Jump to content

South Carolina Senate Activity


Recommended Posts

In Napa, CA where I work if you take a bulldozer, start it up, jump off and let it run free in a cementary destroying headstones and the like to the tune of $117,000 , you'll get probation if it's your first time. See: Napanews

 

This cementary has a very nice virtural cache. If this was SC and I was doing this virtural cache with my GPSr would I be better or worst off than if I used a bulldozer?

 

I did two cememtary caches this past week. I enjoyed them both. The places visited were very interesting and educational.

 

My own personal belief is that cemetaries are for the living. Geocaching or not, I have always visited them and will continue to do so.

 

I've been following the SC story with some interest. At this point I'll have to hands down side with the geocachers. This law adds nothing to existing laws. It also seems to be trying to correct a "problem" which has already been addressed and corrected in that state. And if this law doesn't pass I would lay money on the odds that the geocache approvers in that area will still require some sort of approval has been accepted statement from the cache owner for this type of hide. In a way, the SC would have won what they wanted anyway.

Link to comment
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.

You have not said why geocaching is not a valid activity in the mosaic of other activites that take place in on and around cememetaries? It's fundamentally harmless. We learn history, learn to appreciate the world around us and that's all good. A thousand monkeys playing taps on the steps of the capital won't make it a bad thing because it's not. Ignorance can cost the activity a lot.

 

If I remember I'll go talk to the family who does own the chapel and see about making a virtual out of it. They would probably appreciate the exposure since they do go out of their way to open it up to the public for events and our education.

 

If I understand you correctly this should not be done because it's just a bad thing?

Link to comment
...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 cemetery.  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.

 

If I remember correctly, the "person" you are referring to did not share the feeling that their concerns were not an issue. That person, in fact, wrote to their congressperson about it. I think I read that that person was still very upset about the idea.

 

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?

 

Verbal permission may be fine with you, but the cache hunters can be charged with trespassing and there will be no way to prove them innocent. Of course this is unlikely. But when a law is written, you don't really expect it to permit verbal agreements do you? There would be *no* way to enforce it fairly.

 

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.

I don't know how kissing your girlfriend has anything to do with geocaching. You are saying that it is the responsibility of the property owner to notify you that they don't want you geocaching. How would they know you are doing it? By its nature it is a secretive activity.

 

If the neighborhood kids were peeing in your backyard, even though it did no damage or made any other indication of it, you would be upset when you found out, right? Well, no one peed in the cemetery, but the manager felt the same way about geocaching when he finally found out about it.

 

You say regulating geocaching is silly, but a very large number of parks require you to apply for permission. Is that silly?

 

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.

Interesting how you end your post saying that because you have relations in cemeteries you don't want to be protected from yourself. But others do want to be protected from you and anyone else who would do something in their cemetery that they don't approve.

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

Ok, now we get down to brass tacks. Who is outlawing geocaching? Just like driving, geocaching in certain areas will, under this bill, require a permit.

 

This is really getting silly. No one has any given rights to any particular use of a cemetery, a historical site or any other place except for property they own. If a cemetery manager decides to outlaw bicycles, you have no recourse. If the legislature decides to outlaw hats in cemeteries (men's only of course) your ownly recourse is to get the law changed.

 

Why does anyone think that geocaching is so special that it is exempt from regulation?

Link to comment
Why does anyone think that geocaching is so special that it is exempt from regulation?

You're the only one saying that anyone is saying that.

 

Everyone else is saying that it's already subject to the same regulations that apply to other similar activities and are simply questioning why regulations specific to geocaching are required.

 

It's against the law to trespass. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while walking. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while jogging. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while riding a bicycle. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while having a picnic. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while looking at statues and tombstones. We are about to have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while holding a GPSr in your hand.

 

And this makes sense because . . . . ??????

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

Ok, now we get down to brass tacks. Who is outlawing geocaching? Just like driving, geocaching in certain areas will, under this bill, require a permit.

You do not need a seperate driving permit for each road you are going to drive on. That is one of the things this bill does.

 

In fact, a driver permit is good for entire USofA no matter what state issues the permit. Also, most other countries honor a US driving permit.

 

This is really getting silly.  No one has any given rights to any particular use of a cemetery, a historical site or any other place except for property they own.  If a cemetery manager decides to outlaw bicycles, you have no recourse.

 

This bill if made law will take that decision away from the property owner.

 

  If the legislature decides to outlaw hats in cemeteries (men's only of course) your ownly recourse is to get the law changed. 

 

That is what these geocachers in SC are doing. Except they are not waiting until this bill is made law. They are trying to change it before it beomes law.

 

Why does anyone think that geocaching is so special that it is exempt from regulation?

 

I really don't think anyone one thinks that. Geocaching is currently self regulating. What these geocachers are against is poorly written regulation. A bill written by people who themselves never even tried geocaching.

Link to comment
...If I remember correctly, the "person" you are referring to did not share the feeling that their concerns were not an issue. ...

Sorry that was not as clear as it could have been. Their concerns were addressed and when the truth came out what they were concerned about was not the case.

 

...Verbal permission may be fine with you, but the cache hunters can be charged with trespassing and there will be no way to prove them innocent.  Of course this is unlikely.  But when a law is written, you don't really expect it to permit verbal agreements do you?  There would be *no* way to enforce it fairly.

 

Verbal permission is fine when the person giving it and the person recieving it are in agreement. This is business law 101. You can make this more complex if you like. I won't. The law merely removes freedom from the act of obtaining and giving permission. As for trespassing the law is fairly clear here. You are not going to be arrested for trespassing in a place of public accommodation which as it happens Cemeteries are, and many historical properties and archaeological sites are as well. People have a fair grasp of when they are trespassing. This bill isn't about trespassing, and neither is geocaching.

 

...I don't know how kissing your girlfriend has anything to do with geocaching.  You are saying that it is the responsibility of the property owner to notify you that they don't want you geocaching.  How would they know you are doing it?  By its nature it is a secretive activity. 

 

It's the responsibility of the property owner to post their property no trespassing. However that's not the point. You don't seem to see that in the world we live in permission is presumed for a lot of activates that are harmless. One of those is kissing your girlfriend, though her father may beg to differ. I have chosen to include geocaching in the harmless activity category. You seem to feel there is some inherent evil in a hidden container. That's your choice. There is nothing secret about geocaching. Anyone at any time for any reason can look at all the geocaches.

 

If the neighborhood kids were peeing in your backyard, even though it did no damage or made any other indication of it, you would be upset when you found out, right?  Well, no one peed in the cemetery, but the manager felt the same way about geocaching when he finally found out about it.

 

That's funny. My back yard is not a place of public accommodation by any stretch of the word. However if the neighbor kids had to use the bathroom it's down the hall to the left. The cemetery remains a place of public accommodation. That gives them a higher obligation to accommodate their public. I am a part of that. That I’m looking at a chapel, jogging, placing flowers or a stone, or have a GPS in hand changes nothing about that.

 

You say regulating geocaching is silly, but a very large number of parks require you to apply for permission.  Is that silly? 

 

Actually for any recreational park it's silly. It takes time to process paperwork, it takes time to review it, it takes time to issue an approval and it takes time to verify whatever else it is they want to verify. For a park with a recreation component along with a preservation component then it makes sense just to make sure the cache are where the recreation is allowed. When I've had discussions with land managers I've had the good fortune to find they thought regulating geocaching was laughable. In essence why regulate something that is harmless when it just creates work? But then in my state we don't have enough people to get everything done that needs done. Perhaps it's different in other states.

 

Interesting how you end your post saying that because you have relations in cemeteries you don't want to be protected from yourself.  But others do want to be protected from you and anyone else who would do something in their cemetery that they don't approve.

 

They chose to have their family where my family was already interred. They should of made a different choice if they truly think that only their own family is going to have exclusive use of a traditional cultural place of the larger community they live in. There is no way to have a cemetery be anything other than a traditional cultural place where we all are invited to practice our own customs so long as they do no harm. It's not their place to dictate what my culture and customs are. Look it up. It's all in NEPA.

Link to comment
It's against the law to trespass. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while walking. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while jogging. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while riding a bicycle. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while having a picnic. We don't have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while looking at statues and tombstones. We are about to have a law that specifically says it's illegal to trespass while holding a GPSr in your hand.

 

And this makes sense because . . . . ??????

Obviously, the law makers in SC think that the police for some reason can't or don't enforce trespassing laws. That's the only reson I can think. If I was a police officer in SC I'd be ashamed that the legislators in my state felt so porly of my abilities to enfore the law.

 

Edited to correct spelling.

Edited by Bushwhacked Glenn
Link to comment
If I was a police officer in SC I'd be ashamed that the legislators in my state felt so porly of my abilities to enfore the law.

If I were a police officer in SC I'd be ashamed my state's legislators think I go around whizzing in cemeteries.

 

(The whizzing in cemeteries issues come about from a single log taken out of context written by a deputy sheriff. Spin that, Cieps!)

Link to comment

You know, there are some cases where even researching the local land management bureaus won't help. Or even having a good relationship with the owner won't work.

 

For example, getting written permission for these caches might be a bit of a problem.

 

Healing Springs

&

Healing Springs Bath

 

These two caches are on property which has legally been deeded to God.

 

Of course, one's a virtual, but the other is not.

 

The general public is invited to get water from them at any time - there are cars lined up some days. Drop by and get some water, just don't look for the caches?

 

Jon

Link to comment

I am Kevin Bryant, representing District 3 in the SC Senate. I have been assigned to the subcommittee on H. 3777. The subcommittee will meet on Tuesday, May 31 at 10 AM in Room 207 in the Gressette Building in Columbia. According to Senate rules, subcommittees are the only venue in which the public is allowed to participate. I encourage all Geocachers to attend this meeting if possible. Below is a prepared statement on Geocaching.

 

Recently, I have discussed the hobby of Geocaching with several friends and constituents. In the near future, I plan on taking up the activity with my wife, three children and of course our dog, Cookie.

 

Our society is desperate for any incentive to get us away from our TV sets and video games. Geocaching is a new activity that encourages families to obtain much needed exercise and renews our enjoyment for God’s creation. Geocachers are folks that enjoy the outdoors, our beautiful parks, and significant sites of history. Geocachers use a Global Positioning System, or GPS to find these sites by the use of coordinates instead of maps. There is a program called CITO (Cache In, Trash Out). CITO is responsible for tons of litter picked up by Geocachers each year. Geocaching is part of school and scouting lesson plans all over the country. Corporations, such as 20th Century Fox, Jeep and Magellan, have sponsored contests based solely on the hobby.

 

The problem is that the hobby has a few “bad apples” that are determined to outlaw this creative hobby. Our committee has viewed pictures of individuals performing disrespectful acts specifically on gravesites however the positive benefits of Geocaching by far outweigh the negative impacts.

 

H. 3777 as written is much too broad and will have far reaching negative effects. I would compare this legislation to the outlawing of baseball because of a few broken windows. For these reasons, I will not support this bill, unless it is amended with reasonable limitations.

 

Any further input is certainly welcome.

 

Kevin L. Bryant

SC Senate District 3

803.212.6100

bryantk@scsenate.org

Link to comment
I am Kevin Bryant, representing District 3 in the SC Senate...

hero.png

 

Thank you for coming here to discuss this issue. If I were in your District, I'd be proud.

 

While it may be difficult to convince your colleagues otherwise, please know that the "few bad apples" which have been the examples used in previous statehouse debate have been created by members of the SC House and their staff. Your baseball analogy is very apt and I hope someone will be in contact with you to give you the information on the vast number of other city, county, and state authorities (outside of SC) that have embraced geocaching and encourage its use and growth.

Edited by ju66l3r
Link to comment
The problem is that the hobby has a few “bad apples” that are determined to outlaw this creative hobby.  Our committee has viewed pictures of individuals performing disrespectful acts specifically on gravesites however the positive benefits of Geocaching by far outweigh the negative impacts.

Mr. Bryant,

 

Thank you for taking the time to post on this matter. I have a couple of questions for you.

 

First, above I quote your opinion on "the few bad apples", which I assume is based in part on the photos you mention. I would like to point out that like most of the information being spread about this matter, is taken out of context. I am only familiar with the photos from this discussion, but I believe there are others with more intimate knowledge of them that can explain how even these photos were taken in a respectful context.

 

Again, I am only familiar with the facts that I have read here, but other than the issue of placing the cache in a cemetery itself, none of the alleged offences actually occurred in the manner portrayed. So do you really believe that any geocachers are "determined to outlaw" geocaching?

 

So my second question is to ask if you plan to mount an effort to counter the false and negative publicity that is being spread in the SC legislature? I watched the House debate the issue on video and it appeared that there was actually little debate. A few questions were answered, but I did not see anyone speak *against* the bill directly and no one disputed any of the "facts" presented.

 

I don't pretend to know much about politics and I know that it is not always wise or even possible to do what would appear to be the best thing. But I would hope that there would be some real debate on the matter with information provided on the truth of the incident. Hopefully the local geocachers will present at the subcommittee meeting.

 

Thank you again for your post on this matter.

Link to comment

Senator Bryant,

 

I would like to add my thanks and appreciation to the other responses to your post. I have been a resident of South Carolina for 12 years, having retired from Shaw AFB. I am a student of history at USC Sumter and enjoy meandering through South Carolina's historic sites, including graveyards. As an amateur historian I fully appreciate everyone's concerns regarding the sanctity of these sites. However, I find it hard to believe that geocachers are intentionally defacing these sites, particularly graveyards.

 

I would like to point out that THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SECTION 16-17-600, as amended by the 115th Session of the South Carolina General Assembly and Governor Sanford on May 11th, 2004, has been "on the books" for a number of years. This would logically indicate that a problem existed long before Geocaching came to be. If the state of South Carolina had a problem in the past that precipitated the existence of this law, why should it suddenly become necessary to write a new law to cover the same offenses allegedly perpetrated by a specific group, namely, geocachers?

 

While it may be difficult to convince your colleagues otherwise, please know that the "few bad apples" which have been the examples used in previous statehouse debate have been created by members of the SC House and their staff.

 

While I would be careful to state that the members of the South Carolina Assembly would intentionally "create" or fabricate evidence, I would suggest that you be skeptical of its authenticity. I have been told by many in the Geocaching community that this supposed evidence is merely fragments of larger documents and internet posts. I would expect that in a court of law, or a judiciary body, this evidence would be considered hearsay and the rules of disclosure would be imposed. I implore you to investigate this evidence further and determine for yourself, and for your colleagues on the subcommittee, the validity of the evidence presented by the supporters of this bill.

 

You yourself have drawn a comparison between this new legislation and "the outlawing of baseball because of a few broken windows". My concern is that this will become a trading card session where members of the senate will trade acceptance of this legislation quid pro quo. South Carolina already has numerous laws on the books to penalize offenders whether they are geocachers or not. I don't believe it is necessary to lump all of us into one category to prevent damage and desecration to gravesites and historical landmarks by geocachers, when it isn't even clear that any damage has actually been perpertrated by geocachers.

 

I myself have been drawn to historical sites and monuments through my geocaching activities, sites that I had only read about in my many history books. I am sure you will experience the same, if, and only if, you are allowed to pursue geocaching unabated. This law will definitely put a halt to that. I trust, in the name of fairness, you will do all you can to prevent this legislature from passing in its current form. Thank you for your time.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

Gary A. Azevedo, MSgt, USAF/Ret.

Edited by emperor.guido
Link to comment
If I was a police officer in SC I'd be ashamed that the legislators in my state felt so porly of my abilities to enfore the law.

If I were a police officer in SC I'd be ashamed my state's legislators think I go around whizzing in cemeteries.

 

(The whizzing in cemeteries issues come about from a single log taken out of context written by a deputy sheriff. Spin that, Cieps!)

I haven't watched the viedo but it sounds as if Ms. Cieps has evidence of geocachers in SC violating the following laws; SECTION 16-17-580. Removing State line marks., and SECTION 16-17-600. Destruction or desecration of human remains or repositories thereof; liability of crematory operators; penalties.

 

Has she turned any of this evidence over to the police? Unlike the movies and TV the police do not have an all seeing eye. A law can't be very effective if someone knows that it is being broken but yet doesn't pass that information to the people whos job is to enforce the laws.

Link to comment

...The problem is that the hobby has a few “bad apples” that are determined to outlaw this creative hobby.  Our committee has viewed pictures of individuals performing disrespectful acts specifically on gravesites...

Thanks for the information. Anyone that can send me some information on the creation of evidence relating to geocaching abuses, please send.

 

Kevin Bryant

SC Senate 3

bryantk@scsenate.org

Edited by klbryant
Link to comment

This is really getting silly. No one has any given rights to any particular use of a cemetery, a historical site or any other place except for property they own. If a cemetery manager decides to outlaw bicycles, you have no recourse. If the legislature decides to outlaw hats in cemeteries (men's only of course) your ownly recourse is to get the law changed.

 

Why does anyone think that geocaching is so special that it is exempt from regulation?

I have a question here, I would like to know how you would handle a situation where the family members of a person buried in a cemetary not only gave permission but encouraged a geocacher to place a cache at the gravesite and the manager of the cemetary doesn't want geocaching in their cemetary? Who has the final word, the cemetary manager or the owners of the plot? Are there now going to be CRCC's in cemetaries like there are in housing developments? You pay for the plot but the cemetary manager tells you who may visit the plot you paid for and what they may do while they are there?

If you think this is a ridiculous scenario I can tell you it is not, I have friends and family who want me to place caches near the graves of loved ones, saying so and so would have loved it if they were alive. I am also about to place a cache in a privately owned cemetary with the full blessing of the family that owns the cemetary and they would laugh at the thought of having to give written permission, saying their word is good there is no need for a written document.

Link to comment

...The problem is that the hobby has a few “bad apples” that are determined to outlaw this creative hobby.  Our committee has viewed pictures of individuals performing disrespectful acts specifically on gravesites...

Thanks for the information. Anyone that can send me some information on the creation of evidence relating to geocaching abuses, please send.

 

Kevin Bryant

SC Senate 3

bryantk@scsenate.org

There is some detailed discussion in another thread. But basically some of the photos were not taken in SC. The one particularly "egregious" one of a gentleman laying on the ground with his head next to what appeared to be a headstone, was actually taken at a memorial and not in a cemetery or at a grave site according to the person in the photo. There was another photo of people shining lights in their faces that was taken in a darkened living room before going on a cache hunt according to one of the participants.

 

Rep. Ceips also took a log out of context for her presentation and carefully edited it to make it appear that the geocacher (who happens to be a law enforcement officer) urinated in the cemetery. He in fact used a nearby restroom.

 

I'm sure one of our SC geocachers who has been working so diligentlyagainst this legislation will provide details to you.

Link to comment
Thanks for the information. Anyone that can send me some information on the creation of evidence relating to geocaching abuses, please send.

 

Kevin Bryant

SC Senate 3

bryantk@scsenate.org

You (Sen. Bryant) must know already that, reportedly, Sen. Mescher is also an ali to this cause. :);)

Link to comment
Thank you senator bryant, Did anyone get the list of the 50 so called churchs that refused to have caches on their property. I sent a e-mail to rep. cieps asking for a copy of it, Got no reponse.

She said, "I can personally tell you that I've visited or sent someone out to over 50 churches and cemeteries in South Carolina and not one of them had permission."

 

So she checked with 50 churches and cemteries, she didn't say she checked 50 churches and cemeteries that had caches in them. She didn't say she checked 50 cache that are placed on church grounds or cemeteries and not one had permission.

 

Quite frankly, considering many of the other things she has said, I question the veracity of her statement. There very well could be no list of over 50 churches and cemeteries, because it very well may not have happened.

 

Cieps and Scarborough plays a vicious word game.

 

This is the same word game she plays when she approaches a group to garner support for her bill. She approaches someone who hasn't heard of geocaching and tells them about these "egregious acts" and asks, "do you really think people should be doing this?" Of course the answer is going to be "no." Who wouldn't support an effort to get people to stop desecrating cemeteries?

 

The problem is, what she is telling them is either complete fabrication, mis-representations, or non-issues.

Link to comment

I have a really hard time telling a geocacher from a person out taking a walk, until I see them looking intently in every nook and cranny within 20 feet of a specific location, and looking at a GPS every so often. My question, then, is how in the WORLD do they KNOW that the individuals in their so-called "evidence" were even geocachers?

 

Who, if any, is making the pro-caching argument on the floor of the legislature? Is this being heard? Is every member of the legislature being petitioned for his/her vote?

 

I might echo a previous suggestion, that is, hiring a lobbyist. As money is no doubt an issue with this, I know there are many caching organizations around the country, and surely most of them have some funds. It would seem to me that even a modest contribution to this effort would be in everyone's best interest.

Link to comment
I hope our SC geocachers will keep a list of the legislators openly supporting geocaching in this matter, and also those with Ms. Ceips. I can't vote in SC, but I can make political donations.

Bryant for SC Senate

104-A North Ave.

Anderson, SC 29625

www.kevinbryant.com

kevin@kevinbryant.com

Link to comment
I hope our SC geocachers will keep a list of the legislators openly supporting geocaching in this matter, and also those with Ms. Ceips. I can't vote in SC, but I can make political donations.

Bryant for SC Senate

104-A North Ave.

Anderson, SC 29625

www.kevinbryant.com

kevin@kevinbryant.com

:lol::o:o

Link to comment

Ali is spelled ally. Ether way, it is nice to know we have some.

 

Although it is hard to prove a negative, Ms. Ceips claims that for over a year contact with Groundspeak was attempted but failed. She has no evidence of this. No copies of letters send through the post, no phone logs, emails, nothing.

 

Groundspeak has an extensive tracking system for all incoming queries. There is a record of every communication they receive and they have none from anyone regarding this issue until the proposed legislation was announced.

 

When caches are discovered where they are not wanted, they are quickly removed. This happens worldwide. Why did it not happen here? Because instead of sending a simple email or making a phone call, some people chose to legislate the problem. I guess if you're a hammer, then everything's a nail, right?

 

Any crime that occurs while geocaching is already covered by laws on the books. Trespassing, vandalism, curfews, etc. In most cases, the maximum penalties are greater than the one being proposed in this bill. There is no need for a statewide law. It just clutters the law books.

Link to comment
I hope our SC geocachers will keep a list of the legislators openly supporting geocaching in this matter, and also those with Ms. Ceips. I can't vote in SC, but I can make political donations.

I thought the same thing. If the laws allow out of state contributions, I might make a few to caching supporters when the next election comes around. Or I might send to opponents of non-supporters.

 

As a tourist/frequent traveler who will soon be updating my map of states cached in to show SC as a "hole" in the map (I added Alabama, Georgia and Florida this weekend) I would happily send a contribution or several if I thought it would erase that hole in the map at some point. If this bill passes, the hole will stay unless or until I can find caches in the historical areas I would like to visit. If it does not pass, I would happily send something to supporters as a thank you.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

I'm tempted to move to Senator Bryant's district. I would love to be represented by someone with the courage and decency to stand up for what he believes in in a public forum like this. I have no doubt that even if he disagreed with the position I might take on a particular bill, he would be able to provide a rational explanation of his position.

 

I don't suppose he wants to move to Columbia? Maybe he'd be interested in becoming governor when that office next comes up for grabs?

 

My representative wouldn't even return my phone calls or emails to discuss the merits of H3777 while the bill was in the House. I've had no success in setting up a meeting with my Senator either yet, although at least his staff has answered my emails with a generic response. Voicemails haven't been responded to yet and I haven't been able to reach a live person in the senator's office either. Maybe I'll be able to meet with the Senator before or after the subcommittee meeting tomorrow....

 

In any case, I've looked through Senator Bryant's blog, legislative records and googled him. Whether he's a supporter or an opponent of H3777, he is a Senator I would be proud to have represent me and I will definitely be sending a contribution his way for his next campaign for public office.

 

Jon

Edited by jon & miki
Link to comment

Good look those who may be attending the sub-committee meeting today.

 

I live in Sen. Bryant's district - he actually replied to my e-mail about H. 3777 within a couple hours of me sending it.

 

Jon & Miki - my wife and I left Columbia about 2 years ago and have never been happier! :ph34r:

Link to comment

I, also, would like to thank Sen. Bryant for his support in this matter and for his timely response to my email. Based on his reply, I have a renewed faith in the direction this country may be headed. It seems some politicians still have proper perspective. Good luck today!!

Link to comment

Tues May 31 Morning Update: Several dozen geocachers, all wearing 'I Am A Geocacher' tags arrived at the meeting well in advance of anyone else. Almost all the seats in the room were taken by geocachers, as was Rep Ceips when she walked in and saw the very respectable and organized group waiting. I had used up my hour away from work just when the meeting was starting, but I felt that our cause would get the best representation possible by the true citizens who took the real trouble to get away from work and other obligations to provide a true representation of what geocaching really is and who geocachers really are. Keep your fingers crossed and pray for truth to move in the hearts of all attending the meeting.

 

- T of TandS

Edited by tands
Link to comment

Okay, the main result of the meeting is that the bill will be put off until the session meets again in January. Both sides had about a half dozen speakers, including a few geocachers. Even most of the people who favor the bill understood this time what geocaching is, and most were okay with it, only one speaker seemed to have a grudge against all geocachers. I think that the bill is going to pass, but fortunately not in its current form. Virtuals may end up being accepted in the end, and the likely result is regulation of cemetery caches, instead of an outright ban. I am just hoping that this is all limited to cemeteries and not other historic sites.

Link to comment

Well I guess this gives us some time to promote geocaching to a wider audience, maybe get some city sponsers or corporation sponsers involved. i wish i could of been there, With the war going on its hard to get any time off from a government job. I proud to know someone was there.

Link to comment
Several dozen geocachers, all wearing 'I Am A Geocacher' tags arrived at the meeting well in advance of anyone else.

That was brilliant! And fabulous representation. I'm completely floored by the creativity and representation at the meeting. That was democracy in action (not democracy inaction :o)

Link to comment
Okay, the main result of the meeting is that the bill will be put off until the session meets again in January. Both sides had about a half dozen speakers, including a few geocachers. Even most of the people who favor the bill understood this time what geocaching is, and most were okay with it, only one speaker seemed to have a grudge against all geocachers. I think that the bill is going to pass, but fortunately not in its current form. Virtuals may end up being accepted in the end, and the likely result is regulation of cemetery caches, instead of an outright ban....

What I'm reading between the lines on everthing going on is that the bill is going to be passed and the SC geocachers are going to end up helping craft what's accepable. Somewhere along the way in the spirit of compromise that the goal was to defeat the bill will be lost and SC will be the first state to regulate geocaching with the support of SC geocachers.

 

The bill does not need to exist. It will not make the world a better place. It will not do any good at all in preserving what it's intending on preserving. It will make it harder for SC citizens to enjoy the resources that are being protected for their benifit. Among those citizens many are geocachers. The cost of enforcment will fall to SC geocachers and the listing sites. The investment in time will take more volunteers, of which there are not enough already. The bottom line is that bureaucracy will grow to inefficiently regulate something that didn't need it.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

It's certainly encouraging to hear what a difference a dose of reality can actually make. I agree that no such statewide law need exist, and hope that the next seven months can be spent successfully educating both lawmakers and the public. Kudos to everyone for all your efforts--but as we all know, the battle is far from over.

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