Jump to content

South Carolina Senate Activity


Recommended Posts

this law would be forgotten. like so many other stupid laws , Like its legal to hit your wife at 12 noon on thursday's on the courthouse steps in Jasper County

 

By everyone except geocachers. Since we're generally a law abiding bunch, it will have a crippling effect. Do you think Geocaching.com is going to allow listings that violate a state law? Whether or not the law is enforced.

Link to comment
A sub-committee was formed and will likely meet today after general session or in the morning. This has not been established yet ...

 

The sub committee will consist of the following:

 

Chair - Senator James H. "Jim" Ritchie, Jr.

District 13 - Greenville, Spartanburg & Union Cos.

Contact Address:

(H) 302 South Pine St., Spartanburg, 29302

Bus. (864) 585-2275 Home (864) 585-6047

© 608 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202

Bus. (803) 212-6032 Home

 

E-Mail Address: JHR@scsenate.org

 

Senator Joel Lourie

District 22 - Kershaw & Richland Cos.

Contact Address:

(H) P.O. Box 6212, Columbia, 29260

Bus. (803) 765-9200 ext.257 Home (803) 787-5802

© 504 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202

Bus. (803) 212-6116 Home

 

E-Mail Address: JBL@scsenate.org

 

Senator Vincent A. Sheheen

District 27 - Chesterfield, Kershaw & Lancaster Cos.

Contact Address:

(H) P.O. Drawer 10, Camden, 29020

Bus. (803) 432-4391 Home

© 506 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202

Bus. (803) 212-6124 Home

 

E-Mail Address: VS@scsenate.org

 

Senator Kevin L. Bryant

District 3 - Anderson Co.

Contact Address:

(H) 104-A North Ave., Anderson, 29625

Bus. (864) 202-8394 Home (864) 225-0990

© 501 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202

Bus. (803) 212-6100 Home

 

E-Mail Address: BRYANTK@scsenate.org

 

Senator George E. "Chip" Campsen III

District 43 - Berkeley & Charleston Cos.

Contact Address:

(H) 360 Concord St., Suite 201, Charleston, 29401

Bus. (843) 722-0123 Home (843) 886-8454

© 604 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29202

Bus. (803) 212-6016 Home

 

E-Mail Address: CAMPSEN@scsenate.org

Thanks for the info. Bringing it to the top of the next page.

Link to comment
...it will have a crippling effect. Do you think Geocaching.com is going to allow listings that violate a state law?  Whether or not the law is enforced.

Correct.

 

A lot of people just don't understand.

 

Consider the way the bill is presently written and consider you don't know where in the physical world the restricted areas are. The only way to be covered is for every single cache be given express written consent.

 

For example, a cache comes across a reviewers desk. Everything looks fine except one thing, is it in an archeological area or site? Well, considering that is not public information the only way to be covered is to have express written consent.

 

Okay, so Groundspeak starts looking the other way and a cache pops up in a restricted area. BINGO! More fodder for the anti-geocaching crowd.

 

Lest anyone misunderstand the gravity of the situation, one Senator called for an outright ban on all public land and written permission on all private land. Not a restriction, an out right ban.

 

Also, consider the hobby to be very new and relatively few know about it. It is hard enough getting permission without having to get someone's signature on a piece of paper.

 

Make no mistake, we are in a fight against crippling legislation in our state. If anyone thinks this is trivial and they are mistaken.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
this law would be forgotten. like so many other stupid laws , Like its legal to hit your wife at 12 noon on thursday's on the courthouse steps in Jasper County

 

By everyone except geocachers. Since we're generally a law abiding bunch, it will have a crippling effect. Do you think Geocaching.com is going to allow listings that violate a state law? Whether or not the law is enforced.

Even worse. By everyone (maybe even geocachers) except those that cried out for it in the first place. The police may not take to monitoring every cemetary for rogue geocachers...but they'll be out there pretty quickly if they're called to deal with one.

Link to comment

News! The subcommittee has been formed and will meet tomorrrow am or Tues at 10am. We need to be prepared to offer the following: Someone in SC is going to have to be involved in the process of approval. The SCGA is a logical choice. Documentation even if only the name of the landowner granting permission should be required for all SC caches, maintained by SCGA. An SCGA liason should be appointed to work with and build relationships with State Agencies and any individuals to be an 'in state' contact person to deal with any SC caches that cause problems and to help prevent cache placement in sensitive areas. We should place a moratorium on all new cache placements in SC until we can prove all existing ones are either in compliance or are removed like the cemetary caches have been. Finally, we need to ban cemetary cache placement making it not allowed in our guidelines.

 

Folks, what these legislators are concerned about is having an entity in SC with authority over cache placement and, if need be, cache removal to ensure all placements truly follow our guidelines and to allow for removal of caches that don't or that cause unforseen problems. They don't have faith in Groundspeak, so we need to step up and take some true managerial control in addition to Groundspeak's system. Along with the Groundspeak reviewer, someone in SC, Columbia preferably, is going to have to confirm cache placement guidelines conformance before a cache is activated at Groundspeak. And we are going to have to finish what we started with the removal of cemetary caches by gaining proof of landowner and land manager permissions and put in place a system that keeps track of their consent. In addition, all cache containers should have the name and phone number of both the placer and the SC-based approver to ensure that they can be contacted if there are any problems with the cache.

 

We have grown up as a visible activity. We now have to take local charge of some aspects of this sport. I predict that this will be necessary in all States. If we can pull this off we will be a positive example for Geocaching everywhere.

 

- T of TandS

Edited by tands
Link to comment

This will address their valid concerns that there is someone local who will work with the state and can be contacted about any geocaching related problems. They have asked over and over 'isn't there someone in SC who is over the caches?' I finally realized what they meant.

 

- T of TandS

Link to comment

They want someone local who has some authority over geocaching. That is the whole issue. We have been fighting the wrong battle. We need to show that we not only have rules, but also a SC based way to enforce them.

 

- T

Link to comment

It doesn't matter that what Rep Ceips has said is true or not. The things she describes could happen in the future. If they do, there has to be somebody local to contact who can intervene. And there has to be a placement rules compliance system or we have no credibility.

 

- T

Link to comment

Next Big Bro will want to know where I play checkers and domino's. Too much goverment intervention as it is in our daily lives. (In case someone from up there is reading this, "I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!!").

 

I can see where they would want to permit the parks and such. But to want to know where everyone of these things are and to approve on someone's private property??? It's like zoning.

 

:anibad:

Link to comment
News! The subcommittee has been formed and will meet tomorrrow am or Tues at 10am. We need to be prepared to offer the following: Someone in SC is going to have to be involved in the process of approval. The SCGA is a logical choice. Documentation even if only the name of the landowner granting permission should be required for all SC caches, maintained by SCGA. An SCGA liason should be appointed to work with and build relationships with State Agencies and any individuals to be an 'in state' contact person to deal with any SC caches that cause problems and to help prevent cache placement in sensitive areas. We should place a moratorium on all new cache placements in SC until we can prove all existing ones are either in compliance or are removed like the cemetary caches have been. Finally, we need to ban cemetary cache placement making it not allowed in our guidelines.

 

Folks, what these legislators are concerned about is having an entity in SC with authority over cache placement and, if need be, cache removal to ensure all placements truly follow our guidelines and to allow for removal of caches that don't or that cause unforseen problems. They don't have faith in Groundspeak, so we need to step up and take some true managerial control in addition to Groundspeak's system. Along with the Groundspeak reviewer, someone in SC, Columbia preferably, is going to have to confirm cache placement guidelines conformance before a cache is activated at Groundspeak. And we are going to have to finish what we started with the removal of cemetary caches by gaining proof of landowner and land manager permissions and put in place a system that keeps track of their consent. In addition, all caches should have the name and phone number of both the placer and the SC-based approver to ensure that they can be contacted if there are any problems with the cache.

 

We have grown up as a visible activity. We now have to take local charge of some aspects of this sport. I predict that this will be necessary in all States. If we can pull this off we will be a positive example for Geocaching everywhere.

 

- T of TandS

Much of this has been in place for over a month already.

 

Someone in SC is currently doing SC cache reviews.

 

We have provided an direct line of communication for Land Managers and other Officials already, the emails are received by myself, the SC Reviewer, and a member of the SCGA. It is an email address used for official communication only, it is not to be used by the geocaching community as we do not want "red flagged" items to be diluted with other issues.

 

The SCGA liaison is a SCGA responsibility I will not comment on this aspect.

 

Groundspeak and Groundspeak volunteers will honor any policies that are in place for an area, this is a policy we have stood by since the beginning. The site guidelines are not necessarily amended to reflect individual state changes, but they will be honored in the states in which they apply.

 

Groundspeak is one listing site, for the community to want all caches to adhere to the state policies then the community will need to have a very active organized group responsible for this. Groundspeak and Groundspeak Volunteers can only review that which is listed on geocaching.com.

 

I will not ask that a Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer put their phone number on any cache placement, that is the sole responsibility of the cache owner. The cache owner assumes all responsibility of their cache listings.

Link to comment
They want someone local who has some authority over geocaching. That is the whole issue. We have been fighting the wrong battle. We need to show that we not only have rules, but also a SC based way to enforce them.

 

- T

How do you know this?? Are you in communication with the Senators on the Sub-Committee?? It sounds like you are saying there is no battle to fight, and that the passage of the bill in the Senate is a done deal. What specific information and/or communications with the Senators do you have that indicates all of this???

 

GeoForse

Link to comment

We have to remember that only so much can be said on here cause of who all now reads the site. So just cause some stuff is said that might seem a little out there please don't totally jump all over it. Instead of posting here send the people a nice well thought out e-mail with your questions, concerns, comments, etc....

 

:anibad::P

Link to comment
This will address their valid concerns that there is someone local who will work with the state and can be contacted about any geocaching related problems. They have asked over and over 'isn't there someone in SC who is over the caches?' I finally realized what they meant.

 

- T of TandS

The local group will have to represent all listing sites. No group really has authority over any one cache, or the listing sites for that matter. What they do have the ability to do is interface with cache owners, listing sites, and interested land managers. There is no reason for them to force people to do what they don't want to do. Land managers who don't choose to regulate geocaching should not be forced too for example. Private land owners who have a verbal agreement should not be forced to put it in writing and so on.

 

Maximizing the freedom that people have is in the best interest of everyone.

Link to comment
It doesn't matter that what Rep Ceips has said is true or not.  The things she describes could happen in the future.

 

It does matter. Most laws impact our freedoms in some way, therefore the enacting of laws should not be taken lightly. Laws should not be created to address made up issues or potential problems. They only should be created to address real problems - problems that can not be addressed in any other manner.

 

Geocachers are no worse than tourists and many other visitors to cemeteries and historic sites. In fact we might be a bit better because we'll pick up a few empty beer cans on the way out. If a geocacher is found to be trespassing, prosecute him under trespassing satutes. If a geocacher is in a park after hours, prosecute him under curfew laws. If a geocacher commits an act of vandalism, prosecute her under vandalism laws.

 

There is no need to criminalize the behavior of thousands of decent, law abiding citizens.

They're trying to kill a fly with a shotgun here.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
News!  The subcommittee has been formed and will meet tomorrrow am or Tues at 10am.  We need to be prepared to offer the following:  Someone in SC is going to have to be involved in the process of approval.  The SCGA is a logical choice.  Documentation even if only the name of the landowner granting permission should be required for all SC caches, maintained by SCGA.  An SCGA liason should be appointed to work with and build relationships with State Agencies and any individuals to be an 'in state' contact person to deal with any SC caches that  cause problems and to help prevent cache placement in sensitive areas.  We should place a  moratorium on all new cache placements in SC until we can prove all existing ones are either in compliance or are removed like the cemetary caches have been.  Finally, we need to ban cemetary cache placement  making it not allowed in our guidelines. 

 

Folks, what these legislators are  concerned about is having an entity in SC with authority over cache placement and, if need be, cache removal to ensure all placements truly follow our guidelines and to allow for removal of caches that don't or that cause unforseen problems.  They don't have faith in Groundspeak, so we need to step up and take some true managerial control in addition to Groundspeak's system.  Along with the Groundspeak reviewer, someone in SC, Columbia preferably, is going to have to confirm cache placement guidelines conformance before a cache is activated at Groundspeak.  And we are going to have to finish what we started with the removal of cemetary caches by gaining proof of landowner and land manager permissions and put in place a system that keeps track of their consent.  In addition, all cache containers should have the name and phone number  of both the placer and the SC-based approver to ensure that they can be contacted if there are any problems with the cache.

 

We have grown up as a visible activity.  We now have to take local charge of some aspects of this sport.  I predict that this will be necessary in all States.  If we can pull this off we will be a positive example for Geocaching everywhere.

 

- T of TandS

What's being asked is impractical. Are we expected to go to the various court houses and sort through land records to now place a cache? We have caches in five counties! Asking junior or the temp help behind the desk (who are all you can often find) is not going to work when you've made it a legal compliance issue. What you are doing, for all practical purposes, is ending geocaching in SC.

 

The caches in the cemeteries were wrong. Although most are extinct, there are still some cemetery caches in SC. We've come across three. They are definitely very much alive just across the state border in NC. One of the NC caches we saw earlier this week was a micro by what appears to be a new geocacher. His coords on other caches were off by as much as 140 feet! Can you imagine people rummaging through a cemetery looking for a micro whose coords are off that much?

 

Folks, we should immediately remove all the cemetery and culturally sensitive caches. We need procedures in place to ensure these types of caches do not reappear. No problem with using the SCGA (or other volunteers) in that capacity. An audit process by Groundspeak would add additional credibility. Anything beyond that will have a dramatic effect on geocaching in SC.

Link to comment

IMO there is nothing wrong with cemetery caches. If anyone can enter a public cemetery to walk, jog, exercise their dog, do headstone rubbings, and the countless other “legal” actives which occur every day throughout this country then why not geocaching? If you think it is wrong then 1. Don’t place one there and 2. Don’t hunt one there. That is what makes America great, the right to make our own decisions.

 

Permission for all public land is wrong. If anyone can go to that location and throw a freebie, toss a baseball, play tennis, or just gather without getting a note from unseen government official l then I have the right to place or hunt for a cache.

 

This law is restrictive, intrusive, and just plan unnecessary.

Link to comment

Is this what they mean by hate the player don't hate the game? I have and will continue to speak out against this bill. I'm sorry I can't get to the comittee hearings. I wish every cacher from all over the world could march in mass against the state house. The only thing that really sticks in my craw about it is evidence. I don't lie cheat or steal and I don't expect it to be done against me. I love this hobby! But we are seriously thinking of moving away from my own home and family land to get away from this backward state. I was born and raised here. I love this state. The Representatives in the house are crooked. Been said. We can't cockfight or geocache. Least I can still beat the wife if I want to. Or lie in what is supposed to be a professional atmosphere and screw others. Even with all that I can still be on the House "Ethics" committee. (Oxymoron?) Maybe I'll see you guys in NC soon.

 

X

Link to comment
...The caches in the cemeteries were wrong. Although most are extinct, there are still some cemetery caches in SC. We've come across three. They are definitely very much alive just across the state border in NC. One of the NC caches we saw earlier this week was a micro by what appears to be a new geocacher. His coords on other caches were off by as much as 140 feet! Can you imagine people rummaging through a cemetery looking for a micro whose coords are off that much?

 

Folks, we should immediately remove all the cemetery and culturally sensitive caches. We need procedures in place to ensure these types of caches do not reappear. No problem with using the SCGA (or other volunteers) in that capacity. An audit process by Groundspeak would add additional credibility. Anything beyond that will have a dramatic effect on geocaching in SC.

They were not "Wrong" they just were. Sprinklers that spray headstones and leave ugly white hard water spots are far more of an issue than a geocache will ever be. For one thing a cache on the rare occasion it's a problem can be fixed. That sprinkler...don't count on it.

Link to comment
WOW!

Wow is right. If I was a South Carolina state representative, and I reading this thread, and I was trying to decide whether geocaching was a bad thing or a good thing, I'd have to be asking myself right now why all those other states seem to be embracing the activity, rather than trying to legislate against it.

 

Here's a thought - perhaps Geocaching really IS a healthy and positive activity whose participants are generally responsible individuals after all.

Link to comment

Another Rant:

 

This bill exists entirely as a vote of no confidence in the present laws, regulations, rules, and the employees who enforce the existing laws. They have decreed "Everything that came before is not enough, we need more laws to contain the Tupperware threat." Her concern, her vision, her efforts are wasted on the idea that if you ban the Tupperware you will somehow have managed to ban vandals and thieves. She believes that if you make a bill that forces thousands of people to have an interest in knowing the actual location of 50,000 protected sites just to comply with the law, that vandals and thieves will have less knowledge of the location of those sites. As a bonus, the bill probably jeopardizes transportation funds for not complying with the federal laws that promote the secrecy of these locations.

 

Every version of this bill thus far, does more harm to what they desire to protect than good. At best the bill is a paper tiger that will waste a lot of peoples time. Every now and then some family will be arrested and made into an example, while a developer legally obliterates a cemetery in another part of the state. The world does not need more 3 year olds with a record. But hey some representatives can look back in pride at what they have done to benefit humanity. They can put this bill on their political resume along with the tag line "I banned Tupperware and saved the world."

Link to comment

Senate Subcommittee on H. 3777

 

SENATE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

 

H. 3777

(Geocaching)

The subcommittee on H. 3777 will meet on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 207 of the Gressette Building

 

Subcommittee Members: Senators Ritchie (Ch), Sheheen, Bryant, Campsen, Lourie

Staff Attorney: Paula Benson

 

Be there if you can. Even if you cannot attend, contact your senator and explain what geocaching means to you.

Link to comment

Geocaching is just beginning to have an impact on tourism. In the next five or ten years, this impact will most likely grow exponentially. It's not just geocachers visiting places --- it's also the word of mouth they generate.

 

What Houstonian in their right mind would take a weekend getaway to Beaumont? Well, they have a lot of caches. So one three-day weekend I did. Monday morning in the office water cooler conversation: "The largest fire hydrant in the world is in downtown Beaumont, and its painted like a dalmatian. It's so cool. And the whole downtown area might be boarded up, but it's full of more art deco architecture than I've ever seen anywhere else. Really cool to walk around and look at the detail. And did you know you could float down Village Creek? The water's pretty clear and there's all these beautiful white sandbars to swim from." Then more people were planning trips to Beaumont.

 

When my mother and sister came down from Pennsylvania to visit, I took them to all the usual tourist things --- Space Center, the Galleria, San Jacinto Battlefield, the Menil, the Strand, and the Seaport Museum --- along with a couple of places I discovered caching. What did they remember about their trip and tell everyone back home about? That cool incuse sculpture of Jesus hidden in a cemetery. Now my grandmother is coming down specifically to see that statue, discovered through a cache.

 

As pointed out earlier in this thread, other states are finding ways to exploit geocaching to increase their tourism dollars. Whether this is actually good or bad for geocaching I don't know, but it's being done because it may well be the future of tourism. If South Carolina wants to ban geocaching in many areas of the state, maybe it should be able to. It'll be the loser. Sorry all you SC geocachers, but SC is a small state and North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee are just a few miles away.

Link to comment

Valley Quest

 

It is not called letterboxing, so it might be legal under H3777 if it were to occur in SC instead of Vermont. Valley Quest in part of an overall program to engage citizens in community life and to foster the long-term balance of cultural, economic, environmental and social well-being in our region.

 

Note the links to educational materials and praise for the program. What's the logical step for a state that consistently ranks near the bottom in education? Of course, severely restrict an activity that can educate citizens regarding geography, geology, history, sciences, and mathematics.

Link to comment
Valley Quest

 

It is not called letterboxing, so it might be legal under H3777 if it were to occur in SC instead of Vermont. Valley Quest in part of an overall program to engage citizens in community life and to foster the long-term balance of cultural, economic, environmental and social well-being in our region....

Swamp Thing, Thanks for the link. Thats an excellent program.

Link to comment
Going to write up a speech tonight and will be at the meeting tomorrow.  Hopefully we can provide some insight into this activity, and save it from the knee jerk reactions of one person.

Anyone who is going feel free to take my website pics and turn them into a storyboard. Show them that our sport is something they should be embracing and encouraging, rather than something to stifle.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Going to write up a speech tonight and will be at the meeting tomorrow. Hopefully we can provide some insight into this activity, and save it from the knee jerk reactions of one person.

I lied in my e-mail, the meeting will be Tuesday :-X

 

If you need me for anything (info etc..) you have my e-mail :lol:

Link to comment

Note to anyone who shows up to speak at the subcommittee hearing: If you have any caches that you can't prove you have permission for, please don't even try to address the subcommittee. That is the first thing they will ask you, and if all of your caches don't comply with the Groundspeak rules for permission from the landowner then you will be pouring gasoline on the fire.

 

As I am eliciting some good flaming right now, I would know!

 

Also, concerning efforts to work with the State Archaeologist, DNR Enforcement and others. As of Tuesday's meeting when I talked to them, they absolutely did not know that there was someone in SC whom they could call who had authority with Groundspeak. Say what you will about what has been done, but the people who make the decisions have not been reached yet by anyone claiming cache review authority for SC caches who lives in SC. And if these efforts have been made, why didn't a single Senator on the Judicial Committee have a clue about them?

 

I am disabling my cache hides until I have written permission from the landowners or managers. I plan to speak at the hearing and hope to have written permissions by then, but my caches will stay disabled until I get those permissions. I'm sorry some of you have responded so negatively. You would do well to talk to the people involved before you write any speeches. They are reasonable, but we will lose if we keep responding in anger to Ceips by making this a fight. Instead it needs to be an effort to find a solution to peoples' fears.

 

Geocaching is no longer under the radar. Because it appears strange to some people they will fear it. Those people and their fears deserve respect. You can't tell someone not to be upset because they were told something that isn't true. You can however, show them a concrete plan so that what they fear will not happen in the future.

 

The meeting is at 10 am on Tuesday per the call I received from the Judiciary Committee Senior Counsel.

 

- T of TandS

Edited by tands
Link to comment

Tuesday darn....still out of state

 

I can not begin to start to name everyone who has almost put their personal and professional lives on hold to stand up and support this HOBBY we call geocaching. I wish I could name every individual but their are so many. To everyone, your support, and dedication to your HOBBY and willingness to prove it is more then a game has gone above and beyond the call of duty at time. I know there has been many heated statements and conversations on here, and I am just wanting to take a moment away from all the heated conversations to thank everyone who has been in contact with TPTB in trying to help disprove all the negative and unjustified attacks that have been made against us.

 

To everyone that applies to the above you deserve more then I ever can give you, from the bottom of my heart though I THANK YOU DEEPLY.

 

So, as we come down the final stretch we need to unite and support the HOBBY we love so much.

Edited by geoholic28
Link to comment

If you can't keep a cool head and be positive and know when and when not to speak, then don't speak at all. One person should speak for the folk who are going, IMHO. We are all very passionate about this subject. Just food for thought.

 

Geoholic the meeting is set for Tuesday I believe.

 

Someone please bring copies of the different state webpages about geocaching these could be extremely helpful.

 

Also, I believe that those who have been caching longer with more experience and that can show proof of such could be of more help than those of us who are still relative newbies. I still consider myself a newbie so don't think I'm singling anyone out. Everyone here has something to contribute, but some of us are getting so up in arms that we could hurt rather than help.

 

I wouldn't disable any cache not in a cemetery. That was done as a PR gesture. Disabling anything else would be like saying you are breaking a law. That law hasn't been passed yet.

 

X

Edited by Clan X-Man
Link to comment

Considering that in the House Committee there was some mix up about meetings where it looked like one was canceled and then wasn't, I suggest people go there tomorrow anyway, even it looks like it will be Tuesday. If no meeting, take the time to go visit committee member offices and see if they happen to be in. If so, you can have a brief chat with them and tell them about caching. Visit with anyone you can find! :lol:

Link to comment

As Clan X Man said, copies of the different state and / or city tourism pages would be great (just surf back through all these logs). Also copies of sample South Carolina caches, especially those of historic interest or in historic districts to show what could be lost.

 

A group plan would be helpful. Wish I could be there. Would if I could.

Link to comment
...Also, concerning efforts to work with the State Archaeologist, DNR Enforcement and others. As of Tuesday's meeting when I talked to them, they absolutely did not know that there was someone in SC whom they could call who had authority with Groundspeak. Say what you will about what has been done, but the people who make the decisions have not been reached yet by anyone claiming cache review authority for SC caches who lives in SC. And if these efforts have been made, why didn't a single Senator on the Judicial Committee have a clue about them?...

You are losing me here. Since it's easy to contact the cache owner, since the South Carolina group has a home page, since most all pages on geocaching.com have a "Contact Us" link on the side menu while I can't say it's impossible that someone would miss it, it's not easy. I can't speak as to why they don't know anyone in authority at Groundspeak. The most probable explanation is a lack of effort.

 

If they are absolutely demanding someone in authority in SC then it's what kind of authority? The different people involved in a cache all have different roles. We want the bill defeated. We don’t want un-needed regulation. You bring up good questions though. The kind that anyone who attends will need answers for.

Link to comment
...Also, concerning efforts to work with the State Archaeologist, DNR Enforcement and others.  As of  Tuesday's meeting when I talked to them, they absolutely did not know that there was someone in SC whom they could call who had authority with Groundspeak.  Say what you will about what has been done, but the people who make the decisions have not been reached yet by anyone claiming cache review authority for SC caches who lives in SC.  And if these efforts have been made, why didn't a single Senator on the Judicial Committee have a clue about them?...

You are losing me here. Since it's easy to contact the cache owner, since the South Carolina group has a home page, since most all pages on geocaching.com have a "Contact Us" link on the side menu while I can't say it's impossible that someone would miss it, it's not easy. I can't speak as to why they don't know anyone in authority at Groundspeak. The most probable explanation is a lack of effort.

 

If they are absolutely demanding someone in authority in SC then it's what kind of authority? The different people involved in a cache all have different roles. We want the bill defeated. We don’t want un-needed regulation. You bring up good questions though. The kind that anyone who attends will need answers for.

I suspect many also don't read their mail or are behind on it. I have written on several occasions, including information about the review process, self policing, and the fact that cemetery caches without permission have been archived in SC. I got few replies. One wrote back, but from the context of the response they had clearly not read my email. I also got two favorable responses, but nothing about them told me that they had read what I sent. Maybe they did, maybe not.

 

I know others have written as well and my understanding is that they have been told. In the end it is likely best to call and meet with them in person. Considering the amount of legislation out there on all topics, I bet emails and letters are often quickly handled by staff members or only given a cursory reading. That makes sense since they are busy people. Hence why a call or visit makes sure that the info gets across.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

I didn't plan to respond in anger. I wanted to address the committee with my personal experience with Geocaching, and the wonders it has provided me. Specifically a trip to the Star Fort Historical Site in Ninety Six, SC. I had never even heard of the place before geocaching, and went out twice to try to find a specific cache. The second time, I found it, and on the way back to the car I stopped at one of the little sign posts with the information on it. Intrigued and since I had some time, I stopped and read the sign. After that, I began walking the trail, soaking in the information and enjoying the entire site. I began wondering about the past, the history of South Carolina, and the way people lived their lives in those times. Without geocaching, I would've never gained that experience. And from that, I've begun visiting other state parks and historical landmarks, some for caching, all for the interest piqued by this hobby we all love.

 

By requiring written paperwork for all geocache sites at historical locations (I'd assume this would apply to almost all state parks as well), the question becomes "Who is going to go through the trouble?" and then "Is the cache I'm looking for legal?" What happens to the poor soul who doesn't realize the cache they're looking for is actually an illegal placement and is stopped by a law enforcement officer? What happens if someone has permission to place a cache and the area is vandalized? Will the blame be placed upon the owner of the cache? The statute is not clear, and as such, will do more harm than good. I believe, should this legislation be passed, that geocaching as well as tourism will decline, and the interest that is building in families across this state will be forcibly squelched.

 

If we could actually ask questions of those proposing the bill, I would like to address some of those questions above to them. But if not, hopefully the questions will trigger the thought processes in some of the congress members to wonder if the bill will really do any good.

 

BTW, this is what the scstatehouse site says:

 

The subcommittee on H. 3777 will plan to meet on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 207 of the Gressette Building

UNLESS

the Senate meets on Friday, May 27, in which case the meeting will be held on Friday, May 27, 2005 one hour before the Senate goes in Session, in Room 207 of the Gressette Building

 

Does anyone have a definitive answer from a source?

Link to comment

Friday or Tuesday, please be prepared with your own posters, handouts, pictures and have multiple speakers this time. Keep comments on topic, complete but brief and honest. Make a point and stay on point. Repeat the same concerns - speaker after speaker. Demonstrate a willingness to work out individual solutions with land managers - give examples. Say CITO --- say it again, and again. Show leadership at multiple levels.

 

Most of all - good luck!! Know that many are behind your efforts.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.........

Link to comment

I just dropped a letter to the governor, stating that this bill would violate my rights for the "persute of happiness", which is part of the United states Bill of Rights. I believe our senators and reps, and the governor are responsible to govern rules and laws to protect against violating my rights for freedom. This Bill is violating my "Government given rights for the persute of happiness" in what you do in everday life. Geocaching is a sport like hiking, boating , bowling, golfing. Not a illegal activity like computer hacking , game cocking, shoplifting, or black marketing. Rep. Ceips is doing this for votes on her next election, She has not been able to pass any bills during her term as Rep. for Beaufort county, yet she thinks this bill would give her some clout with the African-American communitys here. She might be get the votes but shes making us the scapegoats. I'm sorry I can't make the Meeting, I'm a lowly servent in the Bigger government.

Link to comment
By requiring written paperwork for all geocache sites at historical locations (I'd assume this would apply to almost all state parks as well), the question becomes "Who is going to go through the trouble?" and then "Is the cache I'm looking for legal?" What happens to the poor soul who doesn't realize the cache they're looking for is actually an illegal placement and is stopped by a law enforcement officer?

 

As I understand it, the way the law is written you would need written permission to both place AND search for a cache.

 

She has not been able to pass any bills during her term as Rep. for Beaufort county, yet she thinks this bill would give her some clout with the African-American communitys here. She might be get the votes but shes making us the scapegoats

 

Maybe we should try to get these guys on board. Let them know we have money to spend. They apparently have some pull. During the debates Ceips was asked where the Black Chamber of Commerce stood on this. She claimed they were on her side (I wonder if she was lying about that too). If we can get them over to our side by letting them know that we are potential customers it would be to our benefit.

 

South Carolina Black Chamber of Commerce

2340 Avenue F

North Charleston, SC 29405

(843) 554-6204

 

Beaufort County Black Chamber of Commerce

Post Office Box 754

Beaufort, South Carolina 2990

Phone: 843-986-1102

Fax: 843-379-8027

E-mail: BCBCC259@islc.ne

 

Beaufort Regional Chamber of Commerce

1106 Carteret Street

Mailing address: PO Box 910

Beaufort, SC 29901

Fax: (843) 986-5405

president@beaufortsc.org

 

South Carolina Chamber of Commerce

grassroots@scchamber.net

803-799-4601

1201 Main Street

Suite 1700

Columbia, SC 29201

 

South Carolina Small Busniess Chamber of Commerce

1717 Gervais Street

Columbia, SC 29201

phone:

803.252.5733

fax:

803.799.0678

Email

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

From a practical side. How do you regulate a moving target? I’ve got a list of roughly 32 cache types I’ve brainstormed for other purposes. If I can come up with that many it’s not unreasonable for others to come up with far more than that. There are entire new categories that we have not thought up yet and all those associated types.

 

When you define a geocache the odds are good this activity will pass you by. Regulating geocaching in the fashion proposed is akin to trying to ban parts of HTML. It evolves too fast.

 

If the real goal is to stop vandalism, grave robbing, and so forth the focus should be somewhere that makes sense. Why even spend time looking at this?

Link to comment

Getting verbal or written permission is one issue, but verbal permission should be enough if the the state GCA kept a LIST of landowners and managers who give either verbal or written permission, compiled from the name of the landowner or manager for each cache site and when he/she gave permission, with no personal data included for the landowner. The cache placer could provide this info to the GCA.

 

Either we do this as Geocachers, or a law that makes us look like criminals when we are actually some of SC's most loyal promoters will be passed. You folks have to choose.

 

 

- T of TandS

Edited by tands
Link to comment

I just wanted to add that our Gov. Mark Sanford has 4 boys and they are involved in all types of outdoor activities. I think they would absolutely love geocaching if they knew about it. Also, Gov. Sanford is into promoting health and healthy living/exercise in our state. Here is a link from the Gov. webpage:

 

http://www.scgovernor.com/interior.asp?Sit...=193&ParentId=0

 

I'm thinking we should introduce the Gov. to geocaching and get him on our side, so if it does make it to him, he will not sign it.

Link to comment
Getting verbal or written permission is one issue, but verbal permission should be enough if the the state GCA kept a LIST of landowners and managers who give either verbal or written permission,  compiled from the name of the landowner or manager for each cache site and when he/she gave permission, with no personal data included for the landowner.  The cache placer could provide this info to the GCA. 

 

Either we do this as Geocachers, or a law that makes us look like criminals when we are actually some of SC's most loyal promoters will be passed.  You folks have to choose.

 

 

- T of TandS

One more time ... your cure is worse than the problem. We need to be sensitive to where and how a cache is placed. Otherwise, tighten up existing vandalism laws ... there's no need for this type of reaction. You will be killing geocaching in SC. When you make it a "law" geocachers must get written permission from "the" land owner, you're ultimately talking some kind of contract and digging through courthouse land records. It's a far cry from today's process of leaving your contact information and making sure it's okay with someone at the site. What you're saying is just not going to happen. It’s guaranteed 75+ % of our caches will disappear overnight.

 

Again, set up some type of review process to ensure cemetery and other culturally sensitive caches do not occur. Involve the SCGA and/or some group of volunteers in an oversight capacity. React quickly and decisively to those that act irresponsibly. Use our $30 to Groundspeak to set up some kind of audit process. Anything beyond that will be detrimental to the sport.

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