Jump to content

South Carolina Legislation Meeting


Followers 24

Recommended Posts

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
Depending on how it would appease the offended party, maybe a friendly reviewer could move the coords to somewhere out in the Atlantic.

No. That sets a poor precedent. The archival should be enough as all references to finding it have been removed except for archival purposes.

Link to comment
...
<snip>...Your conduct is trespassing and vandalizing.  Those who have already entered into the property will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law' date=' as will those who have acted in concert with them.[/quote']

It looks like they are threatening to prosecute anyone who has ever been to that cache.

 

Question: Was there a "No Trespassing" sign there? Or is one required there?

 

If there was one, maybe they can prosecute. If not, maybe it is just some sabre-rattling.

Link to comment
Depending on how it would appease the offended party, maybe a friendly reviewer could move the coords to somewhere out in the Atlantic.

No. That sets a poor precedent. The archival should be enough as all references to finding it have been removed except for archival purposes.

Understood.

Link to comment

Is there a link between this bill and this?

 

Yes, I understand it is fodder for the conspiracy theorists among us, but it does seem odd this whole mess started to get middle-class white folks from visiting rural Black cemeteries some of which is on some prime waterfront property. Is it a wonder that the two most staunch supporters of this bill, Rep. Cieps and Rep. Scarborough, represent areas with such prime real estate?

 

Is there a link? You tell me.

Link to comment

Enough of a link to prove anything?

 

Not that I can tell.

 

Enough of a link to walk the reporter of that story through your own information?

 

Sure. Even if he doesn't want to tie it in directly, he might see the worthiness of doing an investigation into the current bill and it's potential impact on tourism and things.

Link to comment

Sure, but it could also be spun in the other direction. A pol could offer this legislation as how she is working hard to save their history. Vote for me, yada yada.

 

Heck, if she's real slick, she could do both. ;)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I think you're giving her entirely too much credit. IMO she likes the limelight (e.g. Dixie Chicks) and she is just over-responding to influential constituents in her district that live near cemetaries and don't want people bothering them. This is something that occurs when there is more foot traffic. For example, geocaches that create more traffic between houses that have legal footpaths. NIMBY holds very true here.

 

There may be some reverse racism in there too, but for the most part the rare geocaching occurence shakes up the "way things used to be."

Link to comment
she is just over-responding to influential constituents in her district that live near cemetaries and don't want people bothering them.

With the C&D and the newspaper article with the quote from the state archaeologist, it also sounds like what we've already seen from a number of other organizations that incorrectly consider us more than just any other hikers/visitors. The idea that we somehow cause an inordinate amount of damage/mischief than any other group of people because we go with more purpose than a window shopper is, as it has been, fairly absurd. But that doesn't stop it from being in people's minds when they get to wield their control over their dominion (whether it be historical society or private property).

Link to comment
Is there a link between this bill and this?

Now that's a dadgum shame!Who are the criminals here? Maybe we are drawing to much interest in these graveyards that are in the way.....

 

X

 

Dadgum takes all power away from my statement.

 

The frog is keeping me down! :(

Link to comment
...
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.
...

There is a cache at a graveyard where I have family. What a catch 22 should that type of demand ever cross my desk.

 

I'd probably tell them very nicely that for me and my family as well as many others this is a traditional cultural place (the rules that pertain to that do not specify that you have to be a member of a Federally Recognized Tribe) and that their order is in violation of my rights.

 

Paying our respects is a very individual thing and it's really nobodies business how we go about it. The NPS has guidelines that you can look up on Traditional Cultural Places.

 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bull...hop/tcpwork.htm

 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bull...%20page%205.htm

 

This order didn’t cross my desk so I don’t need to worry about it directly. If it’s a private cemetery I guess they have rights, but they also have responsibilities and obligations to the state, and to the descendants of those interred. Perhaps the burden of proving that someone has ancestors to pay their respects to falls to the individual, or perhaps the burden falls to the cemetery. My family has roots in this country that go back to the beginning. It would not be difficult, and now that I think of it, it would be a way to honor my families roots. I have always liked walking in cemetaries and wondering about the people and what they were like and what their times were like.

 

I have not even touched on the issue of slander and libel.

Link to comment
...Question: Was there a "No Trespassing" sign there? Or is one required there?

 

If there was one, maybe they can prosecute. If not, maybe it is just some sabre-rattling.

In general they allow and invite the public. Trespassing is a non issue. At best they are "invoking the right to refuse service to anyone" and it's very likey they really don't have that right. Even if the location in question is private property and not supported by tax.

Link to comment
Depending on how it would appease the offended party, maybe a friendly reviewer could move the coords to somewhere out in the Atlantic.

No. That sets a poor precedent. The archival should be enough as all references to finding it have been removed except for archival purposes.

That's even more than I would of suggested. The cache history is important as is why it was archived and where it was at. It can help as the natural succession of caches goes on and eventually someone else who has never heard of all this controversy places a cache and the history is needed. The reviewer can give them a heads up.

Link to comment
"Enough of a link to walk the reporter of that story through your own information?

 

Sure. Even if he doesn't want to tie it in directly, he might see the worthiness of doing an investigation into the current bill and [it's potential impact on tourism and things."]

 

As a matter of fact, I have noticed that since this whole mess has started, that logs to my caches in the Hilton Head (Beaufort County) area have droped to almost zero. Since there are only a handful of local cachers, over 95% of these logs were from tourists. Tourism is the backbone of the Hilton Head area.

 

(1) Are the visiting cachers afraid to cache here?

 

OR

 

(2) Are cachers looking for somewhere else to vacation?

 

For the past 2 years, my hotel or campground selection has been based 100% on the number of nearby caches in a particular area. I would guess the majoity are in the #2 group.

 

As we all well know, the cachers who fall into the #1 slot are not happy campers! They will return home with bad press, not only to fellow cachers, but everyone they incounter!

 

I wonder if other cachers in the Beuafort and Charleston area are noticing the same results that I am?

Edited by Tool Team
Link to comment

The bill is on the last page of todays calendar, page 17. Is anyone else having problems getting the windows media player feed of the house. I'm getting an error message that says either the server is busy or the address is wrong

Edited by magellan315
Link to comment
The bill is on the last page of todays calendar, page 17. Is anyone else having problems getting the windows media player feed of the house. I'm getting an error message that says either the server is busy or the address is wrong

The video feed is now working for me, but I have no sound. Does this match anyone else's experience?

Link to comment

What gets me is that I have not done any caching since this started, and my caches havent been touched either. The special group recognized from some school in richland county, I feel sorry that No one ( the reps) was paying attention when they were up there, the reps supposed to set a example, they were just sitting around, reading the paper , absent, talking, bunch of sorry jokes up there, if i had a college degree i would run next time .I'm getting the video find here.

Link to comment
As a matter of fact, I have noticed that since this whole mess has started, that logs to my caches in the Hilton Head (Beaufort County) area have droped to almost zero. Since there are only a handful of local cachers, over 95% of these logs were from tourists. Tourism is the backbone of the Hilton Head area.

 

(1) Are the visiting cachers afraid to cache here?

 

                          OR

 

(2) Are cachers looking for somewhere else to vacation?

 

For the past 2 years, my hotel or campground selection has been based 100% on the number of nearby caches in a particular area. I would guess the majoity are in the #2 group.

Like others who have posted to this thread, I am a "GeoTourist" who plans all of my vacations around geocaching. I've dropped lots of dollars in sixteen states for hotels, food, gas and everything else a tourist buys.

 

Prior to geocaching, I took no fewer than six vacations in South Carolina, mainly concentrating on its beaches, rich history and boating opportunities. I won't be going back any time soon. In fact, I'll take special pride in leaving a big blank on my state map (see my profile page). During my next geo-trip at the end of this month, I plan on finding caches in Georgia, Florida and Alabama. Later in the summer, I hope to visit my sister in North Carolina, thereby crossing off Virginia and North Carolina from my list. And I have a fall trip planned to visit all the New England states. This will leave South Carolina as the only hole on the eastern seaboard, and there's a reason for that.

 

I hope that the good geocachers of South Carolina will forgive me for this. Under other circumstances, I would've loved to come down and learn more about your state and enjoy finding your geocaches. I am sure that, like elsewhere, the caches you've hidden in "places that only the locals know about" would've shown me things that I missed during all my prior trips.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment
I won't be going back any time soon.

No offense, but I would wait to pass judgement on SC as a whole until Something actually happens with this sad piece of legislation. This Ceips person isn't exactly an influential (or experienced) politician, so be merry and geocache where you please in South Carolina within the confines of existing (and common sense) laws.

 

I, for one, would rather go with business as usual instead of allowing this Ceips person a sense that she has any real actual power on your decision making process.

Link to comment
I won't be going back any time soon.

No offense, but I would wait to pass judgement on SC as a whole until Something actually happens with this sad piece of legislation. This Ceips person isn't exactly an influential (or experienced) politician, so be merry and geocache where you please in South Carolina within the confines of existing (and common sense) laws.

 

I, for one, would rather go with business as usual instead of allowing this Ceips person a sense that she has any real actual power on your decision making process.

As I stated earlier, I will go back to the Myrtle Beach area again this year. There are many good caches in that area and most of them have been found in the past 5 days. We'll see how this shakes out. I haven't gotten replies from my e-mails to the tourism and legislature. Maybe since I'm not a constituent, they just note my opinion and go on. It would be nice to know if they even got it.

 

Good luck this afternoon.

Link to comment
I won't be going back any time soon.

No offense, but I would wait to pass judgement on SC as a whole until Something actually happens with this sad piece of legislation. This Ceips person isn't exactly an influential (or experienced) politician, so be merry and geocache where you please in South Carolina within the confines of existing (and common sense) laws.

 

I, for one, would rather go with business as usual instead of allowing this Ceips person a sense that she has any real actual power on your decision making process.

I tend to agree. I really am not convinced this is ever going to become law. <_<:blink:

Link to comment

I spoke with one the assistants to the originator of House Bill 3777. He gave me the rather embarrassing points that you listed in your note. Perhaps this Bill should pass to put teeth into the Geocachings rule of getting permission to place a cache.

Edited by Jimmy B
Link to comment
I spoke with one the assistants to the originator of House Bill 3777. He gave me the rather embarrassing points that you listed in your note. Perhaps this Bill should pass to put teeth into the Geocachings rule of getting permission to place a cache.

Out of curiosity which embarassing points were these. A number of allegations about Geocachers urinating on gravestones and vadalising sites have been invalid.

Edited by magellan315
Link to comment
He gave me the rather embarrassing points that you listed in your note

 

And what were these points that were so embarrasing?

 

Bill should pass to put teeth into the Geocachings rule of getting permission to place a cache.

 

Kindly direct me to this rule. I've been at this sport for 4 years and haven't seen it.

Link to comment

The main problem is getting permission to place a cache on any public or private property. Would you want anyone to park their car on your yard without asking? It is called, "Being polite and courteous."

 

The assistant told me about a site being placed in a Jewish cemetery as a night cache. The owner placed florescent paint on a cemetery marker. He told me about reports of people caching in a cemetery during church services and during funerals.

 

I have a cache site here NEAR a cemetery in Georgia. I spent three days searching for the owner of the land. I was told by the local historical society the cemetery was abandoned. The cache approver made sure that no physical cache or markings would be placed in the cemetery before it was approved. If I should receive any complant from anyone with family in the cemetery, it will be gone within 24 hours.

 

Geocaching does not give us the right to place it anywhere we like. We live in a world with other people in it. To get along with others, we must be polite and courteous.

 

Jimmy B

Link to comment

You say what rules?

 

See the Geocaching Guidelines at this link:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

PART OF IT IS SHOWN BELOW:

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

Caches on land maintained by the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

Link to comment
You say what rules? 

 

See the Geocaching Guidelines at this link:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

PART OF IT IS SHOWN BELOW:

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

 

 

I don't see anything there requiring permission for all cache placements. Only that "adequate permission" is required. If the park has no requirement for permission, you have "adequate permission" to place a cache.

 

I'm also still interested in what "embarrasing" points were brought up by Ceip's aide.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
The note I was referring to was the first posted note in this forum dated April 7th.

You mean the one about the log entires that entries that were taken out of context or edited by Ms Ceips to make perfectly innocent logs look bad?

 

Or are you referring to phots that were taken in other states, or in people's living rooms and represented by Ms. Ceips to be taken in SC cemeteries?

 

Or perhaps you're referring to that horrible photo of that evil geocacher laying on the ground next to a marker that was not actually grave marker?

Link to comment

A park is generally owned by the State, County or a City. No cache should be placed in any park without talking to the person who is responsible for that park.

 

But we are discussing how Geocaching people are behaving in cemeteries. Read the posting for April 7, 2005 about what was heard and seen at the meeting. We should all be ashamed.

Link to comment
The assistant told me about a site being placed in a Jewish cemetery as a night cache. The owner placed florescent paint on a cemetery marker. He told me about reports of people caching in a cemetery during church services and during funerals.

 

Lets start with church serivce, funeral. From the assistants comments I can only assume that they implied that Geocachers were some how marching through making as much noise as possible. Go to any cemetary on any day and you will find funeral service in progress.

 

As far as the Jewish cemetary goes, I'd like to to see the cache page in question. There have been claims of Geocachers urinating on gravestones and engaging in vandalism, none of these have been proven. So I'll need to see it to believe it.

 

What you are not seeing is the bill does not just cover cemetaries and archeological sites. It also covers anything that is a historical site, which will close out towns, cities, and parts of some counties.

 

Ask yourself this, are there laws already on the books to cover trespassing and vandalism, yes. All they have to do is enforce the exsisting laws, there is no need to write a new one.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 24
×
×
  • Create New...