+Crazy Aaron Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 This is all good news but I think all SC cachers need to read Renegade Knight's comments: ...SC geocachers are going to end up helping craft what's accepable. Somewhere along the way in the spirit of compromise that the goal was to defeat the bill will be lost and SC will be the first state to regulate geocaching with the support of SC geocachers. Don't lose sight of the original objective. Remember: Any crime that occurs while geocaching is already covered by laws on the books. Trespassing, vandalism, curfews, etc. In most cases, the maximum penalties are greater than the one being proposed in this bill. There is no need for a statewide law. It just clutters the law books. Link to comment
+tands Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 (edited) The result of the Subcommittee Hearing today is simple: Whatever is done, legislatively or otherwise, will be based on the truth. The spin machine has ground to a halt. It's now our task to keep it stopped by providing information and effort. - T of TandS Edited May 31, 2005 by tands Link to comment
+Divine Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 (edited) Well, it seems what's happenig in SC is a good old populism trick for votes and political power. First we find an adequate problem: Vandalism in cemeteries. Indeed, vandalism occurs now and then in some cemeteries, and most voters think it's bad. Now we need an enemy. It's good to choose a small or remote enough a population of people to blame, so you can get the masses behind you. Everyone needs cemeteries at some point, which makes it easy to make people believe the small and different/strange acting bunch of people is mainly responsible for the wrongdoing. Geocachers! Now we need evidence. Surprisingly many voters are easy to assure by just telling them that this certain bunch of people are ones to blame for the vandalism. Do you like to see the graves and the final resting places of our forefathers (those who fought to make this country a better place) and loved ones to be vandalized by them? Do you? Of course you don't! Do you think it's right to let them do that? Of course you don't! Then, there are those darned trinko geommies who don't believe that they are vandalizing the heritage of our nation. We need hard evidence to convince them. But shoot, even though we can dig up some dirt (there are always bad apples in a bunch), it's not really that bad, and those suspicious ones aren't still convinced. So, just let us tell half truths, take things out of context, use clearly false evidence and edit the presentation just to make it look they are responsible for the wrongdoing. Remember, if you say it is true, people will believe it's true! It's not important if anyone never urinated against a headstone, once you say there are members of mass urination within geocachers, they'll buy it. No? See that log entry *coughthatweeditedcough* for yourself! No matter if by doing that we hurt a bunch of other people who also use cemeteries, at least our cemeteries will be saved (and we'll get lots of votes)! Stop vandalism! Stop geocachers! Have 'geology' changed into 'freedomlogy'! Edited May 31, 2005 by Divine Link to comment
+tands Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Negative posts at this time only hurt the cause. Many people have worked very hard to get the supporters of this bill to sit down at the table and hash things out based on the facts. Rants about the situation are disrespectful both to the Legislature who finally considered 'our' side and to the cachers who did an amazing job of overcoming obstacles of misinformation that you had to be here and see for yourself to believe. If sitting down and working out the final product bugs you, there are plenty of other countries you can move to (can't believe I'm saying that 8-O). Freedom is winning here in SC, and I'm proud of our state. - T of TandS Link to comment
+jon & miki Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 The spin machine has ground to a halt. It's now our task to keep it stopped by providing information and effort. No, the spin machine has been slowed down some, but it is not stopped. The infamous poster boards were put back into play after the meeting adjourned. Best expect more spin, but as you indicate, we need to continue to ensure that the cooler heads in the Senate have real facts to work with and will demand real proof before believing the outrageous and unfounded allegations being bandied about. Jon Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Several dozen geocachers, all wearing 'I Am A Geocacher' tags arrived at the meeting well in advance of anyone else. That was brilliant! And fabulous representation. That was Sissy's idea and it got the intended result. As far as the meeting goes, I'm encouraged. The Senators seemed to have discounted the spin. They were concerned with some issues and seemed to want to draft legislation that would put some teeth into a state angency's ability to regulate geocaching on their own property. There was some bantying about of handling private, semi-private, and public cemteries differently. On private land geocachers would have the presumption of not having permission, yet public properties having presumed permission in leiu of a formal policy. Depending on the presumption of permission is when the law kicks in. And a bunch of things were talked about in a very short time, but nothing hammered out. It was hard to keep track, but it did seem as though they've got a bit more of a grasp of the situation than others and really wanted to draft a very reasonable bill. HOWEVER, Sen. Ritchie looked out at us and said that we've been given the opportunity to get our act together. If more disturbing reports got back to them then we can be assured of very heavy-handed legislation to be drafted. I doubt his word not one bit. As a consequence, unlike TandS, I think the spin machine has been kicked into high gear. It will be behooved to the other side that we fail in the task given us by Sen. Ritchie and I doubt not they will do anything that will fulfill that dire warning. We've not been handed a victory in any stretch of the imagination. We've got 6 months of hard work in front of us whatever our strategy may be. Strategy will have to be formulated, plans drawn up, and action taken. At the moment, I'm going to take a shower and breather. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 If more disturbing reports got back to them then we can be assured of very heavy-handed legislation to be drafted What exactly are the "disturbing reports" that they've received? Are we still talking faked logs about urinating in cemeteries and a photo of a guy laying on the ground in front of a plaque, or did something serious happen? Link to comment
+SgtSue Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Kudos to all those who took the time to attend today’s meeting. Special Kudos to Sissy and all those working behind the scene to get the legislators to at lest begin to listen. Do not be fooled, the spin is not over. It will come from the corners and out of the dark, but it will come. We need to do everything we can to continually show the positive side of geocaching over the next several months. Letters, emails, and phone calls must continue. Even if they are not responded to they are still noted. p.s. Love your quote Briansnat Link to comment
+tands Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 (edited) One thing to do is document every time Ceips whips out her posters and materials. The time, date, and whom she is showing them to. Starting with today. Then when we sit down at Leader's office and in future committee hearings we ask her why she continued to use them and was seen using them on this date and this date etc. We'll talk to her, but we need to log her actions. Also, why not FOI ALL of her notes and materials? Note: Papers and correspondence of Individual Legislators and their immediate staff are exempt under certain circumstances, but no factual data, source material, or summaries are exempt. Also anything she gave or gives to the General Assembly or its Committees are not exempt. So she must provide the materials she has used to lobby the body of the Legislature upon request. So... whatever materials she has used to summarize as 'fact' are source materials. She has to provide them if asked. Ms. Ceips, we'd like a copy of that, and a list of whom you gave it to, please. - TandS Edited May 31, 2005 by tands Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I'm sorry I couldn't be there today, had to work and baby has to eat. I AM SO PROUD OF YOU GUYS! Way to handle the situation. X Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 What exactly are the "disturbing reports" that they've received? It's the things we've all heard already. However, I'm sure they will be keeping an eagle eye out for anything incriminating that pops up. Hi, Mr. Bates! I'm sure you're reading this. Randy Bates (I hope I'm spelling your name correctly) is, or has staff, diligently monitoring these forums. I've seen examples of this today. So, class, be on your best behavior. Link to comment
+Pyewacket Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I'd like to thank every cacher who showed up today, and especially those (Sissy and CR, WaterBaron, Tin Sparrow, Swamp Thing, Jon and Micki, etc.) who have worked SO very diligently to make certain the RIGHT thing is done. I apologize if I've left anyone out; I'm sure I have, but I owe you all a debt of gratitude. Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 As most of you know, I don't post regularly to the forums. I admit it, I am the apathy part of my tag line. I do not like conflict, and can generally relegate controversial subjects into the realm of either "not important enough to waste mental energy on" or "not within my power to control". This issue is one that has raised quite some passion for me. I agree wholeheartedly with RK's position, any bill crafted should be for all people, not just geocachers. We are being targeted because our caches and logs are available to the public, which makes us easy pickins'. At today's meeting, there were 19 people who came to voice opposition to this bill. Considering that SC's geocacher population is small compared to other states, that we had very short notice and most of us have to work to get our bills (and taxes) paid, this was a very good turn-out. I would like to publicly thank those who made arrangements to be present, and also those of you from other states who lent your time and energy to the cause. Without each of you, we would not have been nearly as effective today. The fight is not over. But we are prepared to continue it. Sissy Link to comment
+Deliveryguy428 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) Big thanks to everyone today who attended, sorry I could not provide more support like I wanted to Edited June 1, 2005 by geoholic28 Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Virtuals may end up being accepted in the end. Kiss those good-bye as we know it now, not much detail was giving because most could not say but big changes are coming down the line for everywhere The bottom line on virtual caches is that it's tourism with a different guidebook. Any virtual cache that is located in any place of public accommodation really can't be regulated because there is literally nothing to regulate. Any law banning virtuals is not enforceable at any reasonable level. They could start using loitering laws on random tourists but that’s just self defeating. They can throw in the towel on this part now or they can give it up later when no prosecuting attorney is willing to touch it. Either way that aspect of geocaching will remain. Link to comment
+Deliveryguy428 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) Edited June 1, 2005 by geoholic28 Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ...Ok RK you missed my point, from what I have heard TPTB are taking virts in a new direction this is not directly related to SC and the bill (sorry if this is a little off topic KA) You edited while I was typing. Virtual caches are a reality at all listing sites. There are a lot of variations and options that can be done. In my brainstorming I've come up with perhaps 15 or more types. Even though your point isn't direcly SC related, my post was so I left it. One type is a "Defender of the realm" virtual where you do something that defends geocaching against house bills, or other attacks on a harmless activity. Guess where I got that idea. I imagine it would be immensely popular just now in South Carolina. Link to comment
+JimmyEv Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Since this legislation is a compromise, and the state seems bent on regulating geocaching, what are geocachers getting out of it? May I suggest something like it being illegal to remove a legally placed cache without the permission of the cache owner? Of course, with penalties attached. Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Since this legislation is a compromise, and the state seems bent on regulating geocaching, what are geocachers getting out of it? May I suggest something like it being illegal to remove a legally placed cache without the permission of the cache owner? Of course, with penalties attached. I like this idea. Of course we shouldn't do a lot of boat rocking......well, maybe a little. X Link to comment
+jon & miki Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Since this legislation is a compromise, and the state seems bent on regulating geocaching, what are geocachers getting out of it? One positive among today's proposed amendments was some protection for the land manager from lawsuits generated by geocachers who are injured on their property. That should make getting permission much easier. jon Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Since this legislation is a compromise, and the state seems bent on regulating geocaching, what are geocachers getting out of it? One positive among today's proposed amendments was some protection for the land manager from lawsuits generated by geocachers who are injured on their property. That should make getting permission much easier. jon They should have a law on the books similar to Idaho. It clears land owners from lawsuits if they allow the use of their lands for recreation without charging. It's meant for things like hunting, hiking, fishing and so on, but works as well for bird watching and geocaching. If SC does not already have a law like this on the books they should. It would do more good than this house bill. Link to comment
+jon & miki Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 They should have a law on the books similar to Idaho. It clears land owners from lawsuits if they allow the use of their lands for recreation without charging. It's meant for things like hunting, hiking, fishing and so on, but works as well for bird watching and geocaching. If SC does not already have a law like this on the books they should. It would do more good than this house bill. I'll make sure that idea gets offered to the Senators when we meet with them. The Senators would know if such a law already exists in SC, and Senator Bryant has posted on this forum so perhaps he'll comment. In any case, it's a positive and addresses concerns we have heard from land managers - the Idaho law would sure seem to be an improvement since it addresses more recreational activities than just geocaching. jon Link to comment
+carleenp Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 They should have a law on the books similar to Idaho. It clears land owners from lawsuits if they allow the use of their lands for recreation without charging. It's meant for things like hunting, hiking, fishing and so on, but works as well for bird watching and geocaching. If SC does not already have a law like this on the books they should. It would do more good than this house bill. I'll make sure that idea gets offered to the Senators when we meet with them. The Senators would know if such a law already exists in SC, and Senator Bryant has posted on this forum so perhaps he'll comment. In any case, it's a positive and addresses concerns we have heard from land managers - the Idaho law would sure seem to be an improvement since it addresses more recreational activities than just geocaching. jon The state likely already has a recreational liablility act. If it doesn't, it is way behind the times and should focus on getting one instead of criminalizing caching. Plus general tort law should cover it in terms of assumption of the risk or contributory negligence. Standard disclaimer: I am not providing legal advice or services and am only commenting with personal opinion. Link to comment
+JimmyEv Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Regardless of any legislation of where caches can be placed, the simple truth is that it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to place a cache. Anyone that arbitrarily decides they don't like geocaching or geocachers, whether they are a landowner or not, can remove a cache or several caches. I think this is where the 'bad apples' come in --- they decide they don't like the sport and set about to ruin it for others by taking caches. This inhibited the growth of geocaching in West Texas for a year or so. Every time a cache was placed, it would disappear. No caches were placed for quite awhile. I believe the same thing happened in College Station. If we're going to start throwing laws about, I think geocachers need some protection from this type of behavior. For example, what if there isn't a ban on cemetery caches, cemetery caches are legally placed with landowner/land manager permission, and the people who originally advocated the ban decide to remove every cache in a cemetery? I don't think there are any laws that would prevent them from doing this. That would be the end of cemetery caching in the state. Link to comment
+Deliveryguy428 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Just wondering with all the possible "compromises and changes" what is being done for the upstate area since most of the attention was focued from Columbia down The KTB series never made it up here and most people are unaware of the changes that might and will take place. Dropping ALL of this on them at the July meeting might not be a good idea since most of them don't know what has and is going on. I fear if this all waits until July the meeting might turn into an all out exchange of words and frankly the SC geocachers don't need any more internal fighting Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Just wondering with all the possible "compromises and changes" what is being done for the upstate area since most of the attention was focued from Columbia down... This is a good question. Considering this legislation concerns every geocacher who geocaches in a South Carolina everyone should know about this. That is because everyone should be on the same page. Changes are coming down the pike and whether these changes are coming down from the SCGA, Groundspeak, or SC legislature, it's going to happen and everyone will have to get on board. Getting the word out can happen in various ways. How about a H3777 awareness cache? Considering many people don't look at anything but the nearest page or their unfound caches, this is an effective way to get information out to others. Link to comment
+SgtSue Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Getting the word out can happen in various ways. How about a H3777 awareness cache? Considering many people don't look at anything but the nearest page or their unfound caches, this is an effective way to get information out to others. This is a great idea. How about H3777 awareness caches in multiple areas to spread the word. I know for a fact multiple cachers are not aware of this bill from my talks with friends back in SC. These are the people as CR says, don't read the forums and do not attend the meetings. Link to comment
+klbryant Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Getting the word out can happen in various ways. How about a H3777 awareness cache? Considering many people don't look at anything but the nearest page or their unfound caches, this is an effective way to get information out to others. This is a great idea. How about H3777 awareness caches in multiple areas to spread the word. I know for a fact multiple cachers are not aware of this bill from my talks with friends back in SC. These are the people as CR says, don't read the forums and do not attend the meetings. How 'bout a geocache in each SC Senate District? Here's a link to a map with the districts. http://www.scstatehouse.net/redist/senate/S591.jpg I represent SC District 3. Kevin Bryant Link to comment
+Mad Cat Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I'm willing to change the naming of one of my local caches to a "Say No to H3777 cache" and willing to donate some money for any state efforts. Link to comment
Sportcat Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Anyway to get this posted on the front page of geocaching.com? Cachers from across the world could support our cause. Link to comment
magellan315 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Getting the word out can happen in various ways. How about a H3777 awareness cache? Considering many people don't look at anything but the nearest page or their unfound caches, this is an effective way to get information out to others. This is a great idea. How about H3777 awareness caches in multiple areas to spread the word. I know for a fact multiple cachers are not aware of this bill from my talks with friends back in SC. These are the people as CR says, don't read the forums and do not attend the meetings. How 'bout a geocache in each SC Senate District? Here's a link to a map with the districts. http://www.scstatehouse.net/redist/senate/S591.jpg I represent SC District 3. Kevin Bryant I think someone needs to scout a location for a cache in Mr. Bryant's district this weekend. Link to comment
+Mad Cat Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) Does anyone know of a simple form letter expressing the h3337 problem, to some out of state cacher, i would like to put something informative on 3X5 cards and stick em one of my caches, i just got about 10 hits in the last 2 days on a I-95 cache. Edited June 1, 2005 by Mad Cat Link to comment
Sportcat Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Concerning the H. 3777 cache in Sen. Bryant's District.... My family is heading to Pennsylvania this weekend to visit family (dadgum Yankees ), but will be happy to put together a cache in Anderson. The area around the Anderson Civic Center is a very family-friendly and only has two caches in the area. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I'm willing to change the naming of one of my local caches to a "Say No to H3777 cache" and willing to donate some money for any state efforts. Be careful. Caches seen as promoting an agenda, even a pro geocaching one, may not get past an approver. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 The Bill: Requires Permission. If it’s found the owner does not have adequate permission they are fined and/or sentenced to community service. The Geocaching System. Requires Permission. If it’s found the owner does not have adequate permission the cache is archived. Both methods rely on the cache owner to obtain adequate permission. Both systems have a means of dealing with the permission issue. Geocaching has far more flexibility in dealing with a cache that proves to be a problem of some type. The bill can only deal with what is foreseen. Geocaching has a quick turn around time, while the State has due process and the burden of proof to work with. The geocaching method works and works now. We already meet the spirit and intent of the bill without placing undue restrictions on our land managers and requiring citizens of this great land to carry papers. Not only do we already meet the spirit and intent of the bill but we do it in a way that is better than what the bill would accomplish. Besides since when do we want to carry papers to show at checkpoints proving we have business that allows us to travel. I would hope we have more freedom and liberty than that in this country. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Getting the word out can happen in various ways. How about a H3777 awareness cache? Considering many people don't look at anything but the nearest page or their unfound caches, this is an effective way to get information out to others. This is a great idea. How about H3777 awareness caches in multiple areas to spread the word. I know for a fact multiple cachers are not aware of this bill from my talks with friends back in SC. These are the people as CR says, don't read the forums and do not attend the meetings. Good idea. Link to comment
+Clan X-Man Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Does anyone have a copy of the handout from Rep. Ceips from the meeting showing who was supporting her bill? If so please scan and email to me. X Link to comment
tossedsalad Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 This is really getting silly. No one has any given rights to any particular use of a cemetery, a historical site or any other place except for property they own. If a cemetery manager decides to outlaw bicycles, you have no recourse. If the legislature decides to outlaw hats in cemeteries (men's only of course) your ownly recourse is to get the law changed. Why does anyone think that geocaching is so special that it is exempt from regulation? I have a question here, I would like to know how you would handle a situation where the family members of a person buried in a cemetary not only gave permission but encouraged a geocacher to place a cache at the gravesite and the manager of the cemetary doesn't want geocaching in their cemetary? Who has the final word, the cemetary manager or the owners of the plot? Are there now going to be CRCC's in cemetaries like there are in housing developments? You pay for the plot but the cemetary manager tells you who may visit the plot you paid for and what they may do while they are there? If you think this is a ridiculous scenario I can tell you it is not, I have friends and family who want me to place caches near the graves of loved ones, saying so and so would have loved it if they were alive. I am also about to place a cache in a privately owned cemetary with the full blessing of the family that owns the cemetary and they would laugh at the thought of having to give written permission, saying their word is good there is no need for a written document. That issue already exists. In the cemetery where my family is buried, we can place flowers (only real) on the graves between May and September only. Any other time of the year and they will be removed. Further the gates are closed in the evening and no treaspassing is allowed until they reopen in the morning. There are many other rules and although they are fairly well worked out over the last three hundred years, I expect that they change from time to time. I have no rights (even as a plot holder as there is a grave there waiting for me) to break any of the rules they make. Of course if I feel a rule is too restrictive and unreasonable, I can sue in court to have the rule changed, but until I win my case I can not break the rule. Many have been posting on this based on their personal emotional feelings rather than thinking rationally about it. In the real world you don't have a right to do many, many things that you may do every day. You can do them because they are allowed either by consent or because no one cares enough to stop you. But you don't have a god given right to any of them. You can be stopped at any time if the person responsible makes that decision. Geocaching in public/semi-public/private areas is one of those non-rights. If we act responsibly, no one will take it away from us. BTW, as I read the bill presented to the Senate, a virtual cache is not prohibited since they define geocaching as looking for a real geocache. So geocache your brains out with virtual caches in the cemetery. Link to comment
tossedsalad Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Since this legislation is a compromise, and the state seems bent on regulating geocaching, what are geocachers getting out of it? May I suggest something like it being illegal to remove a legally placed cache without the permission of the cache owner? Of course, with penalties attached. Actually, that is already illegal. It is called theft! Link to comment
tossedsalad Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I think someone needs to scout a location for a cache in Mr. Bryant's district this weekend. Just make sure you get written permission before placing it, no matter where it is placed... I'm not kidding! The last thing anyone needs is a stink about a cache dealing with this bill. Link to comment
+andersonranchero Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 So correct me if I'm wrong. I have read most of the posts and most seem to be concerned with why this is a bad bill. In this forum you are preaching to the choir. So we accomplish nothing by ranting and raving. We have been given a stay of execution so to speak on this issue. Is there a way we can use this time to better educate the state Senators concerning geocaching? Do we know which Senators support the bill? Just an idea but could we invite the state Senators to some of the SCGA meetings that are held? Of course only effective if Senators actually attend. Also only effective if we use it to show the true spirit of geocaching and not as an ambush to rant and rave on the bill. Should we try to use the media to our advantage? I know in the upstate there is one newsman who travels the area to try new and interesting activities. Maybe someone could invite him on a geocaching outing. Just a few questions and ideas. Link to comment
Sportcat Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) Could we organize a CITO event in the areas where "the other side" says we are causing problems? Edited June 1, 2005 by Sportcat Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ...That issue already exists. In the cemetery where my family is buried, we can place flowers (only real) on the graves between May and September only. Any other time of the year and they will be removed. Further the gates are closed in the evening and no treaspassing is allowed until they reopen in the morning.... Should my wife preceded me in death and I go to her grave I would mark my coming with a token of respect regardless of the time of year. My wife has asked me to come up with a way to attach decorations to the headstone of her family. Something that would last longer than the stock "we will remove it" period of time. I will do so knowing that what I do honors those for who the cemetery exists far more than a set rule that says when they will remove things. If our dedicated grounds crew should have to invest time tugging and pulling to remove a decoration that is how we have chosen to be reverent, then it's the employee who's paycheck I fund who is on the wrong side of respectful. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 One thing to consider, it is very likely no law will be passed that resembles the one presented to the Senate. It is my distinct impression the Senators did not like the language of the bill in the least. In fact, the only one that seemed unreasonable was one who was adamant there be no geocaching in a cemeteries, at all, for no reason. (There may be some language that allows for caching in historically signifcant locations, or some such.) The rest were very reasonable. I just remembered one thing bantied around was a requirement of a sign of NO GEOCACHING if you didn't want people geocaching on your property. That would be a first that wasn't photoshop-ed that I know of. It was also my impression the proponents of H3777 were not pleased with the meeting. That's got to tell you something. Here are some observations: Do NOT geocache at night in a Jewish cemetery. Thoughts of that community, is was conveyed, are lethal force would be acceptible. Do NOT geocache during a funeral. (I would have thought that went without saying, but apparently not.) Do NOT break the law. Do NOT brag or admit that you broke the law. Do NOT mention on a public forum that someone else broke the law. Do NOT geocache outside posted hours. Do NOT place a geocache without adequate permission. Do NOT place a geocache on private property without express permission. Some of these things we already advocate, yet fail to adhere to. Much of the above behavior really shouldn't be tolerated by the community. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ...[*]Do NOT place a geocache without adequate permission.[*]Do NOT place a geocache on private property without express permission. The first one has it. I am not going to dictate to anyone when I'm asking permission what terms I will be accepting that permission in. It's enough to obtain it. When I went in front of the board of directors of our local greenway foundation and asked them if they would allow geocaches on their trails they looked around at each other, wondered why I even asked and said yes. That was it. No proclamation, no decree, no resolution just “Yes”. Later I took one of the board geocaching and we have kept up a working relationship ever since. In the past two years they have had about 5 or 6 caches on their lands and have been the recipient of at least one CITO project. Some things just work. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Some people don't understand the concept of adequate permission. Quite frankly, my definition may very well be different from yours or just about anyone else's. This site, nor anyone as far as I know, has defined "adequate permission." Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I have been remiss in my posts in this forum. It appears that in my opposition to this bill I neglected to propose an alternate that could be passed by the house and the senate. Perhaps a supporting representative could sponsor a resolution similar to this one. Resolution: Whereas: Obesity is on the rise and weight related medical conditions cost the state millions of dollars and geocaching is an activity that helps combat obesity by encouraging entire families to exercise. Whereas: Parents who do activities with their children provide a solid foundation for our future and geocaching is a family activity. Whereas: Having upstanding citizens patrolling our communities reduces crime and geocachers patrol our communities and report suspicious activities. Whereas: Litter is unsightly, costly to clean up, mars the beauty of our communities and geocachers routinely pick up litter. Whereas: Instate and out of state tourism is an important part of the economy and geocachers are actively involved tourists. Whereas: The geocaching community has always set a high example of civic, pride, involvement and duty. We find geocaching to be a beneficial activity and encourage land owners and public land stewards to promote geocaching. Link to comment
+Steve L Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 First, let me say a big THANK YOU to all of you who are fighting to defeat H3777. I'm not from South Carolina, but I feel like I'm personally involved because my grandmother, my mother, and all her siblings were born in and around Charleston and Summerville, and I still have cousins in Orangeburg. And of course I'm a geocacher. For what it's worth, I have relatives buried in Jewish cemeteries in Charleston and Summerville, almost certainly including the cemetery that became so controversial, and I RESENT politicians exploiting MY relatives' resting places for cheap, misguided, and above all dishonest political grandstanding. Talk about disrespect for the dead! I have some thoughts on how to negotiate with the Senate, but I'm going to send them privately to one of the local activists. It's not that there's anything to hide; I just think a team's huddle is supposed to be private. Finally, some states get it right. Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I just think a team's huddle is supposed to be private. I can personally guarantee these forums are being monitored. Printouts were were shown to me as evidence of admitting to wrong doing. Link to comment
+terri and billy Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 This is a thought to increase awareness of SC geocachiing. Besides organizing CITO advents in the areas in question which should have lots of pre and post event exposure, have a cache across SC. We have a cache across Md (CAM) annually. Make it a big deal and place the caches where you get the feel of each region of SC. Make it open and we have a passport that you stamp. At the end of the time, based on the stamps, you get the coordinates for an after cachiiing party. We have one month to complete all the caches. Invite members of the legislature, govenor, newsreporters, etc. What a great way to see your state and meet cachers and let them know what is going on! Terri Link to comment
Recommended Posts