Jump to content

South Carolina Senate Activity


Recommended Posts

Rm. 207 -- Judiciary Subcommittee on Geocaching, 1 hour before the Senate session convenes (NOTE: If the Senate does not meet on Friday, this meeting will be postponed until Tuesday.)

 

As of 12:25 am the Senate Calender calls for the Senate to next meet at 11am on Friday May 27.

 

So, guessing the meeting is now today again?

Edited by geoholic28
Link to comment
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.

This is exactly what I'm saying. I don't want the law. To avert it we will have to get SCGA involved more. Show that a law is not necessary because there is a local enforcement system. But if they pass the law, a lot more than 75%+ of the caches will disappear. And we need to demonstrate that we don't just care about what's detrimental to the sport, but that we also care about other peoples' concerns even if they seem unwarranted to us.

 

- T of TandS

Edited by tands
Link to comment

I'll be travelling to the low country again next week. Let's see, do I want to book my hotel in Savannah or in Hilton Head? The week after that I'll be in Wilmington and Myrtle Beach.....

 

I guess I'll just continue to watch what the SC Senate does. I know they don't give a flip about me as tourist or businessman spending money in their state, but I'll have the satisfaction of knowing.....

 

Hopefully it won't come to that. I e-mailed a Charleston area Senator earlier, won't spam them all. Hopefully they are smart enough to see that this is a bad bill.

 

~erik~

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. 

 

- 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....

One issue here is that many land managers and agencies do not want to hear about geocaching. They actually *know* about it, but for a variety of reasons (ranging from not wanting or seeing a need for the added work, to liability concerns) they do not want to be put on the line and forced to give it official sanction. Instead they give geocaching their tacit approval by ignoring it and letting us go about our business with a "wink and a smile".

 

Second is the difficulty of determining the responsible agency. Those little guardrail hides that some people love. Who do you contact for permission? The highway department? The town? The county? Often they themselves don't know who is responsible for a section of road. And once you identify the correct agency, WHO do you contact? With a state park its easy. You go to the park supervisor.

 

To hide one in a guardrail by the overlook out on Route 11 do you talk to the mayor? The town council? The county legislators? The Superintendent of Roads and Highways? (yeah he's going to want to deal with hundreds of geocachers calling him every year).

 

It certainly would mean the end of these kinds of caches. Heeeey, maybe this isn't such a bad thing afterall.

 

And what about the cost to taxpayers? On the state level it might be necessary to hire people just to handle geocache requests. On the town level you're goint to take officials away from their normal duties to deal with this and assign clerks to type up agreements and probably attorneys to go over them. These people are busy enough.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I just talked to Sharon Sholl of the Judiciary Committee Office at 8:43am today, Friday May 27. She confirmed that the Subcommittee hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 31, at 10:00am in Rm 207. There will be a sign-in sheet at the hearing room on Tuesday for those who wish to participate in the public comment phase. Arriving sooner and signing up early will give you a better chance of being heard.

 

-T of TandS

Edited by tands
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.

 

I was just thinking about this. How about a cache where you make a rubbing (since Rep. Scarborough is so into rubbings), sign the rubbing, and deposit it in the physical cache located off-site? You're not seeking information, you're making a rubbing. This bill might bring out a lot of adaptive creativity.

Link to comment
I was just thinking about this.  How about a cache where you make a rubbing (since Rep. Scarborough is so into rubbings), sign the rubbing, and deposit it in the physical cache located off-site?  You're not seeking information, you're making a rubbing. This bill might bring out a lot of adaptive creativity.

I understand what you are thinking. If they pass a "silly" law, let's show them how silly it is by getting around it, right? But this still violates the spirit of the law and would be more fodder for negative publicity.

 

I agree that we need to try to prevent this law from getting passed. But also, let's keep it in perspective. The one thing that Cieps said that has stuck with me was to read from the geocaching.com web page that you should always ask permission. So anything you do to work around that part will be justifying the proposed law. If you ask permission then you are complying with the law and you are no longer making a point.

 

Thinking of showing them the law is pointless by working around it has no benifit to geocaching.

 

Looking at some of the caches that have been placed without permission, I can see where it was inevitable that this would have happened sooner or later. Cieps is not the villain here, she is just part of the scenery. We need to do a better job of considering others and policing ourselves.

Link to comment

I'm working closely with Sissy (of Sissy and CR), trying to recruit help to keep the ludicrous SC anti-caching law (HR 3777) from passing. If ANY of you have time to do some research, please email me at teeking @ sc.rr.com or Sissy at scsissy @ sc.rr.com (remove the spaces in the addresses) and either she or I will email you a little later with details on how you can help. And we NEED your help! Thanks so much for your time.

Link to comment
The one thing that Cieps said that has stuck with me was to read from the geocaching.com web page that you should always ask permission.

Actually, it does not say that. It says "adequate permission." This can be in the form of anywhere from "express written permission" through to "assumed permission."

 

What is "assumed permission?" It can be defined as considering the other activites that take place in the area, it can be assumed you can leave a cache or letterbox. It's similar if not identical to the "Frisbee rule." Would you go to a typical park and seek permission to throw a frisbee? What about throw a stick for your dog? Place a towel on the ground to sun yourself?

 

Proponents of this bill says it only codifies what this site already says. It does not. It goes far beyond what is required by this site.

Link to comment

So, the Senate must get the bill out of sub-committee without any changes, back to the full committee, which would have to recommend that the bill be brought before the full Senate. Then, 2/3 of the Senate would have to vote "Aye" to get the bill properly introduced this term (which ends the 31st?). This 2/3 vote is necessary because the bill passed a deadline for making [it] to the Senate. Then the bill would be up for discussion on the floor of the Senate and would have to be passed unchanged. All of this by the end of Session on Tuesday. Are we in panic mode because we think all of this is going to happen? Am I wrong on how this process works?

Edited by Cole Hard-cachers
Link to comment
So, the Senate must get the bill out of sub-committee without any changes, back to the full committee, which would have to recommend that the bill be brought before the full Senate. Then, 2/3 of the Senate would have to vote "Aye" to get the bill properly introduced this term (which ends the 31st?). This 2/3 vote is necessary because the bill passed a deadline for making [it] to the Senate. Then the bill would be up for discussion on the floor of the Senate and would have to be passed unchanged. All of this by the end of Session on Tuesday. Are we in panic mode because we think all of this is going to happen? Am I wrong on how this process works?

If it was not for a handful of geocachers at the last meeting their would be even be a sub-committee meeting so the bill could have been sent to the Gov's desk already. So there is some concern

Link to comment

Thursday is the last day anything can happen.*

 

We've been complacent in the past in regards to the schedule.

 

No more.

 

*I wouldn't put it past anyone to get creative with the path or timeline of a bill, either.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Please don't misunderstand. I am all for doing everything we can to stop this bill. I am just suggesting that we will likely have time after this Session to try to educate more Senators before a vote in the Senate. Am I right on the process needed to [get] the bill passed this year?

Edited by Cole Hard-cachers
Link to comment

I'm saying don't count on it.

 

Sen. Lourie is fast tracking this bill "because of ongoing situations in Charleston." These folks think folks are actively urinating, defecating, and desecrating cemeteries.

 

Make no mistake the whisper campaign is in high gear and is bearing down on us as we speak.

 

The timeline could be sub-commitee recommends the bill passes as is. Later in the day the full commitee could meet to send it on to the floor. The bill waits its required 24 hours and Wednesday is read the 2nd time, is not debated, is voted on and passed. Thursday is the 3rd and final reading. It is sent to the Governor's desk to be signed into law before the week is out.

 

Not a normal timeline, but we're not counting anything out.

Link to comment
Cieps is not the villain here, she is just part of the scenery..

 

No? Pursuing this ridiculious llegislation with such singleminded zeal that she deliberately mislead her colleagues with innocent logs, carefully edited to make them look bad and misrepresented photos, claiming that they depicted things they didn't?

 

 

We need to do a better job of considering others and policing ourselves

 

We generally do and that's the point.

Link to comment
...Pursuing this ridiculious llegislation with such singleminded zeal that she deliberately mislead her colleagues with innocent logs, carefully edited to make them look bad and misrepresented photos, claiming that they depicted things they didn't?

Can I quote you on that? :laughing::laughing:

Link to comment

FYI: The reason they went to a sub-committee was to fine tune the various amendment proposals into one they all could live with. I am sure they have already worked this out and the meeting is simply a formality. But, since general session does not start till noon on Tuesday we have up to two hours to show the Honorable Senators that we are NOT a bunch of nocturnal grave digging hooligans and that we are environmentalists, conservationists, and eco-tourists that care about our state and its historical and natural resources.

Link to comment
Woo-HOO!! :laughing:

 

The Columbia Star printed my lengthy letter to the editor in its entirety, along with three other letters.

 

They messed up the paragraph breaks a bit (at least in the online edition; I can't speak for the printed one), but the whole dadgum thing is THERE!! :laughing:

Nice letters written! I am glad they published so many.

 

Great job geocachers!

Link to comment
The one thing that Cieps said that has stuck with me was to read from the geocaching.com web page that you should always ask permission.

Actually, it does not say that. It says "adequate permission." This can be in the form of anywhere from "express written permission" through to "assumed permission."

 

What is "assumed permission?" It can be defined as considering the other activites that take place in the area, it can be assumed you can leave a cache or letterbox. It's similar if not identical to the "Frisbee rule." Would you go to a typical park and seek permission to throw a frisbee? What about throw a stick for your dog? Place a towel on the ground to sun yourself?

 

Proponents of this bill says it only codifies what this site already says. It does not. It goes far beyond what is required by this site.

That is where we disagree. Just because the words on the gc website are "adequate" permission, that does not equate to the frisbee rule and regardless of how you interpret it, gc.com can not give carte blanc to you to "use your own judgement". That is why we are fighting this stupid law, because the cachers did not have the same idea of what was "adequate permission" as the manager of the cemetary.

 

If you read further down the guidelines specifically say "Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans." Perhaps this was added after the SC controversy, but that is the point. We have been too loose with seeking permissions.

 

So fight the bill, but don't forget that we need to deal with the real problem too, the geocachers.

Link to comment
So fight the bill, but don't forget that we need to deal with the real problem too, the geocachers.

I'm not sure if you live here in SC or not, but the point that some people are making is the fact geocachers have become Ciep's scapegoat cause she could find no one else to blame. So a lot of anger your reading on here is because of unjust attacks.

Link to comment

While I hope there is great success in stopping this bill in the Senate, I just sent the following e-mail to the governor of SC. I will also be mailing a similar letter to him through the USPS.

 

Fight the good fight SC geocachers.

 

Governor Sanford,

I have read on your website that you are a proponent of Family Fitness. Currently there is a bill (HR 3777) in the SC Senate that intends to severely restrict an activity called Geocaching. Geocaching has gotten me out me out of my house and hiking around parks. I have introduced it to a 1/2 dozen people with the same affect on them. Geocaching is a great activity that can be done as a family and increases fitness. If the bill passes the SC Senate, I ask that you atleast research geocaching and make an informed decision for yourself.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Christopher M. Hayes

Link to comment
Wow....well...its ok to do that according to them, just not geocache

Why do people here keep talking like geocaching has become a crime in SC? They only say you must get permission! Don't you think a commercial tour would get permission first? If they got kicked out of the grave yards their business would be done along with everything they invested in it. That is why geocachers need to take permissions more seriously, to protect *our* investment.

Link to comment
So fight the bill, but don't forget that we need to deal with the real problem too, the geocachers.

 

And exactly what problem are these geocachers creating? Kindly detail them for the rest of us.

The geocachers are creating problems for themselves! This is the perfect example. They put a cache on private property that allows public access. But public access is not the same as permission to place a cache or other waypoint. The geocacher should have asked permission. I think it is very clear that if you place enough geocaches in enough sensitive places, this is exactly the sort of thing that can result.

 

Sure, Cieps is over reacting to a small incident. But there is always someone who does not see things your way and you need to protect yourselves against them. In this case we simply needed to ask permission first, just like the bill says we will *have* to do if it becomes law. It is a shame that not asking permission, even if it is by accicent, could become a criminal act.

Link to comment

I can not understand the logic behind the thought that a geocache in a cemetery is disrespectful. I know of many people that regularly visit old cemeteries just to see the old markers, and to see the interesting things written on old markers. Here in Indiana we have an entire series of cemetery caches that stress the historical aspect of these old cemeteries. I have never seen any kind of vandalism involved in these caches. Usually the gravesites end up in better shape because cachers pick up trash and leave the spot cleaner than when they came.

With the logic being used by the South Carolina legislators, soon the only thing you will be able to do in a cemetery is bury someone, and mourn a loved one.

Link to comment
They only say you must get permission! Don't you think a commercial tour would get permission first?

 

The law requires express written permission to hide and hunt caches. Its a far cry from calling up the park super and asking if it was OK to hide a cache.

Link to comment
I can not understand the logic behind the thought that a geocache in a cemetery is disrespectful.

That is the nature of the problem. It is not our decision to make. It is up to the managers of the property, whether it be a park ranger, a city mayor or the caretaker of a graveyard. It does not matter if you see the disrespect. It matters if you ignore the fact that others see disrespect.

 

Asking permission is not the same as a ban. It is bad to make it criminal to fail to do this, but we only have ourselves to blame by not asking permission as a matter of course.

Link to comment

I completely understand the need for permission, and always will. I was refering to some earlier postings in this thread that stated that geocaching in cemeteries was wrong and should be prevented by Groundspeak. The people that made those statements were calling for cemeteries to be off limits to caches regardles of permission or not.

 

Team Tigerz stated

 

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.

 

This is the kind of statement I was refering to

Link to comment

Again quoting Team Tigerz

 

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.

 

Statements like this just add fuel to the fire for the folks that want laws banning geocaching.

 

AND YES I REFER TO IT AS A BAN.

 

The way the law is written now you would need written permission to look for caches as well as to hide one. How can a casual cacher be expected to know where to find a landowner to get WRITTEN permission to look for a cache?? In fact, how would you know who to get permission from before you have found out where the cache is hidden? That is not logical!!!

Edited by Gary and Mary Adventurers
Link to comment

Tossedsalad,

 

You're not helping. In fact, you're handing the other side neat little gifts left and right.

 

I urge you to carefully read this entire thread. It's all been explained thoroughly and is there for the taking.

 

A Recap on the Evils of Requiring Written Permission

Scope:

Requiring written permission simply in archological sites, never mind any other area, is the same as requiring written permission in the complete state. Reason: catalogs of archeological sites are not public information. The only way to be safe on any property is to get written permission. The end result, again, the complete state will require written permission.

 

Catch 22:

Approach a land owner with an idea to place a cache and get the enthusiastic approval, but when you ask for written permission he asks why. You explain because it's the law. Now the land owner wonders about allowing this pastime because there had to be a law enacted on it.

 

Landowner Rights:

It removes the ability of a land owner to give a verbal affirmation.

 

Liability Reluctance:

Several times the permission I got was the "I can't give you express permission, but I'm not going to say you can't do it, either" type. This, I was told, was under the advise of company lawyers who apparently said "plausible deniability" has some merit. Basically, this is to protect the land owner or steward from liability in case a geocacher gets hurt. Also, sometimes it could be a lower manager not wanting to stick his neck out, but sees merit in allowing a cache to go in.

 

There you have it in a nut shell.

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