South Carolina Senate Activity

4.5k · May 27, 2005

I'm sorry you're having trouble in SC. However, I;'ve been saying for years that caching in cemeteries is disresepectful. Cachers do not decide respectability - we're guests. It is based on respect for the dead, and more importantly, because they still can vote, on the living relatives who have their deseased family members buried there.

The letters-to-the-editor in the above link all miss the point. Cemeteries are private property. There is no implied permission on private property. One can argue that a park that has no rule against caching and therefore implies permission. But a private cemetery is just that. You're trespassing just as much as the couples necking or getting drunk mentioned in one of the letters. And to say as one of the letter did thatcaching should be OK because the police haven't stopped those miscreants would be like saying its ok to cheat on your taxes because the cops haven't caught the bank robbers.

Everyone I believe would agree that we cannot place caches on private property without permission. Why do we exclude cemeteries? That's an illogical position, as well as illegal. Additionally, it has the extra psychological and emotional impact because many people consider grave sites where their familes are buried to be holy. To disrespect that will continue to get us into trouble in SC and elsewhere.

Rather than continuing to try to justify it, how about apologizing for anyone who has been hurt by it and adding an explicit rule that caching in cemeteries will no longer be allowed?

It may be too late in SC, but we'll probably see this in other states unless we treat this isssue seriously and not blame some state representative.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Alan2

9.4k · May 27, 2005

Does anyone actually read this thread?

24.7k · May 27, 2005

I'm sorry you're having trouble in SC. However, I;'ve been saying for years that caching in cemeteries is disresepectful. Cachers do not decide respectability - we're guests. It is based on respect for the dead, and more importantly, because they still can vote, on the living relatives who have their deseased family members buried there....

Take a look at this list of Political Entities. Use the find feature for the word Cemetery. Cemeteries have taxing authority. Someone has to pay to maintain them. Yes there are private cemeteries but there are public ones as well.

The issue is not as cut and dry as you think. The gist of most arguments is that we do not need yet more rules imposed by people outside geocaching. We take care of probems and issues on our own and do just fine.

Case in point. We already know that all the alligations are false. The bill marches on at the slow pace of government. When someone vandalized my car the police didn't respond. They will put this bill further on the backburner than most other laws they have to enforce but don't have time to muck with. Unless a represenativae directly intervenes this is just going to be one more useless law that creates more problems than it's worth. And geocaching will still deal with any problems directly.

Disrespectful is a state of mind. You can find someone to get offended over anything. It generally only proves someone has buttons that someone else can push.

7.2k · May 27, 2005

...adding an explicit rule that caching in cemeteries will no longer be allowed?

ummm...

What about the wardens that want a cache in their ward? You saying they place a cache on their own property?

18.9k · May 27, 2005

It does not matter if you see the disrespect. It matters if you ignore the fact that others see disrespect.

If we all follow your logic than we as americans better close down Yellowstone National Park. Some Native American groups see that as sacared ground for thier people. They see the tourist activites as disrespectful to the land. If we apply your view than the rest of us should respect that and stay out as tourists.

I do not see this as an absolute. ALL cemetary caches are wrong?? not all - not to me.

I intend to have a gravemarker (for myself - someday) that doubles a cache - please feel free to visit during the cemetaries posted hours. Is that going to be wrong?

38.2k · May 27, 2005

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.

Have you *read* the proposed law, because its not just a matter of asking permission to hide caches anymore if this law is passed.

And no we don't have ourselves to blame. This whole thing started because of baseless accusations made against us. When they couldn't prove those, we had a representatvive who refused to lose face and drop it. Instead she resorted to deceit to get the bill through. Lets not blame the victim here. That cow don't hunt with me.

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.

That's what Tossedsalad and those in his boat just don't get. There are many land managers who know about geocaching and have no problem with it. They do the old Sgt. Schultz, "I know nuuuuthing, nuuuuthing" routine. But If you approach them and demand that they give official sanction that changes things. You're making them stick their butt on the line and they're unwilling to do so for a number of reasons, so then the answer becomes no. I've seen this happen.

Edited May 27, 2005 by briansnat

2.2k · May 27, 2005

Are these people being disrespectful?

20.7k · May 28, 2005

Well, Forest Lawn is a beautiful cemetary. I don't think my grandmother, who's buried there, would mind. Of course, I don't think she would mind if we were geocaching in there either. :laughing:

Edited May 28, 2005 by sbell111

May 28, 2005

The letters-to-the-editor in the above link all miss the point. Cemeteries are private property. There is no implied permission on private property. One can argue that a park that has no rule against caching and therefore implies permission. But a private cemetery is just that.

Go back to your reading comprehension class, please. My letter -- the longest of the ones linked to -- specifically states that caches are only to be placed with the permission of the property owners.

2.7k · May 28, 2005

Does anyone actually read this thread?

Why would anyone do that?

It's far to long anyways. :laughing:

2.2k · May 28, 2005

gee! it looks like beaufort, SC encourages people to visit cemeteries.

2.2k · May 28, 2005

they even encourage self tours of cemeteries.

3.8k · May 28, 2005

I've read the entire thread. Even some parts of it more than once.

2.2k · May 28, 2005

yet another cemetery visit encouraged

2.2k · May 28, 2005

my goodness! they even have people in period costumes giving cemetery tours.

2.2k · May 28, 2005

day three encourages a self-guided tour of an african-american cemetary.

2.2k · May 28, 2005

these people are actually making money conducting tours of cemeteries in south carolina.

2.2k · May 28, 2005

tootsy tours doesn't mind making money arranging tours of african-american cemeteries.

2.2k · May 28, 2005

this society doesn't seem to mind cemetery tours.

2.2k · May 28, 2005

heavens to betsy. ghost tours? they even use this quote:

If what you’re looking for is cheap scares and stage makeup, you would most likely have more fun at the movies, but if you’re looking for a good story to tell your friends in the dark around a campfire, then Ghost Tours is for you.

May 28, 2005

I think you've stumbled on the secret, uper.

If we CHARGE people to go geocaching there, it will be OK. :laughing:

2.2k · May 28, 2005

I think you've stumbled on the secret, uper.

If we CHARGE people to go geocaching there, it will be OK.

well! it seems that beaufort itself encourages "self-guided" tours. no money to be made there.

May 28, 2005

Has anyone contacted local law enforcement in SC regarding their opinions on this proposed law?

As has been stated previously - enforcement of this law is going to be a logistical nightmare. How do you prove I was geocaching and not just "in possession of a GPSr"?

Aside - I can see that jail cell conversation now...

"So - what you in for?"

"Killed my mama, my pa, my sister and then used the bodies as lawn ornaments. You?"

"I... umm... was... err... walking in a... uhhh... cemetary... with... a GPSr..."

"You're disgusting".

-end aside

Just curious what their side may be - amazing how many times laws are enacted without the direct input of those asked to enforce them.

Again - thanks to all fighting the good fight!

4.5k · May 28, 2005

The letters-to-the-editor in the above link all miss the point. Cemeteries are private property. There is no implied permission on private property. One can argue that a park that has no rule against caching and therefore implies permission. But a private cemetery is just that.

Go back to your reading comprehension class, please. My letter -- the longest of the ones linked to -- specifically states that caches are only to be placed with the permission of the property owners.

None of the letters to the editor help your cause in my opinion.

Quote:

I agree that some places should remain off limits to geocachers. Trespassing is trespassing. Sacred spots should remain that way. The truth of the matter is that the majority of caches are not in these places.

That's Jujitsu. We don't deny we place caches in cemeteries just look at all that are not placed there.

You can walk by that same cemetery on a Friday or Saturday night and most likely find drunk teenagers or college kids congregating there. I find this to be a more disturbing example of disrespect for the property and the people that were laid to rest there, but nothing ever seems to be said about that.

Another Jujitsu. Others are doing worse thing there than us.

Contrary to her statement in the article, geocachers are specifically advised NOT to place caches in locations that may raise questions of security, such as bridges, government buildings, airports, and train stations.

Another Jujitsu. we're talking about cemeteries, aren't we?

Cache owners are already REQUIRED to have permission of the property owner or custodian prior to placement of a cache.

Problem is caches in cemeteris have NOT been given permssion.

Any property owner or caretaker (such as a cemetery administrator) who discovers that an undesired cache is located on their property need only contact geocaching.com, and the listing will be promptly disabled.

Ok, if we get caught, we'll remove it. But you don't want us to ask permission first, do you?

This is the very reason why forward-thinking land managers such as Cleveland Metroparks (http://www.clemetparks.com/recreation/geocaching/index.asp) actively work with geocachers to develop constructive and creative avenues for visitors to discover the history and beauty surrounding them.

Oh, so our cemeteries should be compared to Metropark. Maybe we should set up a basketball court too.

At a Geocache call the Elizabeth and the unknowns, we hunted for a micro container near Elizabeth’s grave.

Now there's a comforting thought. And what ws in the micro container anyway?

Look, I've been caching for 3 1/2 years and I don;t want to see caching hurt. But with letters like this, well, it doesn't seem to me that you're making your case.

38.2k · May 28, 2005

Look, I've been caching for 3 1/2 years and I don;t want to see caching hurt. But with letters like this, well, it doesn't seem to me that you're making your case.

Welcome to the thread Alan. Apparently you have missed a lot and are not fully informed,otherwise you would have known that his letter was a point by point response to an article that appeared in that newspaper. It was not meant to address the law per se.

May 28, 2005

As Briansnat points out, you apparently didn't read the original article that the letters were responding to.

Quote:
I agree that some places should remain off limits to geocachers. Trespassing is trespassing. Sacred spots should remain that way. The truth of the matter is that the majority of caches are not in these places.

That's Jujitsu. We don't deny we place caches in cemeteries just look at all that are not placed there.

You can walk by that same cemetery on a Friday or Saturday night and most likely find drunk teenagers or college kids congregating there. I find this to be a more disturbing example of disrespect for the property and the people that were laid to rest there, but nothing ever seems to be said about that.

Another Jujitsu. Others are doing worse thing there than us.

The writer's point was that the concerned citizens are upset about the disrespectful behavior; geocaching is not the cause of the disrespectful behavior, why single it out? Outlawing geocaching because a few people act disrespectfully is like outlawing red shirts because some people who wear red shirts are vandals.

Contrary to her statement in the article, geocachers are specifically advised NOT to place caches in locations that may raise questions of security, such as bridges, government buildings, airports, and train stations.

Another Jujitsu. we're talking about cemeteries, aren't we?

No, we're establishing that the reporter has a pattern of incorrect and unsubstantiated statements throughout her entire article. Ms. Haynie spelled her name correctly in the byline; that's one of the very few parts of the article that had any basis in fact.

Cache owners are already REQUIRED to have permission of the property owner or custodian prior to placement of a cache.

Problem is caches in cemeteris have NOT been given permssion.

Any property owner or caretaker (such as a cemetery administrator) who discovers that an undesired cache is located on their property need only contact geocaching.com, and the listing will be promptly disabled.

Ok, if we get caught, we'll remove it. But you don't want us to ask permission first, do you?

Wrong again. Some of the caches did have permission, but your statement claims that none of them did. Erring on the side of caution, all were disabled until permission could be verified.

Cachers are always supposed to get permission first, right? As stated in the letter, it is impossible for the reviewer to verify this in most cases and they are reliant on the good faith of the cache owner to follow the rules. The letter is intended to reinforce that if a rules violation is brought to the attention of Groundspeak, it will be appropriately dealt with.

This is the very reason why forward-thinking land managers such as Cleveland Metroparks (http://www.clemetparks.com/recreation/geocaching/index.asp) actively work with geocachers to develop constructive and creative avenues for visitors to discover the history and beauty surrounding them.

Oh, so our cemeteries should be compared to Metropark. Maybe we should set up a basketball court too.

Did you take writing lessons from Rachel Haynie? The point is very simply that there is a proven track record of geocaching and land usage -- parks, forest preserves, and yes, even cemeteries -- working together to the betterment of BOTH.

At a Geocache call the Elizabeth and the unknowns, we hunted for a micro container near Elizabeth’s grave.

Now there's a comforting thought. And what ws in the micro container anyway?

Ah, you did take writing lessons from Ms. Haynie, because she quotes out of context, too. The remainder of the reference was to having a quiet moment of reflection at the graveside, saying a prayer for Elizabeth and "the unknowns", and moving respectfully onward, which is exactly the type of behavior that Ms. Ceips and her constituents purport to be protecting. But including that part wouldn't suit your argument now, would it?

Edited May 28, 2005 by WascoZooKeeper

May 28, 2005

Look, I've been caching for 3 1/2 years and I don;t want to see caching hurt. But with letters like this, well, it doesn't seem to me that you're making your case.

Welcome to the thread Alan. Apparently you have missed a lot and are not fully informed,otherwise you would have known that his letter was a point by point response to an article that appeared in that newspaper. It was not meant to address the law per se.

Although Alan may not be informed, he has awfully good insight. He's saying the same thing others have been saying for weeks. One more time ... it's not socially acceptable to do things in a cemetery other than to pay respect. A good test we were taught is to try to explain to your mother or grandmother that it's "okay." Whether it’s cemetery geocaching, playing Frisbee, or taking a tour, your chances are not good sports fans.

From the State's perspective they have folks undeniably playing what they perceive to be games in their cemeteries. They have an unresponsive organization in Groundspeak that for a year would not respond to their certified letters. They were unable to identify any local leadership. So they start to correct the situation the best they know how ... outlaw the game. To date, our arguments have largely been "we're not doing anything wrong, certainly no worse than anyone else." That's not how this is going to be won.

We should accept responsibility; i.e., we understand some may not see cemetery caches as appropriate. We're going to be proactive in eliminating these caches. We're going to set up a process so they can't occur again. We're also going to curtail the caching rights of any who violate this policy. To the extent there are future concerns, in addition to Groundspeak, here's a local person/organization to contact. Folks, that's all they want to hear. Quit arguing with them. We are not going to win an argument trying to tell them cemetery caching is socially acceptable.

38.2k · May 28, 2005

One more time ... it's not socially acceptable to do things in a cemetery other than to pay respect.

One more time. Many people use cemeteries for things other than mourning. Joggers, bird watchers, historians, artists, dog walkers, tombstone rubbers, curiosity seekers, tourists, photographers, geneologists, nature lovers and more. Cemeteries were historically popular spots for family outings and picnics. The concept that they are solemn places, reserved only for mourners is a recent one. In fact many cemeteries still have picnic tables. :laughing:

A good test we were taught is to try to explain to your mother or grandmother that it's "okay"

That's just plain silly. My grandmother still has a problem with women in slacks. Actually, it isn't such a bad idea. Depending on how hold your grandmother is, she may have fond memories of family outings in cemeteries and playing among the headstones.

Edited May 28, 2005 by briansnat

May 28, 2005

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.

Have you *read* the proposed law, because its not just a matter of asking permission to hide caches anymore if this law is passed.

Yes, I *have* read the bill. It only says you have to get written permission. If you mean verbal was ok I think you are ignoring reality. If you place a cache somewhere that is not public property and the management or ownership changes, a verbal permission is hard or impossible to prove.

But this is all beside the point. I am not supporting the criminalization, but I don't think you can defend the actions of placing a geocache in a cemetary without asking permission. If you do, then we disagree on the most fundamental level and there is no further point in discussing it.

And no we don't have ourselves to blame. This whole thing started because of baseless accusations made against us. When they couldn't prove those, we had a representatvive who refused to lose face and drop it. Instead she resorted to deceit to get the bill through. Lets not blame the victim here. That cow don't hunt with me.

No, the problem started when a manager of a cemetary found out that geocachers were "playing" in his cemetary. He was upset and justifiably so. If you can't understand why he was upset, then again, we are so far apart that there is no point in discussing it further.

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.

That's what Tossedsalad and those in his boat just don't get. There are many land managers who know about geocaching and have no problem with it. They do the old Sgt. Schultz, "I know nuuuuthing, nuuuuthing" routine. But If you approach them and demand that they give official sanction that changes things. You're making them stick their butt on the line and they're unwilling to do so for a number of reasons, so then the answer becomes no. I've seen this happen.

No, you keep bringing it back to what matters to you as a geocacher. But what is missed in this approach is the idea that maybe others' feelings about your activity on *their* property is more improtant that *your* convenience in placing caches.

This is not an issue of us vs. them. This is a matter of understanding why this happened and learning how to prevent it in the future.

38.2k · May 28, 2005

Yes, I *have* read the bill. It only says you have to get written permission.

To hide AND TO HUNT. That means everyone who wants to hunt for a cache will have to track down the governing authority for each cache and obtain written permssion to look for a cache. It could take days and dozens of phone calls to obtain permission to HUNT one cache. If you think thats a good idea, then we disagree on the most fundamental level and there is no further point in discussing it.

Edited May 28, 2005 by briansnat

24.7k · May 28, 2005

...We should accept responsibility; i.e., we understand some may not see cemetery caches as appropriate. We're going to be proactive in eliminating these caches. We're going to set up a process so they can't occur again....

It's good that some people can play the part of devils advocate.

I challenge you to justify the position. Use any tools you want as long as it's the truth about geocaching and defend the position that it should be banned.

Tomorrow at a local Cemetery there is a Chapel that you can rent out for functions that will be open for visitors. Last year we saw the doors open and stopped and talked to the people who were there. I do not know what all the functions are that they rent it out for, but the fact remains that they do.

That they open it up on memorial day for the public to come and learn about the person the chapel was originally built for and then tell you about the history of the person and chapel is in it's very essense a virtual cache. The biggest difference is that the virtual cache would teach me this year round while typically I'd have to wait for memorial day.

The problem isn't caches in cemeteries. I'd like someone to clearly articulate the problem in a way that makes sence. "it's just no good" doesn't work for me. When people go out of their way to limit freedoms there better be a dadgum good reason for it. If there isn't (and there isn't in the cache of geocaching) then it's just a waste when there are real issues to tackle.

Someone used the argument "It's my ancestors" to which I can only say, then why the hell am I paying for them with my property tax! If I can't enjoy the silence and peace and history then my tax money is wasted and for all I care every last person could be exumed and cremated and scattered. Then the cemetery can be built into a subdivision that generates tax revenue and doesn't charge me tax. The truth is the government better make me care and one tool to do that that I have volunteered for is geocaching. I know more about my world, my history, and my parks than ever before. I know their value. Don't take that away.

I'll close with one last question. Who are they protecting these resources for? If it's not me as a member of the general public does it really serve a purpose? If I can't enjoy the things my money is trying to conserve it seems pointless to me.

May 28, 2005

One more time ... it's not socially acceptable to do things in a cemetery other than to pay respect.

One more time. Many people use cemeteries for things other than mourning. Joggers, bird watchers, historians, artists, dog walkers, tombstone rubbers, curiosity seekers, tourists, photographers, geneologists, nature lovers and more. Cemeteries were historically popular spots for family outings and picnics. The concept that they are solemn places, reserved only for mourners is a recent one. In fact many cemeteries still have picnic tables.

One more time... the owners or managers of the property have the right to tell you *not* to place a cache there. If you don't tell them you are placing a cache there, they can't tell you not to, so you are taking away their right to private property.

You can twist the words all you want and try to justify it by talking about what *others* do on these grounds. This is not *your* value judgement to make. If they want to allow commercial midnight tours of the cemetery, or their bedrooms for that matter, it is not your business and has no bearing on geocaching in the same locations.

Stop whining about what geocachers are losing with this bill. Hopefully we can stop it so that geocachers are not criminals just because they place a cache in an area where they should have asked permission first. But that does not make it right to place that cache there. Until you and others own up to the reality that *WE* dropped the ball on this one, things are not likely to improve and may even be repeated elsewhere.

Edited May 28, 2005 by tossedsalad

May 28, 2005

I challenge you to justify the position. Use any tools you want as long as it's the truth about geocaching and defend the position that it should be banned.

No one has to defend it. The cemetery manager or owner gets to make the choice without your input.

Tomorrow at a local Cemetery there is a Chapel that you can rent out for functions that will be open for visitors. Last year we saw the doors open and stopped and talked to the people who were there. I do not know what all the functions are that they rent it out for, but the fact remains that they do.

What else they do with the cemetery is irrelevant. If *they* do not want you to geocache that is *their* choice. Why do you feel you have a right to use other's property in a way that they don't approve?

Edited May 28, 2005 by tossedsalad

May 28, 2005

One more time... the owners or managers of the property have the right to tell you *not* to place a cache there. If you don't tell them you are placing a cache there, they can't tell you not to, so you are taking away their right to private property.

Nobody has ever said in this thread (that I've observed) that property owners do not have the right to tell you that you can't place a geocache there. People have said repeatedly that permission should always be obtained first. Why do keep insisting that they've said otherwise?

Briansnat's point deals with the argument that placing a cache in a cemetery is inherently "wrong" just because it's a cemetery. His argument is that cemeteries have been, and continue to be, used for many recreational purposes. Placing a cache there is no more inherently "wrong" than is collecting rubbings, jogging, dogwalking, or having a picnic. Any of those things is wrong if the property owner doesn't want you to do it there. The only thing different about geocaching is that something (the cache) is left behind -- and the cache owner has always been required to have permission to do that.

38.2k · May 28, 2005

One more time... the owners or managers of the property have the right to tell you *not* to place a cache there. If you don't tell them you are placing a cache there, they can't tell you not to, so you are taking away their right to private. property.

Hellloooo. Did I say ANYWHERE that people should not get permission in these places? Kindly point it out to me.

You can twist the words all you want and try to justify it by talking about what *others* do on these grounds. This is not *your* value judgement to make. If they want to allow commercial midnight tours of the cemetary or their bedrooms for that matter, it is not your business and has no bearing on geocaching in the same locations.

My point was in response to those who say the ONLY acceptable thing to do in a cemetery is pay respect. I'm simply pointing out that mourning isn't the ONLY socially acceptable use of a cemetery.

Briansnat's point deals with the argument that placing a cache in a cemetery is inherently "wrong" just because it's a cemetery. His argument is that cemeteries have been, and continue to be, used for many recreational purposes. Placing a cache there is no more inherently "wrong" than is collecting rubbings, jogging, dogwalking, or having a picnic. Any of those things is wrong if the property owner doesn't want you to do it there

At least someone here has a clue :laughing: .

Edited May 28, 2005 by briansnat

May 28, 2005

Yes, I *have* read the bill. It only says you have to get written permission.

To hide AND TO HUNT. That means everyone who wants to hunt for a cache will have to track down the governing authority for each cache and obtain written permssion to look for a cache. It could take days and dozens of phone calls to obtain permission to HUNT one cache. If you think thats a good idea, then we disagree on the most fundamental level and there is no further point in discussing it.

I think you are exaggerating this issue. First, it would not be hard for the person creating the cache to obtain written permission for both the hide and the hunt, right?

Secondly, it is of no concern how hard it makes it for you to geocache since it is not *your* property and you have *no* rights in this matter.

That is what you don't get. This is not about YOU, it is about THEIR property rights!!!!

24.7k · May 28, 2005

...If you mean verbal was ok I think you are ignoring reality. If you place a cache somewhere that is not public property and the management or ownership changes, a verbal permission is hard or impossible to prove....

...No, the problem started when a manager of a cemetary found out that geocachers were "playing" in his cemetary. He was upset and justifiably so....

As it turns out, the entire situation was dealt with quickly and if I recall none of that persons concerns proved to be an issue. This is as it should be. This is where the issue should have ended.

To address your other issue. My caches that have explicit permission have it verbaly. That's fine by me, it's what the managers chose to give. Why would I argue with them or ask them for more than what I needed?

In areas of public accomodation when it comes to harmless activites permission is presumed. This applies to about everthing from frisbee to jogging to sneaking into the woods with your girlfriend back when you were a kid. Where there is knowledge of a desire to regulate the presence of a cache (regulating the activity is just plain silly) those regulations are honored. Areas that are cultivated, where it's not a location of public accomodation, geocachers are reluctant to even look for a cache unless the owner has stated they have permission.

A cemetery is a special place for us all. Any place where a Celt lay is a place that holds my ancestors. They are my family, my tribe, my clan, my lost brothers. I don't need, nor want a law to protect my own from myself. I have an interest, I have a say. I stand against this inane bill.

38.2k · May 28, 2005

think you are exaggerating this issue. First, it would not be hard for the person creating the cache to obtain written permission for both the hide and the hunt, right?

Re-read the proposed law.

Secondly, it is of no concern how hard it makes it for you to geocache since it is not *your* property and you have *no* rights in this matter.

First, I have said nothing about denying any property owner their right to control what happens on their property. I don't know WHERE you are reading this. You keep ranting about private property rights and NOBODY here is disagreeing with you. Are you really that myopic?

Second, this law does not only cover private property.

Edited May 28, 2005 by briansnat

May 28, 2005

That is what you don't get. This is not about YOU, it is about THEIR property rights!!!!

And this is what YOU don't get.

Nowhere is ANYONE talking about denying property owners their rights. Cite me a single instance where anyone has said that cachers should be allowed to hide and hunt caches contrary to the property owners' rights and permission.

May 28, 2005

One more time... the owners or managers of the property have the right to tell you *not* to place a cache there. If you don't tell them you are placing a cache there, they can't tell you not to, so you are taking away their right to private property.

Nobody has ever said in this thread (that I've observed) that property owners do not have the right to tell you that you can't place a geocache there. People have said repeatedly that permission should always be obtained first. Why do keep insisting that they've said otherwise?

My mistake. I thought we were discussing the SC bill to require permissions to geocache in various areas. If not, then I'll just sit back down.

Briansnat's point deals with the argument that placing a cache in a cemetery is inherently "wrong" just because it's a cemetery. His argument is that cemeteries have been, and continue to be, used for many recreational purposes. Placing a cache there is no more inherently "wrong" than is collecting rubbings, jogging, dogwalking, or having a picnic. Any of those things is wrong if the property owner doesn't want you to do it there. The only thing different about geocaching is that something (the cache) is left behind -- and the cache owner has always been required to have permission to do that.

It is wrong if the cemetary owners say it is wrong. Who cares about any of this outside the context of this bill? I'm not talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I don't care what anyone *thinks* about what is right and wrong in this matter because it has no bearing. What matters is that caches were placed in places where the owners thought it was very inappropriate. The only thing that matters is what the owners think.

Of course it has been "required" to ask permission, but it has not always (or even often) been done. Also, "required" is not accurate if you read the guidelines. It says "adequate permission" which is very vague and some have equated it to the "frisbee rule". My point is that we need to do a better job of preventing this sort of incident.

May 28, 2005

Freaking "tossedsalad" is rep. scarborough in disquise so watch out yall. :laughing:

38.2k · May 28, 2005

If not, then I'll just sit back down.

Thank you!

May 28, 2005

That is what you don't get. This is not about YOU, it is about THEIR property rights!!!!

And this is what YOU don't get.

Nowhere is ANYONE talking about denying property owners their rights. Cite me a single instance where anyone has said that cachers should be allowed to hide and hunt caches contrary to the property owners' rights and permission.

Don't tell me what you *aren't* saying, what *are* you saying???

This is about the SC geocaching bill right? All the bill does is require written permission to geocache on certain properties. If you are saying that their is anything wrong with the bill (other than the penalty perhaps) then what is it?

I keep reading that it is ok to geocache in cemeteries. The bill does not say you can't geocache in cemeteries. It says you *must* get written permission. Where is the real problem other than the overly severe punishment?

If you guys think I am missing the point maybe it is because we are discussing two different things. I am discussing the SC geocaching bill. Maybe you are discussing geocaching in cemeteries in the general.

May 28, 2005

Freaking "tossedsalad" is rep. scarborough in disquise so watch out yall.

Thank you for that informed opinion. :drama:

24.7k · May 28, 2005

...No one has to defend it. The cemetery manager or owner gets to make the choice without your input.

Tomorrow at a local Cemetery there is a Chapel that you can rent out for functions that will be open for visitors. Last year we saw the doors open and stopped and talked to the people who were there. I do not know what all the functions are that they rent it out for, but the fact remains that they do.

What else they do with the cemetery is irrelevant. If *they* do not want you to geocache that is *their* choice. Why do you feel you have a right to use other's property in a way that they don't approve?

They don't own the cemetery. They merely have an interest in it, as do I. They have an interest in it for no better reason than they have a chapel on their plot. Starbrand has stated that on his plot his headstone will have a compartment for a cache. So have others. Who controls? The plot owner?, the relatives?, the progeny of those interred?, the grounds keeper? The tax payer (owner?) All do so far as I can tell. For the sake of argument I think permission from any of these would suffice. As it happens I have a lot of relations in a lot of cemeteries. My family has been here from the time of the first colonies, and thanks to the modern miracle of the melting pot I’m such a mutt I’m related to yet more groups than those first colonists.

I'm not arguing against permission. However I am arguing against legislating it. Legislation doesn't have the ability to deal with the subtle nuance of who has the right to give permission and what the correct circumstances are for any specific permission. Further I am arguing that placing a cache in a cemetery is a legitimate activity just as many others are. The game is evolving. The rules and etiquette are being worked out as time goes on. Most people have accepted that a cache should not be on or too close to a plot. However for a non physical cache a specific headstone or marker is acceptable. There are exceptions and limits and we are discovering these. In time it will be worked out.

Oh and I own my local cemetary. About a 1:50,000 share. In other cemeteries my family owns plots directly. In others still my extended family owns plots and so on. I have repeatedly said this issue is not as cut and dry as some would see it. The cemetery manager does answer to me via my vote in the local political system. His funding depends on my good will and so on. It's all connected.

May 28, 2005

Briansnat's point deals with the argument that placing a cache in a cemetery is inherently "wrong" just because it's a cemetery. His argument is that cemeteries have been, and continue to be, used for many recreational purposes. Placing a cache there is no more inherently "wrong" than is collecting rubbings, jogging, dogwalking, or having a picnic. Any of those things is wrong if the property owner doesn't want you to do it there. The only thing different about geocaching is that something (the cache) is left behind -- and the cache owner has always been required to have permission to do that.

It is wrong if the cemetary owners say it is wrong.

Uh, yeah . . . I think I just said that. In fact, I actually covered more activities than you did.

I don't care what anyone *thinks* about what is right and wrong in this matter because it has no bearing. What matters is that caches were placed in places where the owners thought it was very inappropriate. The only thing that matters is what the owners think.

Uh, yeah . . . I think I just said that, too.

Of course it has been "required" to ask permission, but it has not always (or even often) been done.

You are also required to adhere to the speed limit. Most people do, some people don't. Of the people who don't, some of them don't get caught. Those who get caught are penalized.

Obviously, the solution is to outlaw driving because some people don't follow the speed limit.

May 28, 2005

And from a distance they heard taps being played ... and SC geocaching was no more ...

To the extent we continue to defend the right to cache in cemeteries, despite what others/society think, that law will be passed. 2/3 of the Senate will not be a problem ... the surprising thing is why it wouldn't be unanimous. It will all but kill SC geocaching as we know it. There is no choice, but to get out of cemetery caching. At this point, the damage done appears irreversible.

24.7k · May 28, 2005

... It says you *must* get written permission. Where is the real problem other than the overly severe punishment? ...

1) The land manager may choose to not regulate geocaching. No permission is needed, none is given. The bill mandates permission in writing.

2) Verbal permissin is valid. True it's not as iron clad as a contract, but this is a cache. Tupperware is what we are talking about. Verbal permission is sufficient and if it's what the land manager chooses to give, then it's enough and I'm thankful for that.

3) The bill covers more than cemeteries. Land managers will not like geoachers asking for written permission to seek caches on their lands. The bill covers both the container and the seeking of it. There is no blanket permission (actually I'm got ideas on that) and each cache and each cacher for each cache will need to seek written permissoin. It's an exponential function relating to paperwork. They may fix this aspect of the bill.

4) One reason the bill was introduced was that a cache has coordinates that can be seen by anyone. Those coordinates could be used by someone looking for a site near a cache. The bill itself forces geocachers to track the 50,000 locations half of which are kept secret so they can comply wiht the bill. That's 25,000 sites that are now at risk thanks to the bill. We want to cache and find the tupperware and the beauty and history of this great land. We don't want to have to even worry about the 50,000 sites. But the bill can become law.

5) The bill removes the judgment of the land manager from them. They are now required to provide written permission (or not) for each and every cache. They no longer have the option for example to meet with the SC cache group and in 5 min look at all the caches on their lands and discuss any that are a concern and resolve the issue quicly, easily and most importatnly discretely.

6) Actually punshing some cachers under the bill could involve the invasive exploration of archaological sites so firmly establish the boundaries as a means of defending against charges brought under the law. This is not needed, but may be required by the rights of the accused.

7) The bill puts the state in a situation where they can not tell you where sites are but they can arrest you for plaing a cache or caching where there is a site. There are legal ramifications for this.

8) The bill does nothing for the vandals that they claim to be concerned about. Remember geocaching itself is harmless.

9) The police will have yet more laws they need to enforce, that do no good but dilute their time and money from other more worthy goals. Like catching vandals.

10) I wrote a longer list somewhere else...

3.8k · May 28, 2005

Can everyone just not be so wordy; all this heavy stuff, and all the quotes are really getting tiresome. :laughing:

And may I remind ya'll, this is not a thread where we should be discussing the philosophies of a bill already introduced into the legislative process, but rather we should be discussing how to defeat it. Philosophy is moot at this point. :drama:

May 28, 2005

And from a distance they heard taps being played ... and SC geocaching was no more ...

To the extent we continue to defend the right to cache in cemeteries engage in a lawful activity with the permission of the property owner, despite what others/society think, that law will be passed. 2/3 of the Senate will not be a problem ... the surprising thing is why it wouldn't be unanimous. It will all but kill SC geocaching as we know it. There is no choice, but to get out of cemetery caching stop engaging in lawful activities. At this point, the damage done appears irreversible.

Fixed.

South Carolina Senate Activity

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment