Jump to content

South Carolina Senate Activity


Recommended Posts

What do you guys think about creating a couple funds for geocache.com...

 

One would be for advertising campaigns and the other would be for legal assistance.

 

There would be a page on the geocaching.com website where members (or anyone) could donate a dollar or five dollars or whatever.

 

Every month, the accumulated advertising fund could be used to purchase a small ad in a largely read community newspaper like the Charleston, SC paper or the Columbia paper.

 

The legal fund (the other account) could just continue building until such time that it was deemed necessary to use the funds for legal defense or proactive action.

 

There are several online programs which allow people to make donations and also make "subscription" donations, such as $3.00 a month or whatever.

 

This would be a small price for us to pay if it made a difference in how geocaching was perceived and promoted throughout the world.

 

Of course, all this would have to be worked out on and possibly even registered as as the most base forms of a non-profit, but it would be something to help establish geocaching as the true international institution that it is!

 

 

(Just my two cents worth)

Link to comment

It is sent to Senate Committee. I suppose anyone can come and talk at the hearings. I would suggest sending letters to committee members informing them about caching right away just in case they seek to expidite the bill for some reason (this would require a 2/3 vote of the senate after a report from commitee). Then spend the summer educating the public, the cemeteries, the media, tourism officials, businesses etc. and become well prepared for the January committee hearings.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
It is sent to Senate Committee. I suppose anyone can come and talk at the hearings. I would suggest sending letters to committee members informing them about caching right away just in case they seek to expidite the bill for some reason (this would require a 2/3 vote of the senate after a report from commitee). Then spend the summer educating the public, the cemeteries, the media, tourism officials, businesses etc. and become well prepared for the January committee hearings.

And hopefully avoid getting broadsided the way that the group that spoke at the HR subcomittee did...

Link to comment

For those who are not sure what this is about: Briansnat's summary

of what you can find in the 28 page topic that led to this topic.

 

Here is a list of South Carolina state senators (including bios, bills sponsored, email addresses, etc.

Someone should post the link to the bill as will look to the senate.

 

Advertising is certainly one venue. Another is to poll the senate members, find out who is friend or foe and concentrate efforts accordingly.

 

Also, letters to editors of local newspapers are very effective. And it’s possible that a publisher may decide the bill is absurd and do some independent investigating, reporting and editorializing. On the other hand, it’s possible that might backfire. :laughing::o

Link to comment
...And hopefully avoid getting broadsided the way that the group that spoke at the HR subcomittee did...

The House reality started and ended with a broadside. The second one everyone should of seen coming as soon as the stage was set.

 

This is nothing more than business as usual and geocachers should anticipate this and be prepared. It's the one time you would almost be willing to pay someone to play the devils advocate. They are the ones who can rip your position apart and that lets you anticipate what's going to happen and be ready. There is nothing like taking a full broadside and responding in such a way that the ricochet harms the credibility of the person making the attack. That won’t happen without legwork.

 

The reason people play these games is that they work. They are effective and barring someone with training they are a safe play. With knowledge and training things can be reversed. The reality is Geocaching is harmless. It does cause a lot of questions to be asked and they are good questions. But since geocaching is harmless they are easy to answer with some preparation. The preparation is for questions asked that are essentially “shoot to kill” questions. Honest questions from the people interested in what geocaching really is all about are easy.

Link to comment

We gotta get in touch with that "Black Chamber of Commerce" that Ceips claimed was in support of the bill. I'm skeptical that they actually did come out in favor of this bill. Ceip's record for honesty so far in this affair is not a good one.

 

We need to determine if they indeed supported it and if they did, that they are losing out on the money that geocachers would have spent at local businesses.

Link to comment
OK for those of you who thought you were paying attention in Civics class; this is how it really works. Get a professional lobbyist today, please. I'll contribute to the fund as soon as it's set up.

The time frame is now.

 

Terracachers.org was formed to do this type of thing, but realistically we are still working on the articles of incorporation for non profit status. We can't meet the time frame.

 

If the SC group is organized as a non profit then they can set it up and accept the funds. They would best suited to lead the effort as locals and as a non profit. I'd kick in some funds as well.

Link to comment

Looking at a potential outcome where this bill is passed through the Senate as well, I have a suggestion. This law would be much more effective and useful for the purpose that it is intending if its language is changed to better reflect it. In other words, if you can't beat them...at least make sure the rules are fair.

 

Firstly, removal of historical and archaeological areas. It appears from Hydee's comments that the State Archaeologist isn't even on board with the bill any more. The historical sites are not going to be practical to get permission on because the authorizing body is not so clear for each one.

 

Secondly, most cemetaries are not public property and have a private owner. Any geocaches listed on this site (the primary site of consequence) already require permission from the owner. The idea that written permission is necessary (instead of "implicit" permission or verbal permission) isn't a large logical leap or something we can't agree to in good faith with the owners of these places. There are already written permission requirements for park systems across the nation that work very well to keep both parties happy. As the Rabbi's letter to Sissy stated, some cemetary owners may require that their land be "a place for our loved ones to rest in peace and for them to serve as a lasting memory for us" and nothing else. To this end, if written permission is to be legislated, then it should be for the cache itself and the hider's requirement only. At the point that the hider approaches a land owner to ask to place a geocache, it should be pretty clear from the query that other visitors will be allowed to find it (since that's the purpose). In this way, any language pertaining to the use of GPS technology in these places, etc should be removed from the bill.

 

The final bill should essentially say "if you want to *hide* a geocache/letterbox in a *privately-owned cemetary*, then you need written permission from the cemetary owner. The written permission should be kept with the geocache." Anything else becomes too idealistic and not practical and often results in language that extends far beyond its intent.

 

Finally, I just want to disclaim that I'm still against the bill as a complete unnecessity due to current laws protecting all of these places. The main force of our action at this point should be to dissuade the committee from sending it on to the main body. Defeat of this bill is the prudent course of action, but I have not been too far off the mark so far while following this issue...so I suggest that some consideration be made to compromising with the SC state legislature on terms that both sides can agree on and being sure that the final text of the bill reflects those terms.

Link to comment

I've e-mailed my senator (who is also on the judiciary committee) and another senator who is a personal friend of the family. I'd like to hear what they have to say about it and what their views are.

 

Do you think a letter to The State (Columbia's newspaper) would be a good idea?

 

<Edit>

 

I think you might be on to something, ju66l3r.

Edited by RandLD
Link to comment

I do not have a problem with this bill at all, IF and only IF, it were just changed to state that it would be illegal to HIDE a geocache in these areas without the owners permission. If the cache was “approved” and written permission was received from the land owner/manager, then it could be implied that SEEKING the cache would also be approved. As it is now with Groundspeak policy, it would be the responsibility of the person that wanted to create/hide the cache to get this permission. This would also be the perfect time to educate (as I have done on the cache that I created on school property) the land owner/manager to the benefits of geocaching.

Link to comment
As the Rabbi's letter to Sissy stated, some cemetary owners may require that their land be "a place for our loved ones to rest in peace and for them to serve as a lasting memory for us" and nothing else.

 

If that's the case, why are geocachers being singled out? As I pointed out in the other thread cemeteries are used by joggers, bird watchers, geneologists, artists, walkers, historians, curiosity seekers, tourists, photographers, nature lovers and others.

 

If they are to be reserved for mourning then ALL of these activities should be banned.

Link to comment
As the Rabbi's letter to Sissy stated, some cemetary owners may require that their land be "a place for our loved ones to rest in peace and for them to serve as a lasting memory for us" and nothing else.

 

If that's the case, why are geocachers being singled out? As I pointed out in the other thread cemeteries are used by joggers, bird watchers, geneologists, artists, walkers, historians, curiosity seekers, tourists, photographers, nature lovers and others.

 

If they are to be reserved for mourning then ALL of these activities should be banned.

Who cares?

 

That is the Rabbi's perogative. Maybe he constantly asks people to leave and we never realized it before. Maybe he doesn't see jogging as objectionable but he does for geocaching. The point is simple. It is his determination as to what is allowed in his cemetary. If we aren't respectful of that (and when asked to be, the cache was removed), then they are right, we are doing something wrong.

 

EDITED to add: Let's keep this focusedon what to do concerning the Senate's actions with this bill. If we want to go around a few times on the old "permission is implicit cuz we're just joggers with tupperware...blah blah blah" discussion, then open a new topic. We're not going to win votes by arguing that we're no different than a mourner, jogger, artist, etc. No legislator is going to agree with that. We need to win votes.

Edited by ju66l3r
Link to comment

Could someone who is better at letter writing than me write a letter to who we should be writing to at this point in the game for me and I could tweek it and make it my own :laughing: and send it to the right person. Before today I think I was following along, now I am lost as too what actually got passed and how we want it changed. I want to help but not sure how to be the most effective. Thanks

Link to comment

Someone should try to meet with each senator.

 

Perhaps a distribution packet could be created that explains the hobby in detail. Also, include plenty of pics and sample logs like this one. Show responsible, duty-filled individuals geocaching; soldiers, LEOs, fireman, clergy. Finally, include families with cute, small children.

Link to comment

The packet could also contain corporte involvment. i.e. The Jeep contest and TBs, Salvation Army's Red Kettle Cache, and AAAs Route 66 "Great American Road Trip". These would demonstrate the tourism dollars (big in SC) and the level of respnsibility and respect geocaching.com has built over it's short history.

 

Caches and cachers from SC should be seperated from other examples, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of what is and is not happening in SC.

Link to comment
....That is the Rabbi's perogative. Maybe he constantly asks people to leave and we never realized it before. Maybe he doesn't see jogging as objectionable but he does for geocaching. The point is simple. It is his determination as to what is allowed in his cemetary. If we aren't respectful of that (and when asked to be, the cache was removed), then they are right, we are doing something wrong....

If I recall correctly this is a good case in point. He asked that the cache be removed. It was. It was very simple to resolve. No law was needed, or is needed.

 

But the anti tupperware bill marches on.

Link to comment

I have already called both of my Senators for my county and left messages for them to call me back. Lengthy messages as to what we are about and why the bill shouldn't be made into law.

 

I also called Mrs. Ceips this evening explained that I was a cacher so that she could hangup and to my shock and amazement she stayed on the line.

 

I AM NOT DEFENDING HER OR HER STANCE ON THIS TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This woman really believes in what she is trying to do. I have to admit that she has a lot of balls for answering her phone on today of all days. I would ask a question and she would sidestep. I would ask her why she misrepresented and she would try to push my buttons. She says that she is representing people just like me. Right, like I'm ever going to be able to afford a house on Rainbow Row. I believe Sun Tzu said that the most dangerous enemy is one that believes totally in their cause. She does. So did Hitler.

 

All is not lost. I am hoping that in the Senate that cooler heads will prevail. It wouldn't bother me so much if we had been represented fairly and honestly. I do applaud my Reps who stood their ground and voted as they told me they would. I plan on wrting them a nice snail mail letter.

 

The only point that I see as valid is the permission issue. However many state owned peoperties have no land manager in residence and no upkeep. How do we get permission.

 

To make one last point. I am a citizen of South Carolina. These people work for me and supposedly in my best interest. If I'm not wrong I am the state of SC. If this is so, since I pay taxes and state owned property would then in effect be my property, I give you all permission to place geocaches in SC. It is a given that they be respectful of others and not harmful in anyway to the enviroment or others.

 

X

Link to comment

<snip>

 

To make one last point. I am a citizen of South Carolina. These people work for me and supposedly in my best interest. If I'm not wrong I am the state of SC. If this is so, since I pay taxes and state owned property would then in effect be my property, I give you all permission to place geocaches in SC. It is a given that they be respectful of others and not harmful in anyway to the enviroment or others.

 

X

 

Would be nice if it was that easy, but you are not "the state of SC".

There are a few others that make it up.

 

Kenneth

Link to comment

By the people for the people. HA!

Welcome to the real world. I am DEEPLY ashamed of the show our House representatives put on knowing that they are on a live feed. C'MON PEOPLE! I think they need to clean house. No pun intended.

 

X

Edited by Clan X-Man
Link to comment

I believe that Representative Ceips does really believe in her bill. When I step into her shoes and try to see it from her point of view I can see why she got there. Who knows whether the misrepresentations or mistaken readings into things were not originally sent to her by others? I bet they were. However, I wish that she would have stepped back enough to see the whole picture and presented things more fairly. I also think that she believes her amendment would narrow things some to cemeteries and areas with only historical markers. Unfortunately the drafting did not do that and simply added those to the overbroad definition of "historical area." The drafting has too many uses of the word "or" so it makes them all conjunctive/additive. The inclusion of archeological sites is also problematic because as pointed out at debate, some are temporary and I am told that most states also do not provide public information on where all of those are. :D

 

Anyway, personally while I hate to see the criminaliztion of caching in any area, I can see limiting it to cemeteries without permission as a reaonable thing/compromise. But beyond that, the bill is overbroad and the plain language drafting as it stands would still preclude caching in all historic areas, whether with a marker or not. In my state, courts will not look to legislative history to define terms when they can use plain language. I would guess (but don't know for sure) that it is the same in SC.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
Where do you live Pruett?

What does that have to do with anything?

Close enough to know you are not the only person in SC. :D

 

Back on topic.

So they changed the line that generated a few pages in the other thread related to using a GPSr to find "another location".

Now it reads "or another specific location that contains information on the geocache."

 

Did this appease those who believed if passed with the old wording that we could not use rental cars with GPSrs in them in historic areas?

 

Kenneth

Link to comment
Could someone who is better at letter writing than me write a letter to who we should be writing to at this point in the game for me and I could tweek it and make it my own :lol:  and send it to the right person. Before today I think I was following along, now I am lost as too  what actually got passed and how we want it changed. I want to help but not sure how to be the most effective. Thanks

Any time (especially in a letter writing campaign) you write a letter to a political representative, a business or the news media, it is best if you compose it yourself. After someone receives couple of slightly different emails or letters, it’s just like spam.

 

Try to keep all of your correspondence polite and brief.

 

Who you should be writing to is arguable, but I see no harm in contacting the senator who represents you. Also, I believe a letter to the editor of your local newspaper is appropriate. Writing your local Chamber of Commerce is probably not a bad idea either; geocaching is sometimes a tourism and economic issue.

 

The bill (currently residing in the South Carolina Senate Committee on Judiciary)

 

I hope this helps. :lol::D

Link to comment
The drafting has too many uses of the word "or" so it makes them all conjunctive/additive.

Would the wordingof a bill as in it not being gramatically correct, etc. affect it when/if it became a law and therefore make it so that it could not be enforced?

 

X

Link to comment

Please, someone tell me that there is a coordinated, intelligent effort to have this legislation defeated in the Senate. Please tell me that somewhere in South Carolina, you cachers are working together, off this public forum, to prevent the passage of this law.

 

There have been a handful of intelligent contributions to this forum discussion. Honestly though, if this is all you've got, this bill will become law.

 

I don't live in South Carolina. The most I think a non-citizen can do is protest to tourism boards and chambers of commerce. This I have done.

 

I am concerned about the precedent this law will set for lawmakers in other states who may have too much time on their hands.

Link to comment
Please, someone tell me that there is a coordinated, intelligent effort to have this legislation defeated in the Senate. Please tell me that somewhere in South Carolina, you cachers are working together, off this public forum, to prevent the passage of this law.

 

There have been a handful of intelligent contributions to this forum discussion. Honestly though, if this is all you've got, this bill will become law.

 

I don't live in South Carolina. The most I think a non-citizen can do is protest to tourism boards and chambers of commerce. This I have done.

 

I am concerned about the precedent this law will set for lawmakers in other states who may have too much time on their hands.

So what are you trying to say?

 

A lot of the work done on trying to stop this from going through the house was really ripped on as not being prepared enough to defend us. These guys didn't even have enough info about what was going on when the bombshel of logs and pictures was dropped on them. Folks here who are serious about this are doing what they can, which means first contacting your State Senator. Until the committee meetings begin therre isn't alot to do. If we play our hand to strong with the newspapers and TV we seem like a bunch of nuts. If we play to wasy we lose something also. We do need organization though and I think that will probably be covered at the SCGA meeting this weekend. I'm sure Bill and the rest of the steering committee have this at the top of their agenda.

 

Anything to say on this point TinSparrow?

 

X

Link to comment

Someone (or a group) could coordinate efforts and determine a different location for anyone who is interested to show up and pass out fliers promoting geocaching.com

 

The coordinates of each location could be put up in advance and people would arrive with their GPS in hand ready to pass out fliers about geocaching and why it is important to oppose further legislation against geocaching.

 

Register the peaceful demonstrations with local authorities so they will be legal. Invite the press as well.

 

This would beneficial both in and outside South Carolina.

 

Help make geocaching a common household word before some else makes it a crime.

 

(I am reminded of all the stickers and notebooks I saw in the past saying "Skateboarding is not a crime." I thought it was humorous at the time. Now, in several places, skateboarding IS a crime.)

 

"GEOCACHING IS NOT A CRIME!"

Link to comment
These guys didn't even have enough info about what was going on when the bombshel of logs and pictures was dropped on them.

I have a question.

 

How were all of the logs obtained unless someone signed up as a member of geocaching.com for the intent of obtaining copies of the logs as evidence against us.

 

Isn't there a clause in the rules of the website that would make these logs inadmissable as they were obtained through a membership whose rules defy use of the information on the site and from the logs for anything other than use in the sport of Geocaching?

 

If not, shouldn't there be?

Edited by tabulator32
Link to comment
What do you guys think about creating a couple funds for geocache.com...

 

One would be for advertising campaigns and the other would be for legal assistance.

 

There would be a page on the geocaching.com website where members (or anyone) could donate a dollar or five dollars or whatever.

 

Every month, the accumulated advertising fund could be used to purchase a small ad in a largely read community newspaper like the Charleston, SC paper or the Columbia paper.

 

The legal fund (the other account) could just continue building until such time that it was deemed necessary to use the funds for legal defense or proactive action.

 

There are several online programs which allow people to make donations and also make "subscription" donations, such as $3.00 a month or whatever.

 

This would be a small price for us to pay if it made a difference in how geocaching was perceived and promoted throughout the world.

 

Of course, all this would have to be worked out on and possibly even registered as as the most base forms of a non-profit, but it would be something to help establish geocaching as the true international institution that it is!

 

 

(Just my two cents worth)

Any thoughts on this?

Link to comment
The inclusion of archeological sites is also problematic because as pointed out at debate, some are temporary and I am told that most states also do not provide public information on where all of those are.

If this would become law, and like all others i hope it doesn't, would the state then be required to either list or give out freely this information of where each and every site is? It is kind of hard, and not sure how legal, to enforce a law that you keep the areas hidden intentionally. Its like don't come on my property or i will have you arrested for tresspassing, well where is your yard? I can't tell you until you are on my property then i will have you arrested. Its a bad catch 22 loop. Any legal minds wanna take a stab at this? ( i know it will be just an opinion and not truly legal advice, but am still curious if there is any type of precidence for something of this sort).

Link to comment

Use Geo Bucks to gain business support.

Get a Cemetery to help you place a cache.

Get the cease and desist letter rescinded and ideally an apology for ever having written it. Better still if they come out for geocaching and help place a cache that meets their concerns.

Find credible allys. Department of Commerce. Tourism Board, Heath Agencies, Parks and Recs departments.

See if Cieps would amend the bill to require the locations of archeological sites be revealed to geocachers so they can comply with the bill should it become law.

Find the churches in question and work with them on caching.

Find out if the SAA would back a bill that can compromise archaeological sites by requiring that people know where they are.

Do a power point presentation for your Senators on geocaching. Show the families and even the goofballs involved. Show CITO.

Find out if the police really want to enforce this law.

Get Terracaching.com and Navicache involved if they are not already.

Get the NEA to show how handy geocaching is in teaching geography.

See if the Presidents Commission on Health and Fitness will add geocaching to it's list of approved activities.

Arrange for a petition drive to show how many geocachers there really are in SC and how much support they have.

Find other groups impacted by the bill and gain their support.

If there is an instate tourism program supported by the Governor gain their support.

Ask the Governor to veto the bill.

Talk to an attorney about taking the bill to court to settle the legal questions that this bill brings up (does it violate federal law on keeping archaeological sites secrete and does it give permission for the State Archaeologist to give out site locations).

 

Plenty to do. Not enough people time and money to do it all though.

Link to comment
The drafting has too many uses of the word "or" so it makes them all conjunctive/additive.

Would the wordingof a bill as in it not being gramatically correct, etc. affect it when/if it became a law and therefore make it so that it could not be enforced?

 

X

Poor drafting in and of itself will not matter. A law will not be invalidated because of grammar. Instead, the language is interpreted. As it stands based on plain language, without looking to legislative history, which courts tend to avoid, it still includes historical areas, which they refused to define outside of existing law and other law defines. It then adds the marker stuff. So it is still overbroad there and could cover entire towns or cities etc.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
...If this would become law, and like all others i hope it doesn't, would the state then be required to either list or give out freely this information of where each and every site is? It is kind of hard, and not sure how legal, to enforce a law that you keep the areas hidden intentionally. Its like don't come on my property or i will have you arrested for tresspassing, well where is your yard? I can't tell you until you are on my property then i will have you arrested. Its a bad catch 22 loop. Any legal minds wanna take a stab at this? ( i know it will be just an opinion and not truly legal advice, but am still curious if there is any type of precidence for something of this sort).

Federal Law prohibits giving this information out unless you have a valid reason. Archaeological research for example. (And that doesn't mean you can just go out and do a dig). The legal question is does this state law give a valid reason. The federal law probably did anticipate recreational land use activities but probably not states passing laws that would require people to know where sites are to comply with the law. For the most part federal law details the obligations of land managers and land owners in protecting the sites and well as the responsibilities and obligations of the State Office for Historic Preservation and the State Archaeologist.

 

The repercussions for not complying with Federal Law could be losing all their highway funds since that seems to be the favorite Federal Strong Arm tactic, but I don't know. If they are monitoring this thread you can bet some Senate Lawyers are going to dig this information up and if not them then the State Attorney General.

Link to comment
Use Geo Bucks to gain business support.

Have regular meetings at your local Starbucks throughout the country. Someone bring a laptop with a wi-fi account. Sign up guests online right there on the spot.

 

Make sure you're buying those lattes and caramel machiatos! (The espresso is to help motivate us!)

 

:D

Link to comment
Back on topic.

So they changed the line that generated a few pages in the other thread related to using a GPSr to find "another location".

Now it reads "or another specific location that contains information on the geocache."

 

Did this appease those who believed if passed with the old wording that we could not use rental cars with GPSrs in them in historic areas?

 

It helps quite a bit. It still would restrict a virtual start to an offset cache placed in a permitted area though since it bans finding information about the cache.

 

My concern is more over the historical areas since in SC that can involve wide areas and the way the amendment is drafted does not fix the issues even though the stated intent at debate was to limit it to marked areas. They added language about markers but wrote it in a way that added instead of limited.

Link to comment
My concern is more over the historical areas since in SC that can involve wide areas and the way the amendment is drafted does not fix the issues even though the stated intent at debate was to limit it to marked areas. They added language about markers but wrote it in a way that added instead of limited.

I couldn't even imagine living in or around Charleston after this bill goes into effect.

 

There are so many historic designations in the region, one couldn't cache hunt effectively at all.

Link to comment
I couldn't even imagine living in or around Charleston after this bill goes into effect.

 

There are so many historic designations in the region, one couldn't cache hunt effectively at all.

And to think I was even planning a vacation to Charleston this summer. Tsk! Guess I'll take my tourist money to another state.

Link to comment
I couldn't even imagine living in or around Charleston after this bill goes into effect.

 

There are so many historic designations in the region, one couldn't cache hunt effectively at all.

And to think I was even planning a vacation to Charleston this summer. Tsk! Guess I'll take my tourist money to another state.

Since I will be going to GW3 through Atlanta, it will leave a hole in my map of states cached in. I have a goal of adding states, and would like to add all. But if this thing goes through as written, that hole will stay. I have told that to House legislators and the tourim people in SC. Now I will tell the Senate.

Link to comment
We're not going to win votes by arguing that we're no different than a mourner, jogger, artist, etc. No legislator is going to agree with that. We need to win votes.

 

This is where you have it wrong. This is the entire point. We are no different from the dog walkers, joggers, tombstone rubbers, artists, bird watchers, geneologists, Frisbee players, etc...

 

What they are trying to do is legislate "respect" . Are geocachers any less respectful than Joe Neighborhoodguy walking his dog in the cemetery? No and I argue the opposite.

 

In fact the presence of geocaches in many of these places is the epitome of respect. The cache owner is beckoning others to visit these forgotten places. He is saying "come here and learn a little about our past".

 

Perhaps the presence of geocaches at these sites will introduce themt to people who otherwise might not have known about them. This could create new advocates for their upkeep and preservation.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
...Do you think a letter to The State (Columbia's newspaper) would be a good idea?

I do.

Here is a list of most of the news agencies in South Carolina. :D:lol:

Be carefull when contacting new agencies. It would be a shame if you provided information and they misquoted you or skewed what you say to make geocaching look bad.

Link to comment
And to think I was even planning a vacation to Charleston this summer.  Tsk!  Guess I'll take my tourist money to another state.

Perhaps you could write the Charleston Chamber of Commerce and explain why you will not be dropping any dollars over that way. Here is their email: mail@charlestonchamber.org

 

And you can find other local chambers here. Write them. Let them know what their legislature is doing and how it affects you…and them. The almighty dollar has great power; some of these people may have close friends in the state government. Some of them might even be in the pockets of the lawmakers.

Link to comment
Looking at a potential outcome where this bill is passed through the Senate as well, I have a suggestion. This law would be much more effective and useful for the purpose that it is intending if its language is changed to better reflect it. In other words, if you can't beat them...at least make sure the rules are fair.

 

Firstly, removal of historical and archaeological areas. It appears from Hydee's comments that the State Archaeologist isn't even on board with the bill any more. The historical sites are not going to be practical to get permission on because the authorizing body is not so clear for each one.

If the State Archaeologist isn't even on board with the bill any more someone should get this in writing and with permission send it to all the senators.

 

Also, if I was a senator. The argument that getting permission is difficult because the authorizing body isn't clear wouldn't sway me. I would just tell you that you either need to find the right person or just don't hide the cache.

 

Secondly, most cemetaries are not public property and have a private owner.  Any geocaches listed on this site (the primary site of consequence) already require permission from the owner.  The idea that written permission is necessary (instead of "implicit" permission or verbal permission) isn't a large logical leap or something we can't agree to in good faith with the owners of these places.  There are already written permission requirements for park systems across the nation that work very well to keep both parties happy.  As the Rabbi's letter to Sissy stated, some cemetary owners may require that their land be "a place for our loved ones to rest in peace and for them to serve as a lasting memory for us" and nothing else.  To this end, if written permission is to be legislated, then it should be for the cache itself and the hider's requirement only.  At the point that the hider approaches a land owner to ask to place a geocache, it should be pretty clear from the query that other visitors will be allowed to find it (since that's the purpose).  In this way, any language pertaining to the use of GPS technology in these places, etc should be removed from the bill.

 

The argument since the beginning has been that this bill is just taking Geocaching policy and guidelines and making them enforceable by law. The way this bill is written may not be how Geocaching.com intended the policies to be interpreted or even how the majority of geocachers interpret geocaching policies. But, it is how the House has interpreted these policies. I think arguing that the policies are being misinterpreted at this point is futile.

 

What would be better is if you can show that this part of the bill is not necessary. You can do this by getting in writing the current geocaching policies from these park systems and cemetaries. I would also get letters of praise from these administrators on how geocachers always follow the policies and how they they have a great respect for the enviroment and monuments.

 

The final bill should essentially say "if you want to *hide* a geocache/letterbox in a *privately-owned cemetary*, then you need written permission from the cemetary owner.  The written permission should be kept with the geocache."  Anything else becomes too idealistic and not practical and often results in language that extends far beyond its intent.

 

Why, why, why. You are not talking to other geocacher. You are telling this people who have never geocached. You can't just say it isn't practical and leave it at that. You also need to tell them why it wouldn't be practical.

 

Finally, I just want to disclaim that I'm still against the bill as a complete unnecessity due to current laws protecting all of these places.  The main force of our action at this point should be to dissuade the committee from sending it on to the main body.  Defeat of this bill is the prudent course of action, but I have not been too far off the mark so far while following this issue...so I suggest that some consideration be made to compromising with the SC state legislature on terms that both sides can agree on and being sure that the final text of the bill reflects those terms.

 

Again, just saying it is so doesn't make it true. You need to prove that it is so. Get the laws and show case by case that each section of the bill is not needed because it is covered by an already active law.

Link to comment
We're not going to win votes by arguing that we're no different than a mourner, jogger, artist, etc. No legislator is going to agree with that. We need to win votes.

 

This is where you have it wrong. This is the entire point. We are no different from the dog walkers, joggers, tombstone rubbers, artists, bird watchers, geneologists, Frisbee players, etc...

 

What they are trying to do is legislate "respect" . Are geocachers any less respectful than Joe Neighborhoodguy walking his dog in the cemetery? No and I argue the opposite.

 

In fact the presence of geocaches in many of these places is the epitome of respect. The cache owner is beckoning others to visit these forgotten places. He is saying "come here and learn a little about our past".

 

Perhaps the presence of geocaches at these sites will introduce themt to people who otherwise might not have known about them. This could create new advocates for their upkeep and preservation.

That's all nice. But, no one in the senate is just going to take your word. Especially since they already have "proof" of all the awful things that geocachers are accused of doing.

 

Right now in the eyes of the house we are worse than dog walkers, joggers, tombstone rubbers, artists, bird watchers, geneologists, Frisbee players, etc... and soon that is what will be pitched in the senate.

 

How easy will is to prove that geocachers are as harmless as anyone else? Not very. Do we know for sure that no geocacher has ever done any of these things that we have been accused of? No. Can it really be proven that no geocacher has ever done any of these things that we are being accused of? Not every easily and not without investing a lot of time. Even if we go to all the bother to prove this would this be enough to stop this bill? I don't think it would.

 

It would be a lot easier to find where "the common person" has actual done these things and what happen when they got caught. Prove that the current law works and that there is no need for this bill to become law.

Link to comment

Another thing that might help the cause is to use exsamples from othere states. I live in ny and up till recently the DEC didnt alow placment in any of there lands. But after alot of work they changed there rules. The NY state parks services has alos reversed there ruleing on it they asked us to work wih them and modify the basic gc rules people from NYGO worked with them and set up a even ground for both the park service and geocachers to beable to enjoy the sport.

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