Jump to content

South Carolina Legislation Meeting


Recommended Posts

Then search on hiking and see how many businesses make money on hiking.  Lots.  And how many of them give fee based subscriptions for hiking...probably none.

 

...

 

That is why they see it so directly linked as commercial.

You mean like trails.com?

 

Oh, yeah, I see your point. :D

 

Like I said...

And I suppose hiking was started or took off because of that site, and without it almost no one with be hiking? Riiigghhtt.... :(

 

I really don't understand how people can stretch things to make it go the way they want.

I can see where you are trying to go, but I don't see it getting there.

 

Kenneth

Link to comment

As far as I can tell the first set of items covers all of the invitiations they have during the week, basically a list of functions outside of the house. That list makes it look like nothing happens until Thursday. Hopefully someone with a better understand of how a legislative calender works can confirm whether its tuesday or thursday.

Link to comment

Since the Geocaching bill is listed last in the calendar, does that mean it is considered LAST in importance by the house leadership. Certainly, all the items listed above seem to be of more importance to me. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't come up for debate until next week, or later, or not at all???!!!

 

GeoForse

Edited by GeoForse
Link to comment
I really don't understand how people can stretch things to make it go the way they want.

Yeah, I see the inventor of geocaching just raking it in. Oh, also, the guy who coined the term "geocaching," too.

 

Oh, and don't forget this is about letterboxing, as well. You gonna claim letterboxing is a commercial enterprise, too?

 

Come on. You know dadgum good and well geocaching would be around in some form or another even if geocaching.com didn't exist. Who cares in what form or how many people did it, it would still exist. Geocaching dot com is commercial, geocaching is not.

 

Besides, you want to tell me who makes money off the privately listed caches or other places that don't make a profit?

Link to comment

It seems to me that if it does anything in terms of raisingmoney, it does so by getting people into parks that charge admission. All of the state parks in SC charge an entry fee. Personally I've always purchaced a park pass, but for those who doesn't spent a lot fo time in state parks it's helping the SC Dept of Parks and Tourism more than anyone else around here.

 

-S of tands

Link to comment
Worse, unprepared geocachers feel the need to go to the meetings and validate the controller's reasoning.

That is just highly rude considering you more then likely know nothing about the people who went. I happen to know a few of them and they have been around with Geocaching since the beginning and are VERY highly respected in their communities. ...

Rude perhaps, but valid. Better prepared is a good thing and geocachers were caught flat footed (by their own admission) to start with. They knew geocaching, were well respected, but stepped into a process that they didn't know about with representatives who were also good at their jobs. We lost points on that first meeting. But it's a good lesson learned and things have already improved since they are quick learners. Lessons learned here will make the next local group that has to tackle an issue better prepared and so, more effective.

 

Most of the points in the post you quote are valid (rude or nice overtones not withstanding). The only one that isn't is to ignore the issue. First you fight to keep the bill from being passed. Meanwhile you work to make sure it's not signed into law. Then if it's law you fight to have it repealed in one way or another. If it really is a great law, the kind lawyer bards will sing tales about on the steps of the supreme court under the full moon, then it will stand the test of time.

Link to comment
If it really is a great law, the kind lawyer bards will sing tales about on the steps of the supreme court under the full moon, then it will stand the test of time.

I am still waiting to see a singing lawyer bard. Perhaps I just miss them because I'm not around the court at night when there is a full moon? :D:(

 

OK, sorry to be off topic, I just liked that line...... :D

Link to comment
....Basic strategy is that if you are attacked, you first defend yourself and then you take the battle to them.

If the charge is bogus there is nothing to defend and nothing to gain by repeating a false allegation. The trick is to answer the charge is such a way that it turns things to a positive without repeating the negative.

 

The classic example.

 

"Senator have you cheated on your wife? "How dare you accuse me of cheating, I would never cheat, I can't believe you said I would cheat on my wife..." What the public hears is "Cheat, Cheat, Cheat"

 

vs.

 

"Senator have you cheated on your wife? "I love my wife and family and our private lives are not part of this political campaign. Did you have a question on my proposed policies?..." What the public hears is "Love, and Campaign Issues".

 

The odds are we are not going to sell the rep who submitted the house bill on geocaching. She's not who we need to sell. It's everyone else who's going to vote. If by chance the positives do sell her then great. After all geocacaching is a viable and low impact land use.

I'm still not sure that you are correct.

 

In your first example, I thought two things: 1) He took the accusation head on. 2) He says he didn't cheat.

 

In your second example, I thought: Hmmm, he sidestepped the question. Cheater!

 

My point is this, ignoring accusations out of fear that you will 'give them life' doesn't work. Many politicians have lost elections because they didn't want to answer a baseless attack. Unfortunately, if you don't answer the charges, people only hear one side. The accusations have already been given life.

 

edit: In my defense, 'C' and 'V' are right next to each other.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
...My point is this, ignoring accusations out of fear that you will 'give them life' doesn't work.  Many politicians have lost elevtions because they didn't want to answer a baseless attack.  Unfortunately, if you don't answer the charges, people only hear one side.  The accusations have already been given life.

I agree with this. Where we differ is how to tackle it. You do have to tackle it though or the allegations will grow into the publics perception as 'reality'.

 

You don't repeat negative allogations. Perhaps the reason we differ is that my training (limited as it is) on the topic comes from a world where the press can take any one snipet you say and run that on the 6 oclock news, and that snipet defines public perception of both you and what you were talking about.

 

There are questions that you can not win with and in those cases side stepping is the only real answer that can't be used against you even if it can't build your case either. Of course in a good sidestep you repeat the main message you are trying to convey. "Geocaching is harmless".

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Geocaching dot com is commercial, geocaching is not.

I understand your point CR, I really do. The point is moot though due to the fact that Rep. Ceips twisted it so that it sounds like the big bad. Do you get where I am coming from?

 

Also, anyone ever hear of divide and conquer. That's what's happpening now. We should be banding together and looking for solutions not attacking each other. I'm not trying to be funny. Just get along.

 

As for the comments made about folks going unprepared, could anyone of us done any better. We didn't get caught with our pants down, we got caught with our pants off. Not one of us could have went better prepared with the way this went down. And it is pretty hard evidence to defend against. We can't fight this after it's made law. The damage will have already been done. I'm glad at least that someone went to fight for us.

 

X

Edited by Clan X-Man
Link to comment
Geocaching dot com is commercial, geocaching is not.

I understand your point CR, I really do. The point is moot though due to the fact that Rep. Ceips twisted it so that it sounds like the big bad. Do you get where I am coming from?

Absolutely. So why are we still harping on it?

 

My point is who cares if someone is making money of of geocaching. Every activity has someone making money off it. That doesn't make the activity a commercial enterprise.

 

In fact, we were letterboxing before we were geocaching. Where's the commercial enterprise aspect there?

 

I'm sorry if some others don't get it, X. I'm just tired of some people basically saying, "Yep, Cieps is right."

 

I just wish folks would put down their spoons.

Link to comment
My point is who cares if someone is making money of of geocaching. Every activity has someone making money off it. That doesn't make the activity a commercial enterprise.

This is true. But even if it was, so what? Wheelchair manufacturers make money but they shouldn't be banned from sidewalks because someone gets their feet run over by one.

 

(No. I don't compare my evil enterprise to helping handicapped people but we are certainly trying to get people outside more. How is that bad? We're not planning to drill in Alaska for Ceips sake)

 

IMO the commercialism point is a red herring designed to prop up a weak argument lacking in any real factual data.

Link to comment

To play devil's advocate here for a second:

 

Isn't the point of this bill simply to turn what is already a site guideline into a state law?

 

From the language of the bill, it only legislates that you much have express written consent to geocache on these locations. As it stands, to have your cache listed on this website, you must acknowledge consent to submit your listing. This bill will only serve to punish you punitively for not getting that consent in writing from the appropriate state office. A copy of the written consent could be left in the geocache for anyone stopped while geocaching. Otherwise, they're just visitors (we're all really only "geocachers" while we're signing the logbook...where the express written consent would be).

 

I also would not be a fan of this legislation if I worked in the state office where every geocacher in the US was mailing their SC express written consent applications at once for every SC cache on these locations.

Link to comment

Just adding a resounding, "what they said", Ms. Ceips has a lot working against her.

 

She has no evidence of the vandalism, has statement from logs out of context so they appear worse than they really are, and at the last House session she could not show how exsisting laws covering trespassing or vandalism do not apply to Geocaching. The commercialism comment just distracts people from realizing how weak her evidence is and how the bill will affect large portions of cities, towns, and counties due to its "protection" of historical areas. Or all of her concerns canbe addressed with open dialouge between Geocachers, land managers, and government agencies

Link to comment
To play devil's advocate here for a second:

 

Isn't the point of this bill simply to turn what is already a site guideline into a state law?

 

From the language of the bill, it only legislates that you much have express written consent to geocache on these locations. As it stands, to have your cache listed on this website, you must acknowledge consent to submit your listing. This bill will only serve to punish you punitively for not getting that consent in writing from the appropriate state office. A copy of the written consent could be left in the geocache for anyone stopped while geocaching. Otherwise, they're just visitors (we're all really only "geocachers" while we're signing the logbook...where the express written consent would be).

 

I also would not be a fan of this legislation if I worked in the state office where every geocacher in the US was mailing their SC express written consent applications at once for every SC cache on these locations.

There are large number of federal, state, county, and local agencies throughout the United States that have created effictive Geocaching policies that mirror GC.com's guidelines, as well protecting the land mangers individual concerns. Without having to require a state wide law. The same thing can be done in South Carolina.

Link to comment

Can anyone explain why Ms.Ceips is on the ethics committee? After all she was the one with the unethical lies about urinating on the gravestones and such correct? I guess i am missing something. I thought when you were on a committee like that, you not only upheld the ethics, you made sure you were superceding them.

Link to comment
Isn't the point of this bill simply to turn what is already a site guideline into a state law?

 

Nope. This site does not require written consent for all cache placements.

Here's one statment, "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location."

 

There have been discussions ad naseum about permission. Written permission is intrusive into land owner rights. Express permission is not alway required or even obtainable. Many stewards adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy to insulate them from litigation. Expression permission, they feel, opens them up to claims. Some may feel written permission creates a contract between the owner and cachers.

 

No, the big thinkers of geocaching fully recognize these scenerios and operate accordingly.

 

I've even received an answer to an email to one of the sponsors of the bill and he says pretty much the same as what Ju99ler said, "We are doing nothing but putting your own rules into law." Well, that just tells me someone doesn't understand the guidelines of the site very well.

Link to comment

This whole thing is ridculous on many levels. Geocaching, in its most basic form, is tourism with a log. The myriad forms of geocaching can't be banned anymore than tourism can be banned, and it is simply idiotic to try to do so.

 

You can't hide a geocache in a cemetery. Fine. You can't find a specific location in a cemetery with a gps. But you could put the co-ordinates outside the entrance to the cemetery, put the gps away, and have directions to the specific location, i.e. the fifth headstone to the north. Its a bit more problematic with the large historic areas in S Carolina. Might have to use (eeek!) addresses.

 

What this committee has manged to do in their blind quest to regulate is to write a law that bans the use of gps technology to find specific locations in certain areas. This may not be their intention, but it is what they wrote. The result of this will be that some DA in South Carolina will have a 'target' that he's after and can't find anything to charge him/her with. Then he stumbles upon this law, realizes that his target has used On-Star, Expedia or whatever to locate a business in a historic area, and, viola!, he has something to charge his target with. Fortunately for most of us, the targets of such investigations are usually politicians. Maybe it will be Ceips herself.

Link to comment
Isn't the point of this bill simply to turn what is already a site guideline into a state law?

 

From the language of the bill, it only legislates that you much have express written consent to geocache on these locations. As it stands, to have your cache listed on this website, you must acknowledge consent to submit your listing. This bill will only serve to punish you punitively for not getting that consent in writing from the appropriate state office. A copy of the written consent could be left in the geocache for anyone stopped while geocaching. Otherwise, they're just visitors (we're all really only "geocachers" while we're signing the logbook...where the express written consent would be).

 

I also would not be a fan of this legislation if I worked in the state office where every geocacher in the US was mailing their SC express written consent applications at once for every SC cache on these locations.

Actually, as I read the bill it makes it illegal to even HUNT an improperly placed cache (or by some folk's readings, even a properly placed cache or even a location like a restaurant in certain areas).

 

I would still have some problems with the bill if it only set penalties for improper placement and didn't include the prohibition on the use of a GPS to find a "geocache or another location", but it would be far less objectionable to me anyway.

 

As I understand the bill, it would make an innocent tourist subject to penalties if they hunted a cache which was placed without permission, yet the hunter would have no convenient way of verifying that permission was properly obtained, not subsequently revoked, or whatever. And with the broader interpretations some have suggested, even using a GPS in whole cities and counties would be prohibited if you were looking for "another location".

 

That's a long way beyond the making a small subset of the guidelines concerning permission into law.

 

Jon

Link to comment
Some may feel written permission creates a contract between the owner and cachers.

 

I've even received an answer to an email to one of the sponsors of the bill and he says pretty much the same as what Ju99ler said, "We are doing nothing but putting your own rules into law." Well, that just tells me someone doesn't understand the guidelines of the site very well.

Written permission does give a contract between the land authority and the cacher. The bill is requesting that this contract exist for certain areas that the bill sponsors deem require more control. This is not so dissimilar to rules that park agencies in MD and other states have in place.

 

If you think that this isn't just a strengthening of the permission requirement into something more tangible for the state to handle as an official measure for these locations, then you have to give that argument to the politicians, debaters, lawyers, and lobbyists who are willing to bring it up in opposition to the bill. And you'll have to do it in better terms than "big thinkers operate accordingly" and "sometimes permission isn't obtainable". Because the easy answers that the bill supporters will justify their stance with is that not all geocachers are "big thinkers" and that permission will be more obtainable when this law directs you to a specific agency for express written permission.

 

You have to find a more convincing argument than "we were doing fine before this law". Because even if that's true and I agree wholeheartedly with it, it's not going to win votes against this bill.

Link to comment
not all geocachers are "big thinkers" and that permission will be more obtainable when this law directs you to a specific agency for express written permission.

Actually, the "big thinkers" are TPTB, of this and other sites, and others who have shaped this pastime.

 

The law doesn't direct you to a specific agency. In fact, the law is so broad that it includes areas where there is no clear boundaries. Just exactly where is "Moncks Corner and vicinity?"

 

There are even situations where clear boundaries exist, but only a select few are allowed access to the information. These are many of the archaeological sites.

 

That's not to mention there is no grace period for a cache on lands that are later included on one of the lists. Somebody finds a broken pot next to a geocache and all of a sudden the spot is on the inventory, the cache is illegal, and the cache owner is arrested under 16-17-605.

 

No, this is not "just a strengthening of this site's rules" and, yes, this has been brought up in our emails.

 

Not only that, this argument does nothing against the smear campaign against geocachers. You want to know the latest? The SCGA got a nasty C&D order because the complainant is under the impression... That's all I've got to say because even after several versions I still can't write it up without it being serious fodder for more lies. The whisper campaign against geocachers not just continues, but has been kicked into high gear.

Link to comment
This is not so dissimilar to rules that park agencies in MD and other states have in place.

The critical distinctions between this proposed legislation and the dozens or hundreds of successful, cooperative geocache permit systems implemented by other land managers include:

  • Nowhere else is there a state law that makes geocaching, specifically, a criminal act if not done with express permission for both hiding and finding. Most land managers are content to deal with geocaching administratively, and they're content to rely on existing laws (trespassing, littering, etc.) for those who don't comply. I'm not aware of any instance where those existing laws have been invoked by a park system, and I follow the forums pretty closely.
  • With a park system that has a permit system, you can look at a map and see clear boundary lines. The park stops there, at Route 100 where you see the big entrance sign. You know that if you hide a cache in the park, you need to fill out their permit form. In South Carolina, entire areas are designated as historic districts, and there's no clear guidance on exactly who you would contact for permission in order to avoid criminal prosecution.
  • To my knowledge this is the first geocaching regulation that calls for express written permission on the part of someone who wishes to *find* a geocache, rather than just to hide one.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment
You want to know the latest? The SCGA got a nasty C&D order because the complainant is under the impression... That's all I've got to say because even after several versions I still can't write it up without it being serious fodder for more lies. The whisper campaign against geocachers not just continues, but has been kicked into high gear.

I looked at the SCGA page and can't see a valid reason for a cease and desist request. One the cachers working on this in SC is an attorney right? You might have him look at it just in case.

Link to comment
The bill is requesting that this contract exist for certain areas that the bill sponsors deem require more control.  This is not so dissimilar to rules that park agencies in MD and other states have in place.

While not dissimilar to some rules some parks have, it removes any option for a park, agency, or land owner for having a verbal agreement if the properties fall into the restricted areas.

 

If this becomes law, I have to go and have some stewards sign something because their word is no longer good enough.

 

Not that it is not already happening, because it is. The point is that the written permission requirement is intrusive into land owner rights.

Link to comment
The SCGA got a nasty C&D order because the complainant is under the impression...

C&D are, more often than not, junk papers for lawyers to justify their fees.

 

They often hold as much weight and harumph as one of Ralph Kramden's "To the moon..." threats. I received one of these over a supposed patent infringment. We told the company "Yeah, sure, whatever..." and waited 6 months for them to go belly-up.

 

Just out of curiosity, feel free to send me a PM/e-mail with the C&D complaint.

 

I think if you continue to hammer away at undecided or weakly-supporting (of the bill) representatives with the points outlined by Lep, you'll do better in the long run. The bill's sponsors have already stuck their neck out on this and so you're unlikely to dissuade them (even with threats of campaigning against them later).

 

Another something that the SCGA may want to consider is the generation of more positive press coverage. CITO is one of your strongest allies in this whole "can you believe what geocachers do in our cemetaries!?!" smear. Putting paper clippings and local news video into the hands of the politicians on a scheduled clean-up for next week in a historical area would be pretty destructive to their claims of "uncaring, trampling, disrespecting *game players*" rampaging through the state. And on top of the CITO event, be sure to have the historical/archaeological/cemetary owner/manager there to tell the reporter(s) about how great it is to have you there cleaning up the trash that others have left who aren't even geocachers.

 

It's hard to argue with a few logs/forum comments and a picture or two against large-scale trash cleanup in the same places. Putting together a lobbyist white paper or two on geocaching and how it's beneficial to the community to put in each rep's mailbox (not inbox/e-mail) would be prudent too. They can't go to bat against the sponsors without these kinds of ammo at the ready. They also won't likely go against the sponsors (for fear of losing those votes on something else, etc) unless they've got something tangible in hand to fight with that makes them come out on the side of good and wholesomeness instead of guessing that the bill doesn't need to be.

 

Probably not the first to bring these things up, but from my experiences with state and local politics, these things go a long way into improving your faction's stance on specific agendas.

Link to comment
...You have to find a more convincing argument than "we were doing fine before this law". Because even if that's true and I agree wholeheartedly with it, it's not going to win votes against this bill.

This isn't a simple issue though you might think so at first blush.

 

But first and formost the bill has nothing to do with permission. That's for the land managers and the cache owners to work out. In many cases where I've had discussions with land managers they just don't care to regulate geocaching. They view geocaching as a harmless activity that their lands can support. They would rather spend their time on actual problems rather than artificial ones. They actually enjoy the logs because it's feedback on people enjoying their parks and lands that they don't normally recieve.

 

That's one angle, there are many more.

Link to comment
You want to know the latest?  The SCGA got a nasty C&D order because the complainant is under the impression...  That's all I've got to say because even after several versions I still can't write it up without it being serious fodder for more lies.  The whisper campaign against geocachers not just continues, but has been kicked into high gear.

I looked at the SCGA page and can't see a valid reason for a cease and desist request. One the cachers working on this in SC is an attorney right? You might have him look at it just in case.

Yeah, I think you're right. I'm going to pass it on.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

I think if you continue to hammer away at undecided or weakly-supporting (of the bill) representatives with the points outlined by Lep, you'll do better in the long run. The bill's sponsors have already stuck their neck out on this and so you're unlikely to dissuade them (even with threats of campaigning against them later).

 

Excellent point, Leps outline concentrates on the flaws within the bills. Instead of defending against the more outrageous claims the bills sponsor has made about Geocachers.

Link to comment
...  The SCGA got a nasty C&D order because the complainant is under the impression...

I wandered around your site for a few minutes but couldn't find anything that should be ceased or even desisted. ;)

It wasn't for the site itself, but for some properties manged by the person sending the letter. Sorry for any confusion.

 

This letter is to formally assert our property rights and demand that you cease and desist from entering our properties for any improper purpose, including any purpose associated with your group in any way.  Your conduct is trespassing and vandalizing.  Those who have already entered into the property will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law, as will those who have acted in concert with them.

 

Good thing I'd already removed the cache because otherwise I'd be breaking the law doing so. I would not be surprised this whole episode is a mechanism to get someone to trespass to remove the cache and then be arrested. That would be good fodder for the other side. I mean, everything else they've presented has fallen under the lightest of scrutiny.

Link to comment

Speaking of which, I need a reviewer to go into GCHMY1 and place big red letters to the effect, "NO TRESPASSING!!! PROPERTY OWNER ASSERTS THAT NO GEOCACHER ENTER THE CEMETERY AND HAS ISSUED THE REQUIRED NO TRESPASSING WARNING. YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO ARREST!"

 

...or something to that effect.

 

Can't do it myself because the cache is archived.

 

See how nasty this is getting?

Link to comment

CR, I agree the C&D is probably motivated by someone involved with the legislation, maybe a constituent. If I were you I would send them a simple letter stating the date the cache was removed from the property and that you would be more than glad to meet with representative of the property to confirm that it is no longer present. It should take some of the hot air out of them if you have already done this well in advance of the C&D.

 

The whole thing sounds petty, rather than just contact you directly they had to file a legal notice.

Edited by magellan315
Link to comment
CR: You can still edit the text on an archived page. Just edit the page as you normally would. ;)

I get:

This cache has been archived. You will need to contact the reviewer listed at the bottom of your cache listing or your local cache approver to unarchive it. Use Waypoint Name GCHMY1 when referencing your cache listing.

 

What at I doing wrong?

Link to comment
If I were you I would send them a simple letter stating the date the cache was removed from the property and that you would be more than glad to meet with representative of the property to confirm that it is no longer present.

I've already sent a letter stating just about that exact thing.

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