Geocaching May Be Outlawed In South Carolina

7.2k · April 4, 2005

Can you update us regarding the bill that is under consideration?

I most certainly will.

The next step is the judiciary meeting on the 6th. At present, we are working on a response for this meeting. I think some who are more familiar with the processes feel this is where we can stop this and it will never even get out of commitee. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

I, or someone, will pass along any more information as it becomes available.

April 5, 2005

Tonight an event cache meeting was held in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina to discuss responses to the legislation. We were gratified by the large turnout. We spent about an hour discussing the various issues. Considering there was four days notice on this, it was a great response.

The house judiciary committee meets Wednesday morning. You can find a llist of its members are

http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/housecommlst.html#jud

It was the feeling of those at the meeting that the proper target for input was the house judiciary committee, which is considering this legislation now. Unlike the sponsors, who are on public record as supporting the bill, members of the committee haven't necesarily made up their mind. You should contact the legislator from your area on this committee to encourage them not to pass this bill and to allow laws already on the books to address long standing problems with historic sites, cemetaries and archeological sites. One inportant objection is that this bill outlaws placing caches on your own property if it is part of a district (such as downtown Charleston) that is on the register of national historic places per the definition referenced in the proposed bill.

At this time, we do not believe this bill is on Wednesday's agenda, however some representatives of the Geocaching community will attend to see the committee in action and to attempt to set up meetings with members before any formal action is taken.

7.2k · April 5, 2005

This is much more ominous than previously thought.

My thinking was "historic properties of the State" meant properties owned or leased by the State. Nope. It means "those buildings, sites, objects, structures, and districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places" that is in the State of South Carolina.

This boggles the mind as major chunks of towns and cities are on the Register. There are 173 properties or districts in Charleston county alone. 80% of the peninsular City of Charleston west of US17 is on the Register--that's all of Historical Charleston. This means that you couldn't place a geocache on your own property! A major chunk of a nearby town is on the Register which means 3 more of my caches will have to be pulled. In total, there will be several more caches that I would have to pull--from 24 caches down to 10 or less would be legal.

Not only could you not place a cache on your own property if it's on the Register, your pastor, or congregation, couldn't place a cache within the bounds of his own cemetery. Considering many churches around here the cemetery surrounds the church, they can't place a cache at their own church!

Not that we've got a huge cache population, but if this bill passes, it would just about decimate caching in the Charleston area and be a blow greater to South Carolina than the banning of caches on NPS property.

1.7k · April 5, 2005

Coyote Red, Now that the terms of this bill appear to have a greater impact than initially thought, would this be the appropriate time to start a letter writing campaign. Or do we want to wait for the committee meeting and see what happens first?

7.2k · April 5, 2005

Or do we want to wait for the committee meeting and see what happens first?

We're putting all of our efforts into getting the bill killed in commitee at the moment.

April 5, 2005

Just to clarify things a bit, you are correct Coyote Red. However, there are a lot of things, other than placing caches, which you cannot do to your OWN property if you are in this area. You can't even paint your house unless the color and scheme are authorized. So, don't think they are singling out cachers here. I don't agree with this anymore than the rest of you, but they take this very seriously down there.

April 6, 2005

I've been informed the cache owner had researched the properties and was told they were open to the public. While it might be officially open, it might be thought of as only open to certain people by the locals, and friends and family of those buried there.

You have to understand, this is The Deep South and there are still cultural sensitivities most of the rest of the nation doesn't have to deal with. I'm starting to think this is a case of a situation where the caches where perfectly legal, but people with vested interests in the properties didn't understand what is going on. "What are those white people doing going into a Black cemetery? They can't be up to no good."

So, really, as the story is coming out it, appears to be a case of a cultural conflict that could not be forseen by someone not familiar with these sensitivities. The cache owner has graciously archived the caches in question and has already removed many, the rest will be removed soon.

Do you have any new information on why the bill was introduced? Specifically, which caches and what allegedly happened?

I am meeting with Representative Toole (my House Representative and a co-sponsor of the Bill) to discuss H.3777 this afternoon. The meeting is mainly to educate Mr. Toole about Geocaching (examples of containers and locations, geocaches in his district, etc.). With all luck, Mr. Toole will request that his name be withdrawn from the bill.

7.2k · April 6, 2005

Do you have any new information on why the bill was introduced? Specifically, which caches and what allegedly happened?

I'm not going to pinpoint the caches and cache owner because it actually appears as though he did just about everything right.

However, some things have come to light as late as last night as to why this might have been a bit of heightened sensitivity. Grave robbing is alive and well in South Carolina--especially in the area where these caches were. While I don't have any details, apparently some Black cemeteries have been robbed looking, and finding, slave artifacts, which in turn have been found on auction sites including eBay! Beaufort county appears to be a destination for grave robbers because of the high concentration of rural Black cemeteries. It's not locals that are doing it as the little bit of information I have is these groups meet somewhere outside the state.

We're going to be using two points about geocaching that should put us on their side. One, geocachers leave a note of their visit. Someone up to no good wouldn't. Two, increased activity in the these areas is sort of like a "citizens patrol," you don't know when some guy with a GPS and two kids are going to show up.

Hopefully things go well today and we get this killed in commitee. I'll if I can encourage our fearless leader into braving the forums and posting a note.

7.2k · April 6, 2005

Not good news. There will be a post by our leader within the next 24 hours detailing round #1.

1.5k · April 6, 2005

I agree with only the graveyards, everything else is overkill

April 6, 2005

My meeting with Representative Toole went, I though, very well.

I spent 30 minutes discussing the situation with him. He was very appreciative of the education on Geocaching. He admitted that he knew very little about the sport. Mr. Toole was under the impression that Geocaching meant that the “treasure” was hidden in such a way that it had to be dug up. I spent a lot of time discussing micro and small caches as well as “off-limit” places to hide caches.

Mr. Toole was very receptive to the idea of re-wording the proposed law in such a way as to preserve/protect cemeteries, archeological and historic sites but maintain the sport of Geocaching. He stated that IF the bill made it out of committee, he would like to see an alternate/amended version of the Bill from the Geocaching community. One that would preserve the sport in such places. Mr. Toole stated that he spoke with Ms. Ceips just before our meeting. He stated that she had met with some folks from the Geocaching community and that the meeting very went well. She sounded hopeful that this could be worked out to be mutually beneficial to all parties.

Mr. Toole confirmed that persons (so he was told) had entered into cemeteries in the Low Country had had removed item/artifacts by digging. It was suspected that the person(s) were also Geocaching.

Unless something else happens, I would like your thoughts on the matter. Examples would be:

• caches in these areas are to be only micro caches

• acceptable and/or unacceptable hiding locations

• permits required with landowner for placing.

Examples such as… MO State Parks and Nebraska

One word of caution here – the bill is currently in House Judiciary Committee for review. Ms. Ceips just happens to be on that committee.

Mr. Toole gave me Ms. Ceips business card and stated that she would like for me, or anyone else, to call her to discuss the Bill. I can post the contact information, if needed.

Thanks to everyone for your interest in this matter. Hopefully, we will be able to get this worked out.

1.5k · April 6, 2005

My meeting with Representative Toole went, I though, very well.

I spent 30 minutes discussing the situation with him. He was very appreciative of the education on Geocaching. He admitted that he knew very little about the sport. Mr. Toole was under the impression that Geocaching meant that the “treasure” was hidden in such a way that it had to be dug up. I spent a lot of time discussing micro and small caches as well as “off-limit” places to hide caches.

Mr. Toole was very receptive to the idea of re-wording the proposed law in such a way as to preserve/protect cemeteries, archeological and historic sites but maintain the sport of Geocaching. He stated that IF the bill made it out of committee, he would like to see an alternate/amended version of the Bill from the Geocaching community. One that would preserve the sport in such places. Mr. Toole stated that he spoke with Ms. Ceips just before our meeting. He stated that she had met with some folks from the Geocaching community and that the meeting very went well. She sounded hopeful that this could be worked out to be mutually beneficial to all parties.

Mr. Toole confirmed that persons (so he was told) had entered into cemeteries in the Low Country had had removed item/artifacts by digging. It was suspected that the person(s) were also Geocaching.

Unless something else happens, I would like your thoughts on the matter. Examples would be:

• caches in these areas are to be only micro caches

• acceptable and/or unacceptable hiding locations

• permits required with landowner for placing.

Examples such as… MO State Parks and Nebraska

One word of caution here – the bill is currently in House Judiciary Committee for review. Ms. Ceips just happens to be on that committee.

Mr. Toole gave me Ms. Ceips business card and stated that she would like for me, or anyone else, to call her to discuss the Bill. I can post the contact information, if needed.

Thanks to everyone for your interest in this matter. Hopefully, we will be able to get this worked out.

and CR's post made it sound like we got hammered today...I'm going with you on what you said since you spoke to the person who spoke to the lady heading the bill

20.7k · April 6, 2005

Not good news. ...

Are you sure that you didn't meen, "I got good news!'?

38.2k · April 6, 2005

and CR's post made it sound like we got hammered today...I'm going with you on what you said since you spoke to the person who spoke to the lady heading the bill

Any legislation restricting our sport is a bad thing.

1.5k · April 6, 2005

and CR's post made it sound like we got hammered today...I'm going with you on what you said since you spoke to the person who spoke to the lady heading the bill

Any legislation restricting our sport is a bad thing.

Any cacher who suppodely violates a graveyards needs to be policed

1.3k · April 6, 2005

and CR's post made it sound like we got hammered today...I'm going with you on what you said since you spoke to the person who spoke to the lady heading the bill

Any legislation restricting our sport is a bad thing.

Any cacher who suppodely violates a graveyards needs to be policed

No, any PERSON who violates a graveyard should be prosecuted. There are ALREADY laws in place for this.

sd

7.2k · April 7, 2005

and CR's post made it sound like we got hammered today...I'm going with you on what you said since you spoke to the person who spoke to the lady heading the bill

Any legislation restricting our sport is a bad thing.

Exactly. Compromise is not a good thing.

There are already laws on the books that takes care of issues that they are trying to address. This law is not needed even in a compromise form.

5.7k · April 7, 2005

and CR's post made it sound like we got hammered today...I'm going with you on what you said since you spoke to the person who spoke to the lady heading the bill

Any legislation restricting our sport is a bad thing.

Any cacher who suppodely violates a graveyards needs to be policed

I'd settle for those who 'actually' do harm to such locations.

April 7, 2005

Today I recieved an email from my reviewer asking me to archive my 2 graveyard caches. Not being one to cause drama, I have regretfully done so. It seems the reviewer has asked that all graveyard caches in S.C. be archived.

I'm sorry I missed the meeting today. I injured my shoulder while snowboarding and I was at the Orthopedist getting x-rays.

I'm anxious to find out what all was said. Hopefully all of this is temporary and our caches can be restored in the near future.

7.2k · April 7, 2005

It seems the reviewer has asked that all graveyard caches in S.C. be archived.

Sadly, yes. Any caches that are in cemeteries without express and posted permission from a steward is being asked to be removed. It is felt this is a necessary step at this time.

4.8k · April 7, 2005

Unless something else happens, I would like your thoughts on the matter. Examples would be:
• caches in these areas are to be only micro caches

• acceptable and/or unacceptable hiding locations

• permits required with landowner for placing.

Examples such as… MO State Parks and Nebraska

I have not read all of this thread, but I noticed the Nebraska link. That is a Game and Parks policy that is pretty reasonable. You might also look at LSPNRD.org for another local agency Nebraska policy. I am surprised to see state action here. Normally that is better left to local agencies!

Regardless, as a government attorney who also knows something of the legislative process, I would be happy to write a letter additionally explaining caching, urging against unreasonable polices, and suggesting solutions if you would like. I would also tie it into our relatively good experiences with land owners in Nebraska. I could also note a few various constitutionial private land use issues that the bill might cause with a disclaimer that I am not providing them with legal services. Legislators tend to get cautious about causing constitutional issues in their statutes. At the same time, I can't really can't give legal advice and also don't want to step into a far away area uninvited. If you want me to do that, let me know and I will happily write something on nice formal looking Nebraskache letterhead (would have to get board permission for the letterhead), which I would also be happy to pass by you first for approval.

Email me if that will help.

Edited April 7, 2005 by carleenp

4.8k · April 7, 2005

If anyone clicked my link in my previous post and either got a bad link or the home page which is harder to find the policy from, click it again. I edited my post to fix it and take it to the caching page of the site.

1.7k · April 7, 2005

I'm on the e-mail list for this bill, here is the latest update:

House Bill 3777, dealing with geocaching will be revisited by the

Special Laws Subcommittee on Wednesday, April 13. The meeting will be

held at 9 am in room 516 of the Blatt Building on state house grounds.

CR, can you fill us in with what happened with your meeting.

April 7, 2005

My column in today's Moultrie News, the weekly newspaper in Mt. Pleasant, SC and the East Cooper area, addresses this bill. Circulation is about 30 thousand copies in Mt. Pleasant, IOP, Sullivans and Daniel Island.

Edited April 7, 2005 by manjack

1.5k · April 7, 2005

My column in today's Moultrie News, the weekly newspaper in Mt. Pleasant, SC and the East Cooper area, addresses this bill. Circulation is about 30 thousand copies in Mt. Pleasant, IOP, Sullivans and Daniel Island.

Does not hurt that the lady heading the bill is up for re-election, just wish it was something else she was trying to kiss *** with

April 7, 2005

My column in today's Moultrie News, the weekly newspaper in Mt. Pleasant, SC and the East Cooper area, addresses this bill. Circulation is about 30 thousand copies in Mt. Pleasant, IOP, Sullivans and Daniel Island.

Since this appears to be a commercial post ($40.00 per year), could you give us an idea of what you say in your article?

April 7, 2005

My column in today's Moultrie News, the weekly newspaper in Mt. Pleasant, SC and the East Cooper area, addresses this bill.

Is there an online version we could read, or could you paste it here?

~erik~

1.5k · April 7, 2005

I just want to take the time to thank Manjack for all the wonderful work he is doing. I happen to know a few friends of his and everyone has spoken very highly of him and the work that he does. Keep figthing for us.

April 7, 2005

In order to prevent additional ongoing comments regarding how the subject of this thread is inaccurate, I've started a new thread with a description of yesterday's South Carolina Committee Meeting which seeks to limit Geocaching in certain areas in South Carolina.

22.1k · April 7, 2005

If the South Carolina geocachers active in this thread and in the lobbying efforts would prefer that this one be closed, so that the discussion can continue in Tin Sparrow's new thread, please let me know by posting here or sending me a PM.

April 8, 2005

If the South Carolina geocachers active in this thread and in the lobbying efforts would prefer that this one be closed, so that the discussion can continue in Tin Sparrow's new thread, please let me know by posting here or sending me a PM.

Yes please. At least all current information will be in one thread.

X

3.5k · April 8, 2005

Caching Flak.

From the Beaufort Gazette

Bret

7.2k · April 8, 2005

Actually, it might be best to leave both open as one is about the law in general and the other is commitee meeting and responses to it.

7.2k · April 8, 2005

Caching Flak.

From the Beaufort Gazette

Bret

Very good article. Very fair reporting, I think.

7.2k · April 8, 2005

"You go to a phone book and find a 'Head Llama,' and I'd be happy to contact them," she said.

It appears to be quite obvious she didn't want to contact a cacher because in just two clicks you can type a message to the owner of a particular cache. If you're not a member, just sign up, it's free and you don't need to give any personal information except a valid email address. (Because we are responsibile that way so you can be contacted if you do something inappropriate.)

April 8, 2005

I added this post to the legislative thread also...

One way to get around this is to make all of the caches in these areas VERTUAL caches. To get credit for the cache, e-mail the cache owner some proof of the visit. Such as date of an event, the wording of a particular epitaph, etc.

The proposed law DOES NOT make LOOKING for the geocache illegal. Just hiding a geocache container. Virtual caches are exempt from the proposed law.

If they outlaw virtual caches, wouldn’t they then make it illegal for anyone to access the sites?

April 8, 2005

"You go to a phone book and find a 'Head Llama,' and I'd be happy to contact them," she said.

It appears to be quite obvious she didn't want to contact a cacher because in just two clicks you can type a message to the owner of a particular cache. If you're not a member, just sign up, it's free and you don't need to give any personal information except a valid email address. (Because we are responsibile that way so you can be contacted if you do something inappropriate.)

I agree. How long have they been planning this? How long has this been going on, the upset of locals I mean?

"The things that we saw were appalling. There's no other words for it," said Jonathan Leader, the state archaeologist for South Carolina. "Without this law being passed, I have very little hope in people policing themselves."

I'm sorry. This is the "thinking we are free" thing I posted about earlier. We haven't even had the chance to fix the problem internally.

X

38.2k · April 8, 2005

Two cemetery cache circuits near Columbia are called "Oh, What a Beautiful Mourning" and "Kick the Bucket," according to Ceips.

The horror! So lets write some legislation and outlaw it .

Edited April 8, 2005 by briansnat

24.7k · April 8, 2005

I'll brainstorm on this development. I've got some thoughts about allies as well, this weekend I'll come up with a bunch of angles of attack. As the saying goes Kill Bill.

Edited April 8, 2005 by Renegade Knight

9.4k · April 8, 2005

Ceips said that Leader and others tried to contact Seattle-based www.geocaching.com more than a year ago but received no response.

WTF?

April 8, 2005

Ceips said that Leader and others tried to contact Seattle-based www.geocaching.com more than a year ago but received no response.

WTF?

Sir this is a family friendly forum!

9.4k · April 8, 2005

WTF?

Sir this is a family friendly forum!

What, the frog? Maybe they talked to Signal. But they certainly didn't use the contact information linked on every page of geocaching.com

April 9, 2005

WTF?

Sir this is a family friendly forum!

What, the frog? Maybe they talked to Signal. But they certainly didn't use the contact information linked on every page of geocaching.com

:mad:

1.5k · April 9, 2005

So can you send Signal down here to speak on this?

5.3k · April 9, 2005

WTF?

Sir this is a family friendly forum!

What, the frog? Maybe they talked to Signal. But they certainly didn't use the contact information linked on every page of geocaching.com

Perhaps a signed affidavit from you might help out?

9.4k · April 9, 2005

Hydee at Groundspeak has been working on this for the past week. If she needs some material I'd be happy to provide it.

1.7k · April 9, 2005

Jeremy, I think a letter from you stating that State Archeologist made no contact with you or Groundspeak would go a long way. At the next meeting the burden of proof would be on him. Assuming he sent all of the e-mails, letters, and registered letters he would have a paper trail. If he has no paper trail than he and the committee will not be able to claim we can not police ourselves when if no one made us aware of the problem.

April 9, 2005

What GC.com needs to do is approve more Virtual Caches. Put your virtuals where there will be no impact from public viewing. If you need a trinket in order to be satisfied with your find then send me $20 and I will mail you a trinket.

24.7k · April 9, 2005

What GC.com needs to do is approve more Virtual Caches. Put your virtuals where there will be no impact from public viewing. If you need a trinket in order to be satisfied with your find then send me $20 and I will mail you a trinket.

If this bill ends up with no caches and only virtuals then the time has come to ban virtuals entirely. Virtuals are nice, some are well thought out. They are a different flavor of cache. In the end it's the box that I'm looking for and not a virtual.

On a different track. The state archaeologist should be the last person on the planet to support this bill.

24.7k · April 9, 2005

Ideas sent to CR. Especially working with the State Archaeologist on defeating the bill.

Geocaching May Be Outlawed In South Carolina

Recommended Posts