legislature who have yet to make up thier minds. A member of the legislature who has no interest in this bill is unlikely to vote for it if he is being inundated with messages from his constituency who are strongly opposed to it and communicate that opposition effectively. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 A member of the legislature who has no interest in this bill is unlikely to vote for it if he is being inundated with messages from his constituency who are strongly opposed to it and communicate that opposition effectively. That's true. I doubt any legislator will be getting piles of letters in favor of the legislation. What we should do is have someone put together a "model letter" that people can tailor a bit and send if they like, or at least a list of talking points to include in a letter. A list of talking points could include: Relative low impact of the sport. Government and private entities (BLM, USFS, specific states, county park systems, Audobon perserves, etc...) that have found geocaching to be an appropriate use of lands. Benefits of geocaching to participants (exercize, education, family bonding, etc...) and the community (CITO, increased awareness of resources, user fees paid by participants, increased tourism, etc...). Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 List of memebers of the house involved with this bill as of now. ... 33 members out of a total membership of 124. Maybe this can help those of you who need to know who to contact. http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/housemembers.html Might I suggest that you do not use this list as a starting point. In my opinion, it would be helpful to contact those members of the legislature who have yet to make up thier minds. A member of the legislature who has no interest in this bill is unlikely to vote for it if he is being inundated with messages from his constituency who are strongly opposed to it and communicate that opposition effectively. And you are right! It was just a whole lot easier typing and pasting all those FOR the bill. I am actually going to visit our representative here in my hometown this afternoon and see if he has any interest in the bill. Perhaps he knows nothing of geocaching and I can take him on a little cache run. Use the link and find the ones we could talk to about this. The ones not on the list. Also take a look at the bills and resolutions that the person you may contact were in on. MANY of the bills that went through in session 116 were not passed and never made it past the house. We may be a little to worked up over this. But it's nice to see we all want our voices heard. X Link to comment
+M&DofKJE Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 SECTION 16-17-490. Contributing to delinquency of a minor. C'mon, son - I know you're tired and hungry, and we've been searching under rocks in the desert all morning, but I'm sure it's here somewhere. Your teachers probably won't even notice that you're three hours late for school ... Homeschooling is such fun... especially geography lessons. Link to comment
+BillsBayou Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 If this law passes, I have an idea for a new South Carolina cache: Multi-Cache, all stages are ammo cans. Each can is filled with raw eggs that have been sitting in someone's backyard for two weeks... Ok, so I'm kidding. It violates the ethics we hold dear as Geocachers to not disturb the surrounding area or bring attention to our activities. It's just how moronic these guys are. Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 (edited) edit: removed partial letter. see below for entire letter. Edited March 22, 2005 by fly46 Link to comment
Geo Sooner Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Maybe this is reason enough to get virtuals and locationless caches approved. Some places are not approiate for a regular cache and should be a virtual. I have tried numorous times to get a virtuals approved for cemeteries and dams or bridges, but have been denied. I have no problem not having a log book to sign, or mardi gras beads to trade. I don't want a law to limit what I can do, but I think a new guidelines for geocaching may be in order. Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 The Letter Is Done: I'm not from south carolina, so I don't think this would have a lot of impact if I was the one to send it on. Lawmakers tend to ignore those that don't vote under/for them.... Feel free to use it if you'd like to. Dear House Member I am writing in regards to House Bill H.3777, which was recently brought to my attention. This bill, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activities of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological site, or on the historic properties of the State. While I can certainly understand why there may be concerns with these activities in such sensitive places, I would like to point out a few reasons why such activities are actually positive to these areas. The largest reason such activities should be allowed is so that our historical areas do not become lost. Countless cemeteries have been lost to future generations because of no upkeep or their location. However, when a cacher or letterboxer stumbles upon one of these and chooses to bring people there, he or she ensures that the area will not be forgotten and/or lost. If we lose these areas, we lose a part of who we are. I cannot speak for letterboxers, because I am not one, but I can speak for geocachers. I have yet to find a cache in a cemetery that is located at somebody’s headstone. When caches are placed in such areas, they are done so in an extremely sensitive manner. The containers are generally hidden in landscaping (trees, bushes, etc) or piles of rocks. The headstones themselves are not disturbed. Also, geocachers have a practice called CITO, which stands for Cache In, Trash Out. What this means is that after we cache into an area we leave the area better than we found it by picking up litter on our way out. By allowing caching and letterboxing to remain in these locations, you can be assured that we will do our part to help keep these areas beautiful. It’s also not uncommon for a cacher to clear debris such as grass clippings or overgrowing weeds from a headstone. In many instances, cachers and letterboxers have been taken to places that they have never known had it not been for the activity that took them there in the first place. By allowing these activities, you bring people to these sites to enjoy what is there. Isn’t this the point of having historical areas set aside for the public? Why should the manner in which we’ve arrived at this spot matter? Guidebooks and tour guides take far more people to historical places than geocaching or letterboxing ever will. Certainly, our impact on these areas should not be judged any more harshly than theirs is. Geocaching and letterboxing are two popular, wholesome family activities. By outlawing these, you make it harder for families to find activities that are educational and fun. In today’s growing trend of always being on the go and spending more and more time apart, perhaps lawmakers should embrace the family unit and support activities that encourage families to take a break from the hustle and bustle of life and instead let them have togetherness. Please, instead of banning geocaching and letterboxing, understand the hobbies. With understanding will come the knowledge that these can coexist harmoniously with these sensitive areas. Sincerely The Geocaching Community Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 ...I don't want a law to limit what I can do, but I think a new guidelines for geocaching may be in order. I think that this is a little premature. Let's see if the law happens before we consider changing the game. Also, I think that if this law was put into effect, it would affect so few areas that the game would go on fine without taking any drastic measures. Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I disagree. If you limit these areas in one place, then there is precidence for other states to limit these areas, too. If this bill passes, what's to stop the rest of the united states from adopting such a policy as well? Then, if you issue blanket bans on these, what's to stop other areas from being banned as well? If you ban enough areas, all the sport will end up being is light pole caches. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 (edited) The Letter Is Done:I'm not from south carolina, so I don't think this would have a lot of impact if I was the one to send it on. Lawmakers tend to ignore those that don't vote under/for them.... Feel free to use it if you'd like to. Dear House Member I am writing in regards to House Bill H.3777, which was recently brought to my attention. This bill, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activities of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological site, or on the historic properties of the State. While I can certainly understand why there may be concerns with these activities in such sensitive places, I would like to point out a few reasons why such activities are actually positive to these areas. The largest reason such activities should be allowed is so that our historical areas do not become lost. Countless cemeteries have been lost to future generations because of no upkeep or their location. However, when a cacher or letterboxer stumbles upon one of these and chooses to bring people there, he or she ensures that the area will not be forgotten and/or lost. If we lose these areas, we lose a part of who we are. I cannot speak for letterboxers, because I am not one, but I can speak for geocachers. I have yet to find a cache in a cemetery that is located at somebody’s headstone. When caches are placed in such areas, they are done so in an extremely sensitive manner. The containers are generally hidden in landscaping (trees, bushes, etc) or piles of rocks. The headstones themselves are not disturbed. Also, geocachers have a practice called CITO, which stands for Cache In, Trash Out. What this means is that after we cache into an area we leave the area better than we found it by picking up litter on our way out. By allowing caching and letterboxing to remain in these locations, you can be assured that we will do our part to help keep these areas beautiful. It’s also not uncommon for a cacher to clear debris such as grass clippings or overgrowing weeds from a headstone. In many instances, cachers and letterboxers have been taken to places that they have never known had it not been for the activity that took them there in the first place. By allowing these activities, you bring people to these sites to enjoy what is there. Isn’t this the point of having historical areas set aside for the public? Why should the manner in which we’ve arrived at this spot matter? Guidebooks and tour guides take far more people to historical places than geocaching or letterboxing ever will. Certainly, our impact on these areas should not be judged any more harshly than theirs is. Geocaching and letterboxing are two popular, wholesome family activities. By outlawing these, you make it harder for families to find activities that are educational and fun. In today’s growing trend of always being on the go and spending more and more time apart, perhaps lawmakers should embrace the family unit and support activities that encourage families to take a break from the hustle and bustle of life and instead let them have togetherness. Please, instead of banning geocaching and letterboxing, understand the hobbies. With understanding will come the knowledge that these can coexist harmoniously with these sensitive areas. Sincerely The Geocaching Community Might want to shorten it a bit. Long letters often don't get read, or just get skimmed. 3-4 paragraphs at most. Edited March 22, 2005 by briansnat Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 The Letter Is Done:... I would suggest that you add Brian's idea of mentioning those agencies who have embraced geocaching because of the positive benefits of the game. I also would change 'cacher' to 'geocacher' everywhere in the letter. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Thanks for all of the advise, but until we know what motivated the writting of the bill we can't move forward with a solution. Going off half-cocked is worse than being patient, knowing what you're up against, and moving forward at the appropriate time. We've already got someone looking into it. We'll get a handle on it and respond appropriately. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I disagree. If you limit these areas in one place, then there is precidence for other states to limit these areas, too. If this bill passes, what's to stop the rest of the united states from adopting such a policy as well? Then, if you issue blanket bans on these, what's to stop other areas from being banned as well? If you ban enough areas, all the sport will end up being is light pole caches. We are in agreement, I just think that we should focus on defeating the bill so no precedence is made. That is how you will save the hobby, not by bending to the whims of an unpassed bill. Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Brian, what would you suggest removing? I know it's long, but I don't know how to say what I said with less words,. Link to comment
+RiverExplorer Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Sounds like a typical bone-headed government reaction to something new. Don't try to understand it, or intelligently try to determine it's value and/or appropriateness. Just vote to ban it, blanket style, with little or no input from those involved. Does anyone know the incident(s) that lead to this legislation? Sometimes understanding where something is coming from is the first step in steering it in a different direction. Clearly some areas are inappropriate for physical caches, but this legislation seems to be exceedingly broad. Perhaps they could at least add language such as "unless prior permission has been obtained from the appropriate agency". That would cover alot of caches where the local oversight entity is aware of, and supportive of responsible caching. Hope this kind of thinking isn't contagious. (Apologies for using the words "government" and "intelligent" in the same paragraph. ) RiverExplorer Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 How's this? It's about 100 words shorter. Dear House Member I am writing in regards to House Bill H.3777. This bill, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activities of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological site, or on the historic properties of the State. While I can certainly understand why there may be concerns with these activities in such sensitive places, I would like to point out a few reasons why such activities are actually positive to these areas. The largest reason such activities should be allowed is so that our historical areas do not become lost. Countless cemeteries have been lost to future generations because of no upkeep or their location. However, when a geocacher or letterboxer stumbles upon one of these and chooses to bring people there, he or she ensures that the area will not be forgotten and/or lost. If we lose these areas, we lose a part of who we are. When containers are placed in such areas, they are done so in an extremely sensitive manner. The containers are generally hidden in landscaping (trees, bushes, etc) or piles of rocks. The headstones themselves are not disturbed. Also, geogeocachers have a practice called CITO, which stands for Cache In, Trash Out. What this means is that after caching into an area we leave the area better than we found it by picking up litter on our way out. In many instances, geocachers and letterboxers have been taken to places that they have never known had it not been for the activity that took them there in the first place. By allowing these activities, you bring people to these sites to enjoy what is there. Isn’t this the point of having historical areas set aside for the public? Why should the manner in which we’ve arrived at this spot matter? Guidebooks and tour guides take far more people to historical places than geocaching or letterboxing ever will. Certainly, our impact on these areas should not be judged any more harshly than theirs is. Geocaching and letterboxing are two popular, wholesome family activities. In today’s growing trend of always being on the go and spending more and more time apart, perhaps lawmakers should embrace the family unit and support activities that encourage families to take a break from the hustle and bustle of life and instead let them have togetherness. Please, instead of banning geocaching and letterboxing, understand the hobbies. With understanding will come the knowledge that these can coexist harmoniously with these sensitive areas. Sincerely GCLB Link to comment
MagicMeeko Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 (edited) Fly, wouldnt the Bill number, and perhaps "Geocaching Law for historical locales" be enough for the first paragraph? I am sure you do not need to reinvent this wheel. Edit>> Also I don't see the need for the last two lines starting with "Please don't ban...." Edited March 22, 2005 by MagicMeeko Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I took a slash at it: I am writing in regards to House Bill H.3777, which was recently brought to my attention. This bill, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activities of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological site, or on the historic properties of the State. While I can certainly understand why there may be concerns with these activities in sensitive places, I would like to point out a few reasons why such activities are actually positive to these areas. It has been my experience that geocachers are very responsible in the placing of geocaches. When geocaches are placed, they are done so in an extremely sensitive manner. The containers are generally carefully chosen to be appropriate for their location and hidden in such a way to avoid any damage to the surrounding area. A procedure is in place to disallow any geocaches that do not follow guidelines and to affect the removal of any geocaches that are placed inappropriately. It should be mentioned that geocaching is embraced by many land managers. One of the reasons for this is the practice of ‘Cache In, Trash Out’ (CITO). Through this practice, geocachers have removed tons of trash from our parks and forests. It is very important to geocachers to not only do no damage, but to leave the areas better than we find them so they can be enjoyed by all citizens. Geocaching benefits the participants of the hobby, as well as communities in which it is enjoyed. Benefits to individuals include improved health through exercise, increased awareness of our history and resources, and the chance to bond with our families through a wholesome (and fun) activity. Benefits to the community include the betterment of these areas through CITO and a positive economic impact due to user fees paid and increased tourism. Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 The way i saw it was that they probably have so many pending bills that they don't know what h.3777 is without looking it up. I chose to include that so they wouldn't have to. I like sbell's letter, however. It works, too. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I stole most of it from you and Brian Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Oh, I know you did. But I wrote the letter for the gc community to use, so I don't mind that you actually did what I was trying to do and falling short of. What can I say? Apparently this brilliant writer can't write brilliantly under the influence of a narcotic. Link to comment
+cache_test_dummies Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I think the letters are looking good, and I think these will likely be useful not only in this situation but also in other similar situations which are bound to come up in the future. Keep up the good work! But before we start sending these letters out in great quantities in response to this particular situation, I think we should take CR's advice and hold back until it can be determined by those closest to the situation exactly what we are up against. An incorrectly timed or slightly mis-applied campaign could actually do more harm than good. We could, for example, inadvertantly harden the resolve of the bills supporters without getting the message out to those who could vote against it. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 (edited) I took a stab at it: Dear __________: I’m writing to express my opposition to bill H.3777, which bans geocaching and letterboxing in cemeteries, archaeological sites and historic sites in South Carolina. Geocaching is a relatively new sport where a geocache - usually a waterproof container containing a logbook and trinkets - is carefully hidden (but never buried) and the map coordinates are published on the Internet for GPS users to find. Often the point is to introduce people to a place of scenic, historic, geological, or other interest. Letterboxing is a similar activity which originated in England in the late 1800s. Geocaching and letterboxing are relatively low impact sports that allow families, scout troops, students and other individuals to get outdoors, enjoy some exercise and discover new places. There are thousands of geocaches and letterboxes hidden throughout the world and entities as diverse as the US Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service and numerous state, county and local park systems have deemed geocaching and letterboxing to be appropriate uses of public lands. Additionally, many museums, nature preserves and historic sites have embraced geocaching and letterboxing and found them to be an easy, inexpensive way to increase exposure and attract visitors. In addition to drawing attention to historic sites, geocachers and letterboxers generate user and admission fees and contribute to the local economy. An added benefit is the "Cache In Trash Out (CITO)" ethic practiced by geocachers. The CITO program encourages participants to bring along a garbage bag and pick up any trash they find on their way to the geocache site. Since the sport's beginnings, hundreds of tons of litter have been removed from our parks, cemeteries and historic sites thanks to geocachers. While I agree that it is important to protect our historic, archaeological and burial sites, geocaching and letterboxing have minimal impact on these areas - no more than that of traditional visitors. Since geocaches and letterboxes are often placed to highlight places of historic interest, a blanket ban as proposed in H 3777 would be detrimental to these sports. Geocaching and letterboxing have attracted many tourists to South Carolina and provided them with a non-traditional way to experience our rich history. Geocaching and letterboxing have also allowed countless residents to discover our historic sites and have helped create a new generation of advocates for these sacred places. Accordingly, I ask you to withhold (withdraw) your support for H.3777. Sincerely, John Q. Geocacher Edited March 22, 2005 by briansnat Link to comment
+fly46 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Another wonderfuler version of the letter. Thanks Brian. I agree not to send them out quite yet, too.. I just wanted to write something so that there was a basis to go off of when the time was right. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Mass mailed template letters have less effect than a bunch of heartfelt letters even if less well worded. The template strategy is well known by politicians. Link to comment
+Hemlock Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Do the politicians ever read any letters, or do they pay a bunch of clerks to tally the "for" vs. "against"? If the latter, a short "please vote nay on bill H.3777" would be adequate. Link to comment
magellan315 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 (edited) Brian's letter is a lot closer to what I would like to see, I'd add something about CITO, a mention that we don't allow Geocahing at archelogical sites, As for the other posters, will the politicians read the letters, no, the staffers will provide them with statistics. If you don't want to use a form letter, write your own. A few years ago while living in Florida a state agency attempted to ban geocaching from 500,000 acres of land across the state. Not only did they receive e-mails form local caches, they also got them form people outside of Florida and Europe. Once they understood that we were not a bunch of isoloated kooks, calmer heads prevailed and a policy was created. The one thing you should keep in mind is that if this law passes in South Carolina, other states could pass one as well using the South Carolina law as the template. In Pennsylvania a state agency created a Geocaching policy and now local PA land managers use the same policy. I'd wait until the folks researching the status of this bill update us and then take the next step. Edited March 22, 2005 by magellan315 Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Brian's letter is a lot closer to what I would like to see, I'd add something about CITO Added (see above). Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I prefer Brian's verbiage, but I'm concerned that he didn't plagiarize enough. Link to comment
magellan315 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I like the current version Brian has done. At this point we just need to wait for Coyote Red to let us know when they have completed their research on the bill and if we need to send it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts