South Carolina Legislation Meeting

[Paulcet]

I know Groundspeak never returns my emails, so I guess it is within the realm of possibility.

Clicking on the "Notify us" link goes to an email form which has a drop-down box.

 

There should be a choice in that drop-down for "inappropriate cache placement" or something to that effect.

 

While they may be busy, TPTB should get on it, like, yesterday.

I will give you an example of how the contact process works for inappropriate cache placements.

 

Last week, Groundspeak received an e-mail at the contact address from a land manager somewhere in the territory where I review caches.

<snipped>

 

Other examples like this one are handled in the same way, every single day, all over the world. The system works, at least from where I'm sitting.

Thanks for showing that it works.

 

I guess I shouldn't be as adamant about doing it right away. My point is that if I was a land manager, had a tupperware box on my desk with god-knows-what assortment of stuff in it, and wanted it removed officially, I would try to contact Geocaching.com through the contact link on the home page. Then there is the notify us link at the bottom of that page. Then there is a topic list, but "my topic" is not in that list.

 

I just think it would be beneficial for land managers to find it easy and intuitive to contact the responsible parties.

[+Stump]

I find it interesting that she talked to 50 churches and all were against geocaching. I know of a church that has included geocaching in it's mens fellowship meetings and has an approved cache on it's premises. Another that the pastor caches. And coincidentally last night an elder at our church asked me about leading a geocaching trip for families in our church. Heck, even our associate pastor has gone caching!

 

I can't imagine talking to 50 churches and every one of them being against goecaching. Either South Carolina churches are VERY different from those in Washington state or she's misleading people.

 

Has anyone contacted the Jewish synagogue? It seems like they are misinformed on the issue. Reformed congregations are usually fairly laid back so I was surprised at the tone of the letter.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

This is what I sent to Mr. Haller, the person in charge of the Jewish cemetery in question, and his reply to me:

 

"Dear Mr Haller,

 

I understand that there may be hard feelings due to our group visiting your cemetery. Please allow me to share my experience with you.

 

I am a local geocacher. I began this hobby as a way to spend more time with my family and to be outdoors and more physically active. People place caches as a way to draw others to sites that they find of interest, as a way of being a sort of virtual tour guide. I have visited more parks, historical sites and yes, cemeteries than I would have without geocaching. I have developed a new respect for those who came before; the men, women, and children that have shaped our past, and thus the present.

 

My visit to your cemetery was the first time I had seen a Hebrew cemetery. Until that day, I never thought about the fact that the cemeteries would be segregated. We took the time to read some of the headstones, and I remember seeing one for a young man who was fairly recently interred. He was only 16 or 17, around the same age as my son. I spent some time reflecting on how fleeting life can be. I mourned for the pain that must be felt by his mother and father.

 

I noticed that several headstones had small pebbles placed on them. I did not know what the custom was, so I did not place any of my own. I have since researched their significance and wish I had placed one on this young man’s headstone.

 

I agree that pursuing our hobby using your cemetery may have been unwise. I relate my experience to you only to reassure you that no disrespect was ever intended.

 

I believe my experience is similar to that of each person who visited because a geocache drew them. I have met most of the local geocachers, and I assure you none that I know would behave in an inappropriate manner while visiting a site that has such significance to others.

 

Thank you for your time in this matter, and I sincerely apologise for any discomfort our visits may have caused.

 

(My real name)"

 

His reply:

 

"Mrs. (My real name):

 

Thank you for our e-mail. Please understand that our cemeteries are often

abused by those with far worse motives than you and for this reason we

cannot stand to have them used for any more than what they are intended

for: a place for our loved ones to rest in peace and for them to serve as

a lasting memory for us.

 

Your understanding is appreciated.

 

David Haller"

 

The cache in question has been completely removed.

 

-edit--add quotemarks

Edited May 11, 2005 by Sissy-n-CR

[+carleenp]

Nice letter Sissy.

[+sept1c_tank]

Here is the archived streaming video of H.3777

debate from 5-11-05.

Running time is 52:49

Ms. Ceip's comments begin about 32 minutes into the video.

 

A recent copy of Windows Media Player is required to view this video.

Thanks for the link. Everybody should watch this.

 

When you combine this kind of misinformation with our cumbersome law making process, you suddenly realize that cumbersome is not really so bad.

[+wimseyguy]

Sissy, that is a very well written letter. Has a copy of it and the reply been sent to each and every member of the house who voted? Perhaps it should be, and if one if them can be persuaded to read it into the record the next time Ceips plays the 'vandalizing the Jewish cemetery'card it might have even more impact.

[Cole Hard-cachers]

I have an idea for a new game. Lets elect someone other than Ceips! Just tell me where to send my money!

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I am not saying that this has anything to do with what brought this bill into being, but:

 

"State losing many old cemeteries to development

 

06:18 PM EDT on Sunday, October 10, 2004

 

Associated Press

 

 

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Rapid development has claimed land meant to be the final resting place for many South Carolinians.

 

State archaeologist Jonathan Leader says what should be a rare occurrence is happening far too often. Leader says he gets about 100 reports each year of graveyards being bulldozed or vandalized.

 

"It should be uncommon," Leader said. "Unfortunately, it isn't."

 

In one of the state's oldest cities, the examples are plentiful. The county parking garage behind the Mills House on Meeting Street in downtown Charleston is built over an old Quaker burial ground. An old Presbyterian cemetery is under Canterbury House, an apartment complex on North Market Street. Hundreds of Confederate and civilian graves were buried beneath The Citadel's Johnson Hagood Stadium for decades until a recovery effort was mounted in the late 1990s.

 

No one is sure of the number of small cemeteries and grave plots that are scattered throughout the state, but archeologists are certain they are plentiful, given the many centuries South Carolina has been occupied.

 

"There are a lot, and they are widespread," said Michael Trinkley, executive director of the Chicora Foundation, a nonprofit heritage preservation group based in Columbia.

 

At particular risk are black cemeteries — some of which started as burial grounds for dead slaves. Many are poorly marked and maintained, representing the modest means of the families left behind.

 

These gravesites often were relegated to open fields or waterfront property, which at the time was considered undesirable land rife with mosquitoes and malaria.

 

While it is a felony to knowingly disturb a grave, there are no statistics on how often it happens.

 

State Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, plans to reintroduced a bill that failed last year that would impose fines of up to $2,000 for anyone who desecrates a black cemetery deemed historic by the state.

 

"The problem is the state laws are ineffective and law enforcement is either too ignorant of the laws or uninterested in enforcing them," Trinkley said. "The law requires the actions be both knowing and willful, and it can be almost impossible to document that a landowner or equipment operator knowingly" disturbed graves.

 

The Charleston County Sheriff's Office is in the midst of investigating whether a black graveyard on Wadmalaw Island was illegally uprooted to make way for a house.

 

The loss of the graves could mean the destruction of crucial pieces of state history, archaeologists and historians say.

 

"It's like these people never existed. It's like they are invisible," said Charleston area history buff June Griggs, who hopes someday to see markers placed on several local properties to attest to the people buried there.

 

"About all you could do is put up markers to commemorate it really existing," said North Charleston Councilwoman Phoebe Miller, who tried to help find funds for the effort. "I don't how in the world you could undo that type of damage."-from the WCNC News website.

 

Imagine you are a wealthy developer looking to buy and develope some prime waterfront property in the lowcountry of SC. You know that there are ways to get a cemetery removed from the property once you own it, but it is time-consuming and not cheap:

 

"Title 27 - Property and Conveyances

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 43.

 

REMOVAL OF ABANDONED CEMETERIES

SECTION 27-43-10. Notice of proposed removal; due care required.

 

A person who owns land on which is situated an abandoned cemetery or burying ground may remove graves in the cemetery or ground to a suitable plot in another cemetery or suitable location if:

 

(1) It is necessary and expedient in the opinion of the governing body of the county or municipality in which the cemetery or burying ground is situated to remove the graves. The governing body shall consider objections to removal pursuant to the notice under item (2) or otherwise before it approves removal.

 

(2) Thirty days' notice of removal is given to the relatives of the deceased persons buried in the graves, if they are known. If no relatives are known, thirty days' notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the property lies. If no newspaper is published in the county, notice must be posted in three prominent places in the county, one of which must be the courthouse door.

 

(3) Due care is taken to protect tombstones and replace them properly, so as to leave the graves in as good condition as before removal.

 

SECTION 27-43-20. Removal to plot agreeable to governing body and relatives; board may determine suitable plot in case of disagreement.

 

The plot to which the graves are removed shall be one which is mutually agreeable between the governing body of the county or municipality and the relatives of the deceased persons. If a suitable plot cannot be agreed upon between the parties concerned the matter shall be finally determined by a board of three members which shall be convened within fifteen days after final disagreement on the new location of the plot. The board shall be appointed as follows: One member shall be appointed by the county or municipality, one member shall be appointed by the relatives, and a third member shall be selected by the two. The decision of the board shall be final.

 

SECTION 27-43-30. Supervision of removal work; expenses.

 

All work connected with the removal of the graves shall be done under the supervision of the governing body of the county, who shall employ a funeral director licensed by this State. All expenses incurred in the operation shall be borne by the person seeking removal of the graves.

 

SECTION 27-43-40. Evidence of abandonment.

 

The conveyance of the land upon which the cemetery or burying ground is situated without reservation of the cemetery or burying ground shall be evidence of abandonment for the purposes of this chapter."

 

If noone knows about the cemetery, you might be able to get around the law, since the punishments are only for those who knowingly and willfully disturb the graves.

 

All of a sudden, a list of abandoned cemeteries is published on a silly game-playing website, and people are coming out unannounced to visit the sites. You might worry that one of these folks (who obviously has nothing better to do and aren't real organized) might see a bulldozer and shout 'Stop! Stop! There are graves here!' Maybe even call the police if the work continues.

 

Hmmm, how would I fix this problem? I might put a lot of money into someone's re-election campaign. Or better yet, get myself elected. Then I would have a bill drafted and provide a bunch of exaggerations about how harmful this game is and how badly its players misbehave.

 

Again, I can't say for certain that this is what started the whole mess, but something definitely smells funny, and it ain't the pluff mud!

 

Sissy

[+Skip_]

Of all the reasons for this bill not to be passed, by far the most compelling is things like trespassing and vandalism are already against the law. Let people, and I use the term loosely, who vandalize cemeteries get prosecuted under existing vandalism laws.

 

I've seen a number of historical cemeteries because of geocaching, some of which probably wouldn't get much in the way of visitors were it not for the nearby caches. People gone for many generations are once more remembered, if only their names, when they were born and when they died. Much better that than be forgotten.

 

It seems like every time someone makes a valid point as to why this bill shouldn't pass, a new reason is pulled out of a hat. The real reason is power, control and making it seem like something is being done, when nothing need be done aside from investigate any crimes that have taken place and prosecute them under laws already in place. I'm pretty sure that any vandalism isn't the result of geocaching or geocachers. New laws won't stop it, since it's already against the law and the people doing it don't care. People who are willing to break a law aren't going to be stopped by another one.

[+Renegade Knight]

...."Mrs. (My real name):

 

Thank you for our e-mail. Please understand that our cemeteries are often

abused by those with far worse motives than you and for this reason we

cannot stand to have them used for any more than what they are intended

for: a place for our loved ones to rest in peace and for them to serve as

a lasting memory for us.

 

Your understanding is appreciated.

 

David Haller"...

If the only purpose is to provide rest and memories then you do not need graveyards. You can use a simple vault and efficietly use the interior space by placing bodies on shelves with minimal separation. A small plaque is all you need to mark their passing.

 

Graveyards serve another purpose and that purpose isn't the rest of the dead, it's for the living. Taking someone to a graveyard is nothing more than sharing that special purpose they serve. We all react to death differently but we all think about it when we visit a graveyard. That's a small part of their purpose.

 

Take a trail. It's simple but it's not exclusive. ATV's Horses, Mountain Bikes, Walkers, Geocachers, Hunters and so on use that trail. We have to share because there isn't enough space to be exclusive.

 

Graveyards are not any different. Yes people morn. Others jog in peace and enjoy the silence. Others mow the lawn. Some read. Even graveyards have multiple uses. One local one has art carved into the stumps of trees. How can you enjoy that Art if you are not led to it or told its there? This same graveyard has a non denominational chapel that the public can use for events and services. If Sissy had not said anything about the custom of placing a stone I would not have known that's what it means and she would not of known that to share without her visit.

 

As a final thought if a geocache could truly harm a cemetary then I guess I don't understand how removing them entirely is allowed. The scale is so vastly different.

[+sbell111]

...As a final thought if a geocache could truly harm a cemetary then I guess I don't understand how removing them entirely is allowed. The scale is so vastly different.

I think that brings us to Ceip's true purpose. She can't easily affect the removal of cemetaries. It's a shame that it happens, but the special interests involved make it difficult to put an end to it.

 

By passing this law, however, she is making it appear that she is protecting cemetaries. It doesn't matter to her that the true affect of this legislation does nothing to protect anything.

[+pghlooking]

the calendar for tommorrow is posted. We are on page 25. Thats pretty far back. Right after the gambling one. I hope that one lasts longer than today. Maybe they will never get to a third reading. 3 weeks till recess!!!

[+Tyrithe]

What would happen if it didn't get to third reading this session? (I do realize that is a far fetched thought, but you never know.) Would they have to start over when the next session convenes? Or is there no way it could be slowed enough?

[+halley-peabody]

I can't imagine talking to 50 churches and every one of them being against goecaching. Either South Carolina churches are VERY different from those in Washington state or she's misleading people.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if churches in Washington and South Carolina are quite a bit different. At the same time I am sure that Ms. Ceips has been very selective about which churches to include in her list of 50.

[+thumperness]

We have a cache at a church as well and I KNOW she did not call that church. If she would like to call that Priest directly I would happily give her his home number. Yes he knows it is there and is happy about more people enjoying the beautiful property

[+pghlooking]

just because she contacted people at 50 different churches doesnt mean she contacted the people who RUN 50 different churches. for all we know is she contacted some older man who she was able to make this seem like the worse thing in the world and convince we were evil. Just because he knew nothing about us doesnt mean the leaders of that church didnt.

[+carleenp]

I have now watched the debate and read the bill as amended. I have previously sent three rather detailed letters to members of the SC House detailing problems with the legislation and in one instance directly addressed the first debate. But I doubt as much attention is given to a judicial branch employee from Nebraska. I strongly suggest that people in SC continue to contact their representatives and address problems with the bill. Use points from debate and address them. Do so sooner than later.

 

Personally, although I find the legislation as a whole unecessary, if this happened in my state I could live with a bill that focused on cemeteries and not other areas. It seems like a reasonable compromise. But archeological areas pose problems because (1) as was pointed out at debate, some are temporary and identification is difficult (2) many states do not disclose where all of those are. Also leaving interpretation of that to courts is not as simple or acceptable as one representative made it seem. Since the State has other legislative definitions, those could collide with legislative history if a court was asked to interpret what an "archeological" or "historical" area was. Personally I hate when I get one of those types of cases in my job, and often end up wishing that the legislature had put more thought into it and defined it better, because sometimes the legal answer is not what I suspect the intent really was.

 

Historical areas are still of concern. In fact greater concern now. The way the amendment is written using the word "or" several times it states: "It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property." This does not limit the bill as said in debate to areas in a book with markers. Instead it leaves the broad definition of "historical sites" that can include entire towns etc. and ADDS places with markers. This is contrary to Ceips stated intent, but a court will normally use the plain language of the Act. That language, because each "or" is conjunctive/additive, makes each of those items separate under the plain language.

 

Another problem is the change of the definition of geocaching to include finding a cache "or another specific location that contains information on the geocache." This is better than before, but would make an offset in any historical area with a virtual start illegal. See my concern about the historical language above.

 

(Standard disclaimer that I must give: I am not providing legal advice or services and am only expressing a personal view about proposed legislation affecting a personal hobby).

[roadtrippin']

I just have to wonder:

 

With the recent decimation of state help from the federal government in the latest budget, doesn't the SC legislature have more important things to worry about like how to keep cops and firefighters on the streets than people who walk around with GPSs?

 

I also have to wonder if maybe the person who complained to ceips bankrolls her campaigns.

[+carleenp]

What would happen if it didn't get to third reading this session?  (I do realize that is a far fetched thought, but you never know.)  Would they have to start over when the next session convenes?  Or is there no way it could be slowed enough?

It would die unless re-introduced next year, in which case the process would begin anew. If it passes and goes to the Senate, unless there is a 2/3 vote to expidite it (and before they end session in a few weeks), it would be taken up in January. I suspect it is going to get to the Senate in one form or another, so use that time well. Start working early and make the most of those months. Inform

Senators before the committee hearings and be well prepared with good geocacher turn out at the hearings. Procrastination would be bad.....

Edited May 12, 2005 by carleenp

[+wkhaz]

I wonder what would happen if everyone (hundreds or thousands) contacted the State Archeologists’ Office any made the following request:

 

Dr. Jonathan M. Leader, State Archaeologist

South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology

1321 Pendleton St.

Columbia, SC 29208

(803) 799-1963, 734-0567, 777-8170

(803) 254-1338 (fax)

 

I would like a listing of every known archaeological site, including underwater sites, for the state of South Carolina. Due to South Carolina House Bill H.3777, I will need the exact coordinates, in longitude and latitude, of the center of each site along with the exact boundaries of each site. It is my intent to publish detailed maps on the Internet showing the location and boundary of all sites in South Carolina. These maps will be used to aid the General Public in complying with this proposed law. This information will be required by everyone in order to comply with the new law.

[CoyoteRed]

Another problem is the change of the definition of geocaching to include finding a cache "or another specific location that contains information on the geocache." This is better than before, but would make an offset in any historical area with a virtual start illegal. See my concern about the historical language above.

What would be made illegal is a virt at White Point Gardens without the written consent of the city. You couldn't waypoint a statue there and post it on gc.com because it would be considered a geocache (or get information from it to hunt a cache on my own property). But, any ol' Joe could do essentially the same thing and have it not be a geocache and it's perfectly legal.

 

It only moves the can of worms to a different can.

 

Though, it does remove the general problems with trying to find a good restaurant downtown.

 

Let's see a show of hands who think Cieps and Scarborough will have to amend it yet again because they doesn't understand the implications of her actions.

 

Hmmm... Maybe, I'll put my new-found programming skills to making a site for South Carolinians to post waypoints to interesting places that aren't geocaches. w00t! Maybe if we give them enough good information it will keep them going around in circles until they get dizzy.

[+sbell111]

You know, there are many things that bug me about this bill, but the biggest is requiring a cache hunter to have permission. I don't possibly understand how they can expect me to know about this requirement or follow it if I happen to be in SC for a business meeting and take a break to find a few geocaches.

 

Even if it assumed that the permission obtained by the hider covers the searcher also, how would a visitor to the state know whether a cache was truly hidden with permission. Perhaps GC.com will only list caches if they absolutely know that permission is obtained, but what about other listing sites.

 

This also reminds me of the churches. There are likely churches out there that allow geocaching, but Ceips (or her representative) did not ask the person in charge. If I'm caching on church property and a cop asks me what I'm doing, I'll explain it to him. He then checks with a custodian (the only person currently on church property) who never heard of the game. All the sudden, I'm under arrest for caching in a location that had been authorized.

 

meh.

Edited May 12, 2005 by sbell111

[shokubai]

I appears that the amended version of the bill exempts virtual caches since there is no container involved. This version also allows non-geocaching use of GPSr's in cemeteries and historical areas unlike the previous version. This is important to me since I use my GPSr to mark gravestones and other historical locations related to my family history.

 

1) 'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.

 

(2) 'Geocaching' means the activity of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device to locate the geocache or another specific location that contains information on the geocache.

Edited May 12, 2005 by shokubai

[+sbell111]

Which, if I'm interpreting correctly makes the hiding legal, but the finding illegal. Kinda backwards, no?

[CoyoteRed]

I did notice that she left out the definition of a historical site. Historic? For whom? Who needs to recognize the site for it to be historic? National Register? Aunt Betsy?

 

What does "in a cemetery" mean? Among the grave stones? Within the fenced area?

 

Still does nothing to address the land owner rights issues of forcing one to write something down in order to allow it on his property.

[+Renegade Knight]

Is the most recent version of the bill posted somewhere? The 3rd Iteration that I found yesterday on their site is not current.

[+sbell111]

That big 'This Bill' link at the bottom of CR's posts will take you to the bill.

[+Renegade Knight]

I did notice that she left out the definition of a historical site. Historic? ...

In your state it's the State Historic Preservation Office that has the final say on what is and what isn't historic. What makes something historic is very fuzzy.

 

Speaking for here, the Intersate is virging in historic. Canals are all historic unless they are a users lateral, then they might be. Railroads are all historic. A significant archetectural style as embodied in one building could be historic as might be the shack that a president signed a bill in. Something historic in South Carolina may only be garden variety trash not worth preserving in North Carolina.

[shokubai]

Is the most recent version of the bill posted somewhere? The 3rd Iteration that I found yesterday on their site is not current.

The updated verson of the bill was posted earlier this evening:

 

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3777.htm

[+Renegade Knight]

That big 'This Bill' link at the bottom of CR's posts will take you to the bill.

Thanks.

 

Reading through it, it's not improved at all for it's purpose though the reach is slightly less broad on GPS usage. However now if I intensionally place my picnic basket in a place that invites the public to eat and it happens to be "The wrong spot" I can be carted off.

 

Most of the issues I pointed out in a post above still apply.

[shokubai]

That big 'This Bill' link at the bottom of CR's posts will take you to the bill.

Thanks.

 

Reading through it, it's not improved at all for it's purpose though the reach is slightly less broad on GPS usage. However now if I intensionally place my picnic basket in a place that invites the public to eat and it happens to be "The wrong spot" I can be carted off.

 

Most of the issues I pointed out in a post above still apply.

And in future news... Yogi Bear is busted for finding picnic basket.

[+Clan X-Man]

WOW! You guys have been busy while I've been away. Who alls giving up? This can still be shot down in the senate and the Governor isn't a big fan of over governing people. Maybe would ahould start working on him directly.

 

X

 

(I missed you guys)

[CoyoteRed]

Yep, doesn't solve the mythical problem she keeps harping on. Okay, so no physical caches. Only virts now. Only when Jeremy gets the new site up it will probably not be called "virts" except for us old timers.

 

Okay, a bit of analysis: Does this address white folks going into a rural Black cemetery? Nope. Does it stop code word caches? Nope. It doesn't do anything other than restrict hunts that end with a physical cache. So, what has she accomplished up to this point? Nothing. Well, except be a pain in my nether regions as physcial caches are what I like to hunt.

[+Riverchaser]

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

This situation reminds me a great deal of our early days when we took up whitewater canoeing/kayaking. As the sport grew we began to see an increasing number of attempts by landowners and local politicians to deny paddlers access to various rivers. After all, we appeared to be just a grungy bunch of out-of-towners and nobody in their rite mind would drive 3 to 5 hours from home just to paddle a fast, rough, dangerous river on purpose unless they were drunk or on drugs. A good many locals in those days put us in the same category as the motorcycle gangs of the 60’s and 70’s. The reasoning for denying us river access is hauntingly similar to those being promoted in S.C. Locals, uneducated in the ways of the sport and only concerned with their own self interests, were typically the instigators of the proposed restrictions. Numerous court cases were fought nationwide regarding paddling issues. Most resulted in verdicts favorable to the paddling community. Take note that we did figure out a way to get many of the locals on our side. We made it a point to purchase goods and services in the areas we visited. Instead of taking everything we needed from home we shopped at the local grocery stores, bought local gas, ate at area cafes, etc. The tactic was that we paid for everything with silver dollars. When all that silver started showing up in the local banks the local merchants/politicians took note. This and treating the locals with respect worked wonders. The most important allies we had were the national paddling organizations that jumped into the fray with respectable, knowledgeable paddlers and lawyers. (A lot of lawyers paddled in those days…I‘ll bet there are lawyers that geocache) We joined these groups and contributed club funds, personal funds and time at fund raisers. It paid off. All this is to suggest that cachers need to think seriously about funding/supporting a national group dedicated to jumping into the fray and protecting our rights when restrictive or banning issues are proposed. While it’s difficult to impossible for most of us to travel across country to oppose the banning proponents, it easy enough to help fund the fight. Manufacturers that provide equipment, etc to cachers have a vested interest in helping as well. In addition, it would seem to be a good idea to form partnerships with other organizations with overlapping interests. For instance, an alliance with the National Rifle Association could be highly beneficial. Many of their members use GPS units in their hunting activities and often stash gear, blinds or stands in the woods and public lands to be used at a later time. In the off season I’m confident that many of them use their GPS unit to geocache. . Regardless of what you believe regarding my right to own firearms for hunting or personal protection, the NRA has a wealth of information and experience in fighting local and national governmental organizations to protect our personal rights. I believe they also have dealt with issues of public access to public lands. Bikers, hikers and other trail users have probably had similar experiences. The Nature Conservancy could be an excellent partner as their focus is setting aside and saving special areas for public use. Their insight could be helpful as well. It would seem to be a good idea to educate groups of this nature regarding geocaching policies and values. We should also be prepared to help them with their issues because all are in the fight to preserve outdoor areas for public use. As the sport,activity,hobby grows the access problems will get worse before they get better.

[+Renegade Knight]

I wonder what would happen if everyone (hundreds or thousands) contacted the State Archeologists’ Office any made the following request:

...

I would like a listing of every known archaeological site, including underwater sites, for the state of South Carolina. Due to South Carolina House Bill H.3777, I will need the exact coordinates, in longitude and latitude, of the center of each site along with the exact boundaries of each site. It is my intent to publish detailed maps on the Internet showing the location and boundary of all sites in South Carolina. These maps will be used to aid the General Public in complying with this proposed law. This information will be required by everyone in order to comply with the new law.

You understand the implications of the bill very clearly. I have contacted him on that exact possibility. Federal law prohibits giving that information out if you do not have a legitimate reason to have it. State law may give you that reason but it's a legal issue that would have to be resolved if this bill passes. At present the State Archeologist does not feel that the bill as worded would lead to a need for that information. If the 5/11/05 version of the bill is the version he is referencing then I don’t have the same confidence and if passed would plan on working to bring about that database. It’s my hope that we do not need to go there and that this bill is not passed. One reason is that geocaching is public by nature. Anyone at any time with or without a GPS can participate and so any such list is required to be public to serve the needs of the geocachers and letterboxers that it impacts. That means that people who would cause these areas intentional harm could also use the list for their purposes.

 

It can not be stressed enough that this bill only sounds good on the surface but does not accomplish any of it’s goals while creating a lot of unintended harm.

[+Clan X-Man]

Yep, doesn't solve the mythical problem she keeps harping on. Okay, so no physical caches. Only virts now. Only when Jeremy gets the new site up it will probably not be called "virts" except for us old timers.

 

Okay, a bit of analysis: Does this address white folks going into a rural Black cemetery? Nope. Does it stop code word caches? Nope. It doesn't do anything other than restrict hunts that end with a physical cache. So, what has she accomplished up to this point? Nothing. Well, except be a pain in my nether regions as physcial caches are what I like to hunt.

Although I sympathise with CR because he hates micros and virts, well hate is strong word, loves that box in the woods, I think the whole of Charleston is still a great location for virtual geocaching. All this history would go to waste on a great many of us if not for caching in general so at least we will still be out there IF this bill passes. I don't give up hope.

 

NOW THEN, when are we going to meet at the Ghost tour HQ to have the law shut them down? I'm not trying to go off topic and I believe that this may be a valid point as far a recreational activities within the limits of cemeteries. Anyone who has been to Charleston knows what I'm talking about. Any thoughts?

 

X

[+carleenp]

In case there is confusion, I THINK, but am having hard time confirming, that an amended bill is the most recent amendment passed. So I think this bill is as amended by Ceips in amendment 6 and does not include the amendment 4 previously passed.

[Team Min-Pin]

Looking at this bill it does appear that a few "teeth" have been taken out.

As long as it isn't a cemetary or a "historical place" or "archeological site" WHICH HAS A HISTORICAL MARKER (sec B ).

 

This makes it really easy to identify which sites need additional approval.

 

Virtual Caches are ok anywhere.

 

This bill is still ignorant but there is alot more "wiggle room".

 

P.S. I too have no love for virtuals or micros.

Edited May 12, 2005 by Team Min-Pin

[+sbell111]

1) 'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners.

 

(2) 'Geocaching' means the activity of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device to locate the geocache or another specific location that contains information on the geocache.

 

I've been thinking, if I accidently lose a container, can I post its approximate coords for everyone to log? Since it wasn't 'purposely placed' it's not a geocache and therefore anyone with a GPSr can go find it.

 

By the way, I think I lost a film can with a grocery reciept enclosed in Holy Mount cemetary. If anyone finds it please let me know by posting a note on my site. Don't bother returning it, just leave me the coords. I think its about at N38....

[+sbell111]

Looking at this bill it does appear that a few "teeth" have been taken out.

As long as it isn't a cemetary or a "historical place" or "archeological site" WHICH HAS A HISTORICAL MARKER (sec B )....

You misquoted the bill.

 

It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker.

 

hmmm. fun with colors.

[Team Min-Pin]

There are so many grammatical errors in the bill right now, it would not be enforcible in any court. I'm thinking if you throw a comma after property then what I stated is true, and not a misquote.

 

There is plenty of wiggle room still in this. I am curious how they are going to punctuate this. I see more ammendments on the way.

Edited May 12, 2005 by Team Min-Pin

[+sbell111]

I certainly agree that it is an exceptionally poorly written bill.

[+carleenp]

Looking at this bill it does appear that a few "teeth" have been taken out. 

As long as it isn't a cemetary or a "historical place" or "archeological site" WHICH HAS A HISTORICAL MARKER (sec B  )....

You misquoted the bill.

 

It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker.

 

hmmm. fun with colors.

The uses of "or" are the problem. It just adds areas with markers instead of limiting to that because each "or" is conjunctive/additive. That is not the intent that was stated in debate, but is the effect as drafted. Before anyone thinks that minor drafting mistakes don't matter, well.... police, prosecutors and courts will not be looking at legislative history. They will look first to the plain language and go with that. Unfortunately, I have seen poor drafting on many occassions. That ends up at times leaving courts to have to go against intent because at least in Nebraska (and I think this is the general norm in most states), courts will not seek legislative history if a law can be interpreted based on plain language.

[Team Min-Pin]

I would venture to say, when is all said and done, this bill will end up with even more wiggle room than it has now.

[+hellifiknow]

It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker.

 

hmmm.  fun with colors. 

The uses of "or" are the problem. It just adds areas with markers instead of limiting to that because each "or" is conjunctive/additive. {cut cut cut}

 

So... let me get this straight...

I've visited Hilton Head once before - we took a walking tour in Sea Pines Plantation that included a shell ring. I'm guessing this qualifies as a historic site - after all, there was a sign there. If I recall correctly, the sign did mention something about not stepping on the shells - but in all honesty, you could walk up to the ring and not see the shells (she sees sea shells?) until the last minute. I'm sure they've been stepped on in the past.

This was 3 years ago - before our family got in to geocaching. We walked around the shell ring checking it out, letting our, at the time, 1 year old son run around like a numb-nut in the woods (although within, not ON the shell ring).

Sooo... we're going back to Hilton Head this year - assuming this bill passes as written (not that it likely will by then! or, even better, ever) - if we do the exact same thing as we did before (except with a 4 year old AND a 1 year old with us), but we had our GPSrs in hand, we'd be in violation of the law (assuming there was a cache nearby)? What if the cache was 3 miles away but we were walking to it from the hotel? We'd be geocaching but not near the actual geocache... hmmm...

 

Somehow this doesn't make sense. I can't believe that many people voted for this on the 2nd reading.

 

I'd also demand a list of the 50 churches that were contacted. And I can almost guarantee that they weren't questioned in a neutral manner. Somehow I envision the questions going something like "sooo... would you like to have a bunch of people using pseudonyms running around the graveyard at night and potentially vandalizing markers?" or "if someone asked you to hide a box in your cemetary so that other people would come at all hours of the day, every day of the week to look for it - often times bringing their dogs with them or letting their children run around disrupting mourners and burial services, would you?" - Yeah, like I'd even answer "yes" to those!

 

For anyone on the side of the cachers in this debate - thank you and keep fighting the good fight! It's not just SC geocachers you're representing if this becomes a precedent - so thank you!

 

-hellifiknow

[Team Min-Pin]

The way the bill now is written you would not be in violation of the law.

 

Even though I still think that the geocaching will never be enforced, a police officer would have to catch a person "red handed", with the actual cache in hand to make an arrest.

 

It seems that you can't legislate simply against the use of a GPSr.

 

So a police officer would have to catch someone finding a cache and "interacting" with it.

Edited May 12, 2005 by Team Min-Pin

[+pghlooking]

Sooo... we're going back to Hilton Head this year - assuming this bill passes as written (not that it likely will by then! or, even better, ever) - if we do the exact same thing as we did before (except with a 4 year old AND a 1 year old with us), but we had our GPSrs in hand, we'd be in violation of the law (assuming there was a cache nearby)? What if the cache was 3 miles away but we were walking to it from the hotel? We'd be geocaching but not near the actual geocache... hmmm...

I am not positive, but i don't think there has to be a geocache around. You are in a restricted area with a GPS. Thats the problem. This is so vague noone knows for certain. I know if this is passed, I will be writing to the state to have a list of all sites that are banned with this legislation. I would hate to not know what areas are off limits and i need written permission to visit before my vacation. I am sure the state will not want to publish this, but i don't know how they can keep it secret since its a law. At that point wouldnt it fall under some type of entrapment. Knowing what is restricted but not telling a citizen upfront, waiting till they are arrested. I am sure the ACLU will have a field day on that one. Am actually surprised they have gotten involved yet with Ceips trying to ban a specific group. That sounds like discrimination to me.

[+hellifiknow]

{cut away}

Even though I still think that the geocaching will never be enforced, a police officer would have to catch a person "red handed", with the actual cache in hand to make an arrest.

{more cutting}

So a police officer would have to catch someone finding a cache and "interacting" with it.

I guess then they'd have to actually see us remove the cache from where ever it was hiding. Otherwise I could just be walking around with a dirty piece of Tupperware filled with broken McToys for the kids.

 

-hellifiknow

[Team Min-Pin]

I hope your tupperware doesn't say "geocaching" on it!

[+hellifiknow]

Just curious as to what extent the local media is covering this issue? Is it brought up on the nightly news?

Any chance a "geo-rep" could talk to someone and get the facts out there? "Painting a headstone" sounds awful - and it's even worse that it's not true.

 

-hellifiknow