Groundspeak Forums: South Carolina Legislation Meeting - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (28 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

South Carolina Legislation Meeting

#1 User is offline   TinSparrow 

  • GPS Killer
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 29-August 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 02:48 PM

I was at the meeting yesterday. The Special Laws Subcommittee meeting was scheduled to last an hour, and topic H. 3777 which seeks to restrict Geocaching was the third item on the agenda.

The subcommittee has 5 members, there were 6 Geocachers in the room a half hour before the meeting. Our intention was to give the subcommittee introduction to Geocaching. We were prepared to demystify it, to talk about what it was and who was doing. We knew of six South Carolina Policement who were Geocachers, a firefighter, three paramedics, a retired missionary, an active minister, the General Manager of a hotel. More importantly, we knew the occupations of Geocachers in the districts represented by the sub committee members, and we were prepared to show Geocachers as a responsible group of citizens who could be trusted with the sensitive areas within the state. We were lined up to talk about CITO, and we had pictures from past projects as well as the calendar of future events. We were pysched.

Ten minutes before the meeting, the sponsor of the legislation enters the meeting room and she sets up material for her presentation. In addition to lots of printed material, she sets of two large poster boards on an easel at the front of the room. These poster boards are covered with text from log entries from finders who were logging cemetery caches, as well photographs they had taken while within the cemetery. They had done their research well, and they were displaying the worst of the worst.

(I'm working with the Representative to identify every picture and every log entry, and rest assured that I will post them all here once they have been identified. In the meantime, I will have to describe what was displayed.)

There were photographs of groups of people out night-caching, posing for a group photograph as they leaned against old grave markers.

There were photographs of caches that had been found, temporarily resting atop prominent gravestones so that a picture could be taken.

There were several pictures of people lying on the ground right next to markers, and getting
their pictures taken so that their smiling face, the marker and their GPS were all visible.

There were log entries too, some of these said things like:
"There was a freshly dug grave but no one was in it yet, this was so cool."
"It was great fun spooky fun to be out at night in the graveyard."

There were many more pictures and logs as well, and over and over they underscored the "game" aspect of this pasttime, and they showed the worst practices engaged in while cache hunting in grave yards. These images and logs, which had been freely provided by Geocachers in their own log entries, were incredibly damning evidence. They were appalling, and not one of us there could take a stand and defend those practices.

Needless to say, for those of us who were there our tactics changed at this point. We could have talked until we were blue in the face about the educational value of geocaching. That was not going to be disputed. We could have talked about the benefits of CITO. That was not going to be disputed. They were going to talk about disrespect in cemeteries, and they had evidence provided by Geocachers to do so.

It was also apparent as the meeting time approached that the meeting was filling up, and I was not recognizing additional Geocachers coming in.

The other legislative items on the agenda were discussed first, and about twenty five minutes went by before the Geocaching Bill came up for discussion.

The sponsor of the legislation got up and introduced her bill. She talked about how Geocaching started, even referring to the Clinton Administrations actions regarding Select Availability which led to the production of accurate civilian hand held GPS units. She spoke of the general cache hiding and seeking process, and then she told of the assault by geocachers into the cemeteries in her county.

Background- At one point in time there had been a series of cemetery themed multi caches in the Beaufort county area. The owner had done careful research to make sure that all of his chosen locations were in public cemeteries, and he had been very responsive to any complaints found in logs about neighbors & residents who didn't want the visitors in their cemetery. Despite the careful planning and the historical nature of these caches, the influx of primarily white geocaching visitors into these rural historical primarily black cemeteries was noticed, and as some of the cemeteries experienced vandalism or even digging and looting, the local residents became increasingly uneasy with the visitors, many of whom seemed more interested game-playing than in the history of the area.

During her introduction of the topic, she read aloud a handful of logs by people who had found these (and other) cemetery caches.

After she spoke, the next speaker was the State Archaelogist for South Carolina. This gentleman spoke of the impact on Geocaching in sensitive historical and archaeological sites within the states. He had a list of caches which were on or near sensitive sites, and for over a year he had tried to make contact and had not found anyone who was responsive to his issues.

So, it's ten minutes into the discussion of the of this legislation, and here's where we stand:
1. We have pictures of incriminating behavior taken by Geocachers themselves within cemeteries.
2. We have log entries read aloud which show that romping around in cemeteries at night is fun (as opposed to educational and of historical value), and it's even more fun if that was find number 8 of 10 at night.
3. We have the state archaeologist talk about his attempts to contact someone to talk with, and futile that experience has been for him.

The next speaker for the state makes similar comments and makes the point that since it is has not been easy to contact us and since this behavior has gone on for a while, the time for Geocaching to police its own behavior has come to an end, and the state must take action to protect its own sensitive areas, and this includes cemeteries, archaeological sites and historic sites.

And these last two speakers were impassioned. They were folks who had obviously had frustrated by what they perceived as out of control rogue behavior, and they spoke with a force that had built up over time.

Someone for our side spoke next. We had a copy of a letter written by the Geocacher who had created the original Beaufort county cemetery series. In the letter, he explained on how he choose these sites based upon their public access locations and their historical value, and that he never had intended the series to be disrepectful in any way. His letter contained logs from Geocachers who had encountered local residents during their cache hunts, and in all cases but one the contact between Geocachers and local residents was friendly. The letter ended with an apology for any tension that might have been caused by the placement of these caches. Our speaker acknowledged the damning photographs and condemned the actions of those who appeared in them. He thanked the committee for allowing him to speak and took his seat.

The next two persons to speak where from Beaufort county or nearby areas. They were caretakers of cemeteries and other historic sites in the area, and they spoke out in support of this Bill.

There was time for one more speaker, and I spoke. I stated that I had prepared remarks last night and I was fully prepared to talk about the educational benefits of Geocaching and to even mention the responsible Geocachers across the state, but instead I wanted to acknowledge how ugly and indefensible those pictures were. I talked about the Geocachers in the state, the retired missionary and other clergymen, the policemen, the firefighters and paramedics and others. And I said that all these folks would be as appalled to see this evidence as I was. I thanked the chairman for letting me speak, and I took my seat.

The chairman then spoke and acknowledged that since there were so many visitors who had not spoken, that this topic would be continued next week, and it would be the first item on the agenda.

For what it's worth, they had 8 more folks who could have spoken, we had 2 more who were prepared to speak.

I've tried to record these observations as accurately as possible without spinning.

We were definitely caught off guard by how organized the supporters of this legislation were, as well as being caught off guard by all the evidence that we gave them freely through the website. The frustration in their voices seemed genuine. Given the evidence presented to us and the mood of the room, yesterday was not the time or place deliver the positions that we had intended. It was better yesterday to acknowledge how embarrassing the evidence was, and to pledge to work to stop that behavior.

I've typed parts of this hurriedly because I'm running late for an evening engagement. If I've been unclear, please let me know and I'll try and clarify. I plan on being at the second meeting next week, and I hope that we will be able to act from a stronger position at time.

I will post the entire poster boards as they are made available to me, as quickly as possible.

#2 User is offline   Mr. Snazz 

  • High Desert Cacher
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 1470
  • Joined: 04-February 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 03:36 PM

What if they are right in wanting to ban it in cemetaries?

Are we all so self-righteous that we assume geocaching is appropriate everywhere?

Geocaching takes us to places that we might not have visited otherwise. No matter the best intentions of the "group", there will always be people who are going to be disrespectful of these places. With geocaching, these people are going to be drawn to these places, and their disrespectful attitude isn't going to magically change just because they're holding a GPS.

#3 User is offline   magellan315 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 20-August 01

Posted 07 April 2005 - 03:39 PM

Yuck, Talk about the deck being stacked against you. The logs and pictures were pretty damning.

There is one thing that bothers me, the state archeologist. He said that he tried to make contact with people to get issues regarding caches in sensitive areas resolved and no one responed. I'm finding that hard to believe, even if every cache owner did not respond to e-mails he sent, did he make no effort to contact GC.com. I have no doubt that Jeremy would have repsonded. I would be very curious to see his documentation to how he proceeded with this process.

#4 User is offline   tirediron 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5001
  • Joined: 14-February 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 03:48 PM

First of all Tin, let me say that I think you are doing are making an outstanding effort, and that I think your tactic of not defending those logs and entries that were clearly in poor taste was an excellent one. I do have to acknowledge Mr Snazz' point of 'caching not being appreciated everywhere, but clearly, IMHO, education is the route to go. Showing people that 'caching is not evil, and that most geocachers are responsible people is what will help in the long run.

It's clear that as time goes on, and more people become involved, problems like this are going to increase. It's going to be through the efforts of dedicated people such as yourself, who are willing to take on the responsibility of responding to these anti-geocaching motions, that the sport will perservere!

Thankfully, Canada is so far mercifully free of most of the problems that you folk south of the border are dealing with. How much of the state, (aproximately) would this bill if passed in it's current state prohibit 'caching on?

Thank-you!
~John

#5 User is offline   wrlwnd 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 10-March 04

Posted 07 April 2005 - 03:54 PM

magellan315, on Apr 7 2005, 07:39 PM, said:

Yuck, Talk about the deck being stacked against you. The logs and pictures were pretty damning.

There is one thing that bothers me, the state archeologist. He said that he tried to make contact with people to get issues regarding caches in sensitive areas resolved and no one responed. I'm finding that hard to believe, even if every cache owner did not respond to e-mails he sent, did he make no effort to contact GC.com. I have no doubt that Jeremy would have repsonded. I would be very curious to see his documentation to how he proceeded with this process.

This is a big question that I have. If the contact was made to GC.com or not or was it other poor attempts to contact the cache owners. I can see this flowing out to other areas of the country and I would hate to see my home state (although i've moved this is still home) become one to stop many of the cache types that I have enjoyed.

#6 User is offline   Clan X-Man 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 04:35 PM

Mr. Snazz, on Apr 7 2005, 03:36 PM, said:

What if they are right in wanting to ban it in cemetaries?


They are absolutely 100% right about this based on the evidence they have been able to present. How apalling! It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone. These cachers should be banned from caching. I'm sorry but that is the way I feel. There is a certain amount of decency and respect that we should have for all aspects of life or death. This has turned from just a game to something better with CITO and the education the "game" provides with it's historical aspects. It's time for the good to reign in the bad. I strongly push the point of banning any cacher that is resposible for such wreckless irresponsible activity.

X

#7 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 07 April 2005 - 04:46 PM

Clan X-Man, on Apr 7 2005, 04:35 PM, said:

Mr. Snazz, on Apr 7 2005, 03:36 PM, said:

What if they are right in wanting to ban it in cemetaries?


They are absolutely 100% right about this based on the evidence they have been able to present. How apalling! It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone. These cachers should be banned from caching. I'm sorry but that is the way I feel. There is a certain amount of decency and respect that we should have for all aspects of life or death. This has turned from just a game to something better with CITO and the education the "game" provides with it's historical aspects. It's time for the good to reign in the bad. I strongly push the point of banning any cacher that is resposible for such wreckless irresponsible activity.

X

I agree with most of what you say, but as for banning the cachers, I think it needs to be looked at on a case by cases bases. If people are just taking a picture in a graveyard and touching nothing then that should be fine. Now for people leaning up against gravestones or anything that might not be in the best of shape then yes I agree their should be action taken against them. Until TS can get all the evidence we just need to focus on helping spread the word about being a polite cacher.

#8 User is offline   Clan X-Man 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 05:01 PM

That's what I meant. The level of disrespect shown is the reason I think they should be banned.

#9 User is offline   erik88l-r 

  • Recovering Geocacher
  • Group: Volunteers
  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 17-February 01

Posted 07 April 2005 - 05:11 PM

Quote

The level of disrespect shown is the reason I think they should be banned.


We can't change the past, but I think anyone who has a cache in a cemetery (or even a virtual stage that's in one) needs to "police" logs of the kind Tin Sparrow referenced.

Delete the logs and let the geocacher know that behavior of that type will not be tolerated by the cache owner or the geocaching community. Before banning people who may not appreciate the sensitivities of the situation a bit of "mentoring" of that sort might do more good in the long run. I suspect if you ban someone they'll just create another account and continue their behavior, or become a cache pirate. IMHO

~erik~

#10 User is offline   Crazy Aaron 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 29-December 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 05:12 PM

Maybe I'm out of touch. Maybe my view of death and graveyards doesn't match this local community. I don't see how the things you describe are so offensive? Geocachers are not the ones digging up markers and spray painting on stones. They are HAVING FUN running around in graveyards, often at night...it is a fun activity.

Is it wrong to have fun in a graveyard? Is it wrong to lean against a grave marker or use it as a prop? Is it wrong to smile and pose for a photo in a graveyard?

If these activities do violate local mores then ban geocaching in public cemeteries. If local citizens are offended by non-somber cemetery behaviour, then ban it. That's what local government is for...local regulation. I see nothing wrong with that.

Should geocaching be banned in all state-owned spaces in S. Carolina? That makes no sense. If the problem is 'fun in graveyards', then it doesn't apply to other places. Is it wrong to have 'fun in state game lands' or 'fun in state parks'?

Would other states take S. Carolina's lead? Only if their values were in tune with S. Carolinians regarding graveyards.

It seems like the biggest problem here is that there was no local, responsible contact for S. Carolinian authorities to deal with regarding geocaching. Since this is volunteer work, it is definitely hit or miss. It sounds like you guys were able to get organized in regards to this legislation. Regardless of how that pans out, is it time for you to ensure that same level of organization in regards to S. Carolina's cache administration?

#11 User is offline   TinSparrow 

  • GPS Killer
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 29-August 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 05:37 PM

magellan315, on Apr 7 2005, 03:39 PM, said:

There is one thing that bothers me, the state archeologist. He said that he tried to make contact with people to get issues regarding caches in sensitive areas resolved and no one responed. I'm finding that hard to believe, even if every cache owner did not respond to e-mails he sent, did he make no effort to contact GC.com. I have no doubt that Jeremy would have repsonded. I would be very curious to see his documentation to how he proceeded with this process.

According to the State Archaelogist, the contact he attempted was not through local cache owners but with the GC.com itself. He says he tried email, phone calls and registered mail but to no avail.

In talking with Heidi today, GC.com does not get lots of regular mail, and it's hard to imagine for her that this correspondance would have been missed. Heidi has already initiated contact, and maybe we can get more details as to exactly where his correspondance was addressed to.

#12 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 37914
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 07 April 2005 - 05:56 PM

Call me wacky, but I don't think a few photos of people posing near headstones and some somewhat juvenile log entries rises to anywhere near grave robbing and vandalism.

Does it look good for our sport? Of course not. Is it disrespectful? Maybe. Does this warrant legislative action? You've got to be be kidding!

#13 User is offline   Ambrosia 

  • Center of Washington State
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7390
  • Joined: 03-June 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 06:06 PM

Crazy Aaron, on Apr 7 2005, 05:12 PM, said:

Maybe I'm out of touch. Maybe my view of death and graveyards doesn't match this local community. I don't see how the things you describe are so offensive? Geocachers are not the ones digging up markers and spray painting on stones. They are HAVING FUN running around in graveyards, often at night...it is a fun activity.

Is it wrong to have fun in a graveyard? Is it wrong to lean against a grave marker or use it as a prop? Is it wrong to smile and pose for a photo in a graveyard?

If these activities do violate local mores then ban geocaching in public cemeteries. If local citizens are offended by non-somber cemetery behaviour, then ban it. That's what local government is for...local regulation. I see nothing wrong with that.

Should geocaching be banned in all state-owned spaces in S. Carolina? That makes no sense. If the problem is 'fun in graveyards', then it doesn't apply to other places. Is it wrong to have 'fun in state game lands' or 'fun in state parks'?

Would other states take S. Carolina's lead? Only if their values were in tune with S. Carolinians regarding graveyards.

It seems like the biggest problem here is that there was no local, responsible contact for S. Carolinian authorities to deal with regarding geocaching. Since this is volunteer work, it is definitely hit or miss. It sounds like you guys were able to get organized in regards to this legislation. Regardless of how that pans out, is it time for you to ensure that same level of organization in regards to S. Carolina's cache administration?

I understand that if they are leaning on old markers that might be delicate, that's an issue. And I understand that we should not make anyone nervous or suspicious, even if geocachers aren't hurting the cemetaries, the neighbours don't know that.

But other than that, I agree. Why can't we have fun in a cemetary? Why is it only for educational experiances? Why can't we smile and have our pictures taken? Why is it bad to go to a cemetary just to get another find? I don't see how these activities are appalling. I'm confused. :D

#14 User is offline   Clan X-Man 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 06:21 PM

Alright then! TinSparrow, were the pictures shown at the meeting of cachers lying on graves? Were they leaning up against headstones posing for pics?

Hey IT'S A CEMETERY, it's not here for us to play in. From what I've been told, by an officer of the law, you are not supposed to be in a cemetery after dark anyway.

The question isn't whether you shouldn't have "fun" in a graveyard, the wuestion is of disrespect and putting a bad light on geocaching. That's us remember? Do you not realize that caching could be restricted if not banned altogether? The government has the power to do that. Do NOT fool yourself into believing that just because we are a "free" country that you have rights as to this sort of thing.



Quote

I don't see how these activities are appalling. I'm confused.


It's not the caching in cemeterys, it's the disrespect. Please tell me you understand that. Not attacking you or your beliefs or anything like that.

X

This post has been edited by Clan X-Man: 07 April 2005 - 06:24 PM


#15 User is offline   Lemon Fresh Dog 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 07 April 2005 - 06:38 PM

I would be offended if someone chose to "play" in an area where I had buried a loved one.

My only suggestion is to tell them they are right. Tell them that the locations and the actions were inappropriate. Apologize on behalf of the hobby. Ask them to see beyond the negative and towards the positive aspects of geocaching in appropriate area. Then, in support of your position, bring photos of children and families enjoying the hobby, photos of great views from caches, and log entries of folks that have had positive experiences.

Just a thought.

#16 User is offline   TheAlabamaRambler 

  • Happy camper
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6631
  • Joined: 16-August 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 06:41 PM

Sorry, but this is silly. This is political correctness run amok...and politicians seeking an easy victory for their legislative resume.

I'm 50 years old, and have never seen anyone treat a cemetary as a playground, never known anyone who would desecrate tombs or disrespect the property.

Except, of course, the government. Cemetaries are regularly displaced by urban sprawl. I know of two large local cemetaries that were moved for airport expansion and one for a new highway. Respect for the dead? Rest in Peace? Sure, until the property value goes up or the government needs the land.

There is an ancient cemetary near my lake property where Alabama Power Company needed to place a power line - so they drove their bulldozers right through it and put in their power line. To this day you can go there and see opened graves, markers broken, knocked over and partially buried in the rubble pile left by the dozers.

Have you ever actually seen the opening and closing of a grave? No respect or dignity there - just minimum-wage workers doing a hard job. You think they drive their tractor back to the office to use the bathroom? Not hardly!

Ever been in a morgue or the private areas of a funeral home where postmortem and or preparation is done? No political correctness there - you won't find the suits and solemn expressions you see in the public areas!

Kids, including myself, have long used graveyards at night as feats of courage, places to gather and tell ghost stories, and later as parking spots to squeeze on some poor fellow's daughter.

I do have respect for graveyards, I do appreciate their purpose. I do place caches outside the fence if there is one. I have had my picture taken at midnight laying in an opened grave, with two different groups of geocachers.

I have had a preacher bring his youth group (28 kids in a bus) to a cemetary at night, and I did slip in ahead of them, as did five of their mothers, to set off fireworks and scare the bejesus out of them!

I see nothing wrong with it.

A thing is not wrong just because it has a vocal opponent...most everything does!

Politicians jump on whatever bandwagon is playing the loudest music, and pick off the easy targets. That's what it sounds like these folks are doing - they've found some easy legislation they can get passed that will have little or no opposition and put a feather in their cap!

Organize some press and some opposition and they'll back off quickly enough.

Don't be swayed - let your concience and your intellect be your guide.

Ed

#17 User is offline   uber_bike_geek 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 485
  • Joined: 10-November 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 06:53 PM

This is a fairly long rant, feel free to skip over it...

Quote

I don't see how these activities are appalling. I'm confused.

I agree, to an extent. Some people may see it as disrespectful.

Anybody who has done any serious genealogical research has probably gone to quite a few cemetaries. Arrive at cemetary, pull out paper to write notes on, dadgum, left clipboard at home, uses a gravestone as a smooth, hard surface to write on. They might stop to think about something or reflect on the beauty of the surrounding area, and lean against a gravestone. They might make a rubbing of the headstone. They might use a gravestone as a relatively clean spot to put something on (i.e. waterbottle, camera, notebook, etc.)

Branches fall from trees and hit gravestones. Trees fall down on gravestones.

Geocachers find tupperware near cemetaries, and then go into a clearing so they can take pictures of themselves with the cache. Lo and behold, there's a gravestone nearby. Cacher A carefully puts the cache on the stone so they can pose for the camera or something. The picture gets taken, the cache gets taken off of the stone ad rehidden. Nobody would know that the cache was there if the cachers didn't post pictures or write about it.

Cachers log their find on a public website, maybe even upload pictures. Geneologists go home and figure out how what they just learned fits into their family tree.

The only reason people complain about cachers and not geneologists is because we post our finds on a publicly accessible website and upload pictures. When was the last time you heard about legislation banning trees from falling in cemetaries?? :D

I'm not trying to say that we should be putting stuff on gravestones, I'm just trying to make a point that when other people do it for a hobby that's been around for quite a while, nobody complains, but when people come in for a new reason, people start complaining.

Falling trees damage gravestones. Vandals damage gravestones. Geocachers pick up trash.

I just thought of another idea for why the legislation was introduced (Entirely in jest :D ): Someone with too much power tried to find a cache, but failed, and is now trying to make it hard on those with better seeking skills :D :D

Happy caching
Jeff

#18 User is offline   WascoZooKeeper 

  • Dances with Snails
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 601
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:08 PM

Seems like the two issues they are concerned about are:
  • property damage
  • disrespectful behavior
Now as far as property damage goes, there are undoubtedly laws already on the books that could be applied; if not, laws specifically addressing damage issues could reasonably be drafted, and they would apply to all activities resulting in damage, not just geocaching.

The issue of disrespectful behavior is of course difficult to define and even harder to legislate. A cacher who has himself photographed with a cache next to a distinctive grave marker thinks he's recording a memorable moment; the deceased's kinfolk or the members of the community think he's being disrespectful to a hallowed place. The night-time cacher thinks he's adding atmosphere to his caching adventure, the locals think he's scary for wandering around a cemetery at night, as well as disrespectful to the dead. Problem is, they're each right from their own perspective.

You could focus on toughening up the enforcement of existing property damage laws, and perhaps adding new ones as needed. That would be one approach.

But I suspect the bottom line is that the community residents realize they can't reasonably identify and punish every single person who causes damage, and they can't reasonably codify what constitutes "disrespectful" behavior much less ban it in a way that would withstand a court challenge.

So the "solution" is to reduce human intrusion by banning activities that would tend to draw people to those sites. If geocaching draws 100 people per year to the cemetery, then if geocaches are banned there, there will be 100 fewer people per year coming to the cemetery -- and thus 100 fewer people who might cause damage or be "disrespectful".

#19 User is offline   AtlantaGal 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9737
  • Joined: 05-April 04

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:20 PM

Well as one of the many cache placers who had to archive their SC cemetery cache, Um, I don't really know what to say. I love cemetery caches and have the one in SC and two here in GA. I typically place my cache away from the gravestones and such out of respect,. They're usually in woods adjacent to cemetery property. I do use information on a gravestones for stage coords tho. I have also found caches where the hides or stages are placed near actual graves and I do frown upon that personally. I think it's disrespectful and probably shouldn't be allowed.

Overall, I have to kind of agree with Alabama Rambler on this one though. I didn't see the exact logs or the photos in question, and personally wouldn't participate in that type of behavior anyway, but if nothing was disturbed, I don't see any harm. I really don't.

The vandelism was probably a bunch of kids out drinking and such. I remember when I was a little kid a lot of the local teens would "party in the cemeterys." I even remember kids driving golf balls through a cemetery once. Um, those folks are not Geocachers and are more than likely the culprits of anything that happened at the locations harmed. Sounds like geocachers are the scapegoat in this one.

In addition, if these people really wanted to contact someone, they should have contacted the cache owners. I'm sure their complains/concerns would have been answered in a timely manner then.

I really hope if any legislation comes to pass, it just outlines some rules for cemetery placements in the worst case. I really love doing cemetery caching because it's so interesting to look at the history among the graves and photograph some of the more interesting and unique statues and such. I would really miss this type of placement if it were not allowed.

#20 User is offline   Lemon Fresh Dog 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:30 PM

So instead of a tombstone for a childs grave we should erect a swingset?

Are we so completely devoid of spaces to place caches that we have to walk the line in an area that some folks see as a place to scare each other or squeeze a guys daughter that we cannot just let it be?

The fact is: to some folks it is no big deal. To some folks it is. For the reputation of all, isn't it just best to err on the side of caution, show a little respect for others (especially as it is no detriment to the hobby) and just take graveyards off the list of places to put a cache?

I used to walk railway tracks when I was younger to get around town -- I wouldn't place a cahce on the tracks though.

#21 User is offline   Geezer_Veazey 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 29-July 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:34 PM

Below is my log entry made March 22nd for "Namesakes are Forever" a cemetery cache in Arkansas. Feel free to us it if you feel it would help:

March 22 by Geezer_Veazey (132 found)
I've been wanting to find this one since I did not yet have any finds for a topkitty/markrocks cache. All the comments about the container camo had me further intrigued so today I went after it. Found it with no trouble and signed log.
While there I took a stroll around the area. There were numerous veterans of various wars there. Misters William Parsons and Silas James were members of Co. A, 50th Arkansas Militia, Confederate States of America. What turmoil there must have been in the minds of Americans who had to take up arms against fellow Americans.

On one grave of an Air Force veteran a flag spoke to me. It waved vigorously symbolic of the turmoil of war this vet went through. Then it stood stately and peaceful symbolic of the peace we enjoyed for a period of time after having put down the enemies of freedom. Then it went through the cycle again symbolic of other enemies of freedom rising up. Wars and rumors of wars - an endless cycle until Jesus returns. As one of our forefathers said, the price of freedom is eternal diligence.

It is always interesting to read the phrases carved into the stone of the different memorials. There were many of the usual ones - asleep in Jesus, rest in peace, beloved husband and father, etc. One veteran who was only 25 when he deceased had this: "His spirit smiles from heaven's shore, and softly whispers, weep no more." One can only wonder what caused the afore weeping and take comfort in the sorrow ending.

A visit like this with evidence all around us that we must one day meet our maker, and with the quietness and serenity gives one pause to consider his standing with the Creator. Thanks for bringing me here and God Bless You, Topkitty98, and Rest In Peace, Markrocks.

My favorite of all the phrases I saw today was this one:

His words were kindness,
His deeds were love,
His spirit humble,
He rests above.

May it be said of me someday.
Geezer_Veazey

#22 User is offline   Radman Forever 

  • The Personification Of Geocaching Insanity
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 620
  • Joined: 05-September 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:39 PM

Lemon Fresh Dog, on Apr 7 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

So instead of a tombstone for a childs grave we should erect a swingset?

Are we so completely devoid of spaces to place caches that we have to walk the line in an area that some folks see as a place to scare each other or squeeze a guys daughter that we cannot just let it be?

The fact is: to some folks it is no big deal. To some folks it is. For the reputation of all, isn't it just best to err on the side of caution, show a little respect for others (especially as it is no detriment to the hobby) and just take graveyards off the list of places to put a cache?

I used to walk railway tracks when I was younger to get around town -- I wouldn't place a cahce on the tracks though.

Not every cemetary in South Carolina is a bad area to hide a cache. Because a few people have done stupid things or a few people have hidden some bad cemetary caches doesn't mean every cemetary in SC needs to be banned. Besides, if this passes it looks like one bad birthmark on geocaching's reputation. If this passes, this could be used in arguments for other lands to be banned to geocaching. It could start a domino effect. In Michigan we lost State Game Areas, then we lost State Parks when they made a 35 dollar fee, now there is a bill to have all of the State Lands to have a 400 dollar fee. WHERE DOES IT END? If we don't fight to have our public lands remain open to geocaching, we could lose it all. No matter how bleak it looks, we should always fight to have geocaching open. We can't start making comprimises! :D

#23 User is offline   BadAndy 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1419
  • Joined: 15-July 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:45 PM

I've done a few cemetary caches before, and really didn't think it was an issue. This week one popped up near my house and I rushed out to be ftf. Found it without any trouble (it was near a memorial for fallen soldiers). On my way back to the van wearing my first finders grin, I noticed an elderly woman placing flowers on a gravesite. She was weeping and didn't notice my passing, but I was utterly uncomfortable all of the sudden.


We've used the frisbee rule to define what public access property is appropriate to place caches many times on this forum. Would it be appropriate to play frisbee in a cemetary?

#24 User is offline   Radman Forever 

  • The Personification Of Geocaching Insanity
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 620
  • Joined: 05-September 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:47 PM

BadAndy, on Apr 7 2005, 07:45 PM, said:

We've used the frisbee rule to define what public access property is appropriate to place caches many times on this forum. Would it be appropriate to play frisbee in a cemetary?

For some towns cemetaries used to be an area of recreation. Families would have picnics or there could be town gatherings either in or near a cemetary. We wouldn't do that now but in some small towns cemetaries were the only land open to the public.

#25 User is offline   TheAlabamaRambler 

  • Happy camper
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6631
  • Joined: 16-August 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:48 PM

Quote

So instead of a tombstone for a childs grave we should erect a swingset?


Absolutely! Are we not taught as believers to celebrate life, and that the dead move on to a wonderful heaven?

Furthermore, what is all this "respect for the dead?"

Did you respect them in life? When they got old and feeble did you build an extra room on your home for them or did you pack 'em off to a nursing home?

Did you have a flower delivered to them to say you cared?

Do all these things while they are alive - after they're dead they don't know or care.

I've always been amused by the outpouring of grief, expersions of love and caring, funeral and flower expense, "respects paid"...to the dead but not the living!

Folks who haven't seen their kin in twenty years will tell you how much they miss them and wish they could have "had a chance" to tell them!

Respect the living!

#26 User is offline   Lemon Fresh Dog 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1983
  • Joined: 01-June 04

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:53 PM

Are cemetaries public land? If so, then I suppose there is *some* argument to placing caches in the area. I think it is wise to choose one's battles. If the arguments on each side end up being:

Against caching: We want to respect our dead in peace and serenity.
For caching: We want to hide ammo boxes in the graveyard so people can hunt around for them

I'm just not sure we, as cachers, should see this as a worthwhile fight. We still have the chance to come across as reasonable and concerned. Rather than the end result being "we fought the cachers and won/lost" it could become "We discussed it with the cachers and they were very reasonable and accomondating"

I hope that regardless of the result, both sides come out being respected and understood.

#27 User is offline   Mr.Benchmark 

  • In Need of Anger Management
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 01-June 03

Posted 07 April 2005 - 08:10 PM

Radman Version 4.0, on Apr 7 2005, 07:47 PM, said:

For some towns cemetaries used to be an area of recreation. Families would have picnics or there could be town gatherings either in or near a cemetary.

This is true - I've visited more than one cemetery that had old picnic tables in it. I don't know if that was ever a custom in South Carolina, but it certainly was in parts of Texas.

I can understand why people are sensitive about it though - I've also seen numerous cemeteries where vandals have really done a lot of damage. Is it any wonder some people are suspicious? I can completely understand this. Some of the items in these places are irreplaceable historical artifacts - yeah, there's laws to prosecute people who desecrate them, but the law won't restore a 150 year old gravemarker to it's unbroken condition.

I know that if such a ban had existed here in Texas, I'd have been worse off for it. I've visited many cemetery caches - some of them have interesting histories and lovely memorials. I know that when I visit one, I try to be respectful, and I spend some time looking around at the memorials, taking some photographs, and thinking about the people there. I know there's many cemeteries here that are actually quite strikingly lovely in their way that I'd never have visited were it not for caching. I'm pretty sure I'd never have sought out a place called "Mugg Cemetery," yet after I'd visited it I was glad that I had. Another I visited, out in Celina, is one of the earliest in the area - it was the final resting place of an anonymous cowboy on the Preston Trail who died of typhoid. There's no way I'd have known, or cared, about such places had it not been for caching. Sure, I know how to look for such places now, and I stop and look for myself when I find an interesting one along the way, whether a cache is there or not. But I know I'd never have done this had caching not introduced me to them. The best of these have introduced me to local history that they *do not* generally teach in schools.

Perhaps this aspect of caching could be stressed?

Anyway, I hope there's a good resolution for this issue. I certainly feel for family members who fear their ancestors are being disrespected. But I think caching has introduced many people to the beauty and history inherent in these often forgotten places. That's the reason I'd hide (or seek) a cache in one.

#28 User is offline   StarBrand 

  • StarBrand - WNAG.NET
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 18633
  • Joined: 30-January 02

Posted 07 April 2005 - 08:12 PM

I don't live in SC but I feel it important to point out that teenagers around here regularly go out to "play" at the cemetary. Hide and Seek, Ghost stories and what not. It happened 22 years ago when I was in High School in Wyoming, It happened 55 years ago when my Dad was in High School (according to him) in Illinois. Disrespectul??? Maybe - depends on your point of view. But do we really need a law to prevent a few idiots from going too far?? Somebodys somebody will always be out there "playing".

My 2 cents worth, point out the vast majority of Geocachers, much like the vast majority of society does more good and has more respect then the very few who don't.

Also, Laying on a grave, photographing a grave, laughing with friends??? Please expalin how, why that is unappropriate?? or Disrespectful?? Surely there is more to the pictures and logs then that!!!

For every picture they present of "bad" - present 2 of good. For every log that "sounds bad" - show 10 that show respect and thanks. For every piece of trash - show bags pickup by Cachers. The few shouldn't rule or represent ALL our values over the majority!!

#29 User is offline   Booknut 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 09-May 04

Posted 07 April 2005 - 08:29 PM

When I speak of being respectful (or disrespectful), and when I teach my daughters the proper behavior in cemeteries, it is not literally respecting the dead people there in the graveyard. It is respect for their memories--even if I did not know them--and for the feelings of their loved ones. The Golden Rule is an excellent guide in this case: how would I want others to behave if those were my relatives?

Physical caches inside cemetery boundaries, IMNSHO, are troublesome because they require a search process that in some cases (and depending upon whom is doing the searching) can be quite disruptive.

I know, however, of many caches that require information from certain headstones and then the physical cache itself is placed elsewhere. I find most caches of that nature quite interesting--they are historically educational and provide an opportunity to visit some truly lovely graveyards--all without causing disruption to the area, other than a few bent blades of grass. Would this, too, be illegal? If not, then it seems to be a compromise that should satisfy almost everyone.

#30 User is offline   nmbobster 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 23-January 05

Posted 07 April 2005 - 09:41 PM

It seems that you got a little out gunned. In my little experience with local politics that sometimes happens. I wonder if their preparation was in part a result of previous contact with cachers. Knowing there was going to be at least a little bit of a battle did they prepare for it?

In my experience in high school and college debate every point they make has to be countered. If you want to win this you can not concede any point that they may make.

It seems to me that the evidence they provided maybe showed that caching in cemeteries may sometimes be distastefull to some and desrespectfull to some, but along the lines of an activity that should be illegal? I don't think so, but thats just me.

I would try to show that SC State laws section 16-17-600 already protects these sites and this proposed law does nothing more than to exclude a certain group of people from pursueing a wholesome normally legal activity.

I suspect that a little analysis of cache logs would show that the disrespectfull behavior that was presented is a very small percentage. This could be shown with colorful graphs.

As far as the state archeologist getting no response from Groundspeak, I just do not believe this to be true. There is very cleary stated geocaching policy that states that caches will be removed if they just ask. I know that Groundspeak has been very cooperative working with the forest archeologist on the Santa Fe National Forest. I can not believe that they are not cooperative with the state archeologist of SC. I also highly suspect that if you reviewed the state's ARRPA investigations you would find no incidents of damage to historical or archeological sites that could be attributed directly to geocaching. Too bad there is not enough time to FOIA that information.

It also seems like the major impact of this bill on geocaching is more with historical sites. Very large areas would be off limits to caching. Given the size of some of the historic districts in the state this would be a major impact to the sport. This does not make sense.

As I have said before, I am not against protecting cemeteries, arch. or historic sites, but this bill is too broad. There are certainly ways to protect sensitive sites and still allow sensible caching, this bill does not allow that.

Just my thoughts, keep up the good work.

#31 User is offline   Ambrosia 

  • Center of Washington State
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7390
  • Joined: 03-June 02

Posted 08 April 2005 - 12:57 AM

I appreciate all the well-thought out posts in this thread, no matter where you are coming from. All the posts make me think. Thanks for keeping it respectful and insightful. :D

#32 User is offline   AtlantaGal 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9737
  • Joined: 05-April 04

Posted 08 April 2005 - 03:19 AM

I spent a little time this morning reading the cache logs from several of the caches in the TSoB series. There are 22 total caches in this series. In the 5 listings I read, there is not one log or photo showing any disrespect at all. These 5 caches have 16-20 total finds each in the 1.5 years they've been placed there. So that's hardly any influx of cachers to a site or anything. Finally, what I have gathered from the logs of the 5 caches I read, the cemeterys were in terrible condition BEFORE a geocache was placed there.

#33 User is offline   CoyoteRed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7122
  • Joined: 22-August 02

Posted 08 April 2005 - 03:55 AM

Also, let's not forget, many of the TSoB series caches weren't even in the bounds of the cemetery. I seem to recall one was 100' or so into some woods.

#34 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 08 April 2005 - 04:57 AM

CoyoteRed, on Apr 8 2005, 03:55 AM, said:

Also, let's not forget, many of the TSoB series caches weren't even in the bounds of the cemetery. I seem to recall one was 100' or so into some woods.

I have not seen many of the full KTB set but the four I found all were within the graveyard, and a few the only way to them was through the graveyard. I truly see nothing wrong if the cache is near a graveyard but you never have to go within the graveyard, I can think of two that I knew of that was like that. You did not have to enter into the grounds at all to obtain the cache.

The thin line about pictures can go either way. The way I look at is, how would I react if people were posing on my gravesite?

#35 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 08 April 2005 - 05:04 AM

I just want to once again thank those who are leading up the geo-community is represeting us at the State House. I know most of them have their jobs they have to attend to, and for them to take time out from their job to help fight this should great be appreciated.

Disagree or agree with everything that is going on, it should serve as a way to help us reflect a second on what type of cacher am I(you) when I (you) am out there. Most of us who are on this forum are very respectful cachers, but this will help us to guide new cachers or to help new cachers understand some guidelines that we have to abide by. Whatever we agree with them or not.

#36 User is offline   wimseyguy 

  • plays well with others.........food
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6293
  • Joined: 07-August 02

Posted 08 April 2005 - 05:30 AM

OK, so round one of the debate sounds like it went to the overly PC legislators and their constituants. You had great representation of the caching community, and plans to discuss the positive virtues of the sport.
Do some statistical data analysis for round two. How many of the dozens/hundreds of logs and pics in these cache listings are of the disrespectful nature them displayed? How many others were not? You have already apologized for the poor behavior of a small minorty, do not let it become the focal point of round two.
Keep up the good fight, CR&TS.

#37 User is offline   wkhaz 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 20-October 04

  Posted 08 April 2005 - 06:21 AM

:( One way to get around this is to make all of the caches in these areas VERTUAL caches. To get credit for the cache, e-mail the cache owner some proof of the visit. Such as date of an event, the wording of a particular epitaph, etc.

The proposed law DOES NOT make LOOKING for the geocache illegal. Just hiding a geocache container. Virtual caches are exempt from the proposed law.

If they outlaw virtual caches, wouldn’t they then make it illegal for anyone to access the sites?

#38 User is offline   AtoZ 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 30-May 04

  Posted 08 April 2005 - 06:57 AM

First and formost this is NOT a total ban of geocaching in SC. Other then the cemetaries you are NOT suppose to put geocaches in archeological sites nor national parks.
What it also show is HOW IRRESPONSIBLE geocachers are!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe your take offense at the GOOD, maybe you are the prefect little angle but I have seen time and time again and steated such that geocachers have to be environmental aware. I have one cache that requires a gallon or 2 of water to retireve it well now there is a pile of partially full jugs of water around the cache. It is not particularry a sensitive area but "WHY IF YOU BRING TRASH DON"T YOU TAKE IT OUT." I see geocachers digging up the dendrous around trees etc...
What I see this submitter of this bill isn't because she hates people having fun but because she opposes people acting irresponsible. We have to show people that we are responsible.
Hunting does not get banned because it is bad but because some people are not responsible and it may not be fare but a few folks can ruin it for all.

We need to evaluate how we are if we want to keep our sport.

cheers

#39 User is offline   manjack 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 06-December 03

Posted 08 April 2005 - 11:49 AM

Historically, the "table stones" common in Lowcountry Cemetaries were used to layout picnics when family members visited the family plot. Those visiting generally did some maintenance and weeding, then laid out a picnic right on the stone and shared stories. People came out on the street cars, often many different families, to picnic in the cemetary. We used to lay out sandwiches and other refreashments on the stones in downtown Charleston when we were cleaning up the cemetary. I always thought it was nice that we sort of shared the picnic with the buried that way. It connected us to them.

This went on in Magnolia Cemetary in Charleston for over a century. To this day, my son always insists in visiting the duck pond when we visit my mother's grave.

We gather at the neighborhood graveyard and tell ghost stories in I'On every year. It is a cherished neighborhood tradition.

It is important to understand that death was a far more intimate experience for our ancestors. People died at home. Funerals were often held at home. Women in the family laid out and washed the body Relatives built the coffin and often dug the grave. They didn't have this wierd disconnected approach to it.

Now we die in hospitals, get embalmed and morned at funeral homes and are shipped to a cemetary where the maintenance is done by strangers under perpetual care, including the semi annual placement of flowers.

When my mother died, I wrote her obituary myself, which some people thought was inappropriate. I wonder who, besides my father, knew her better.

I visited My mother's plot last Sunday and later went geocaching elsewhere. At one time, I could have visited the nearby grave that was marked with the Gallant 600 Cache, which brought people to the burial place of a member of the light brigade, but that has been archived. It would be nice if people could understand that my family buried my mother in the midst of great and famous company. On Sunday my wife speculated about where in the plot we would end up

Each October the Confederate Heritige Trust does an entire reenactment in Magnolia to raise money for maintenance of the Confederate Graves there, with skits all through the cemetary. Women dressed in black lead the tours. There are actually reenactments of battle action, including cannon fire.

And the dead, if they still hear, know we remember. We promised them we would remember and geocaches in graveyards are one way we can assure that people visit and remember the people buried there.

Despite the lip service, most of our rural cemetaries in South Carolina are hopelessly neglected and overgrown. Most of the young people in these areas have moved away and there is neither muscle nor money enough to control the overgrowth. There are hundreds of these graveyards, far beyond anyone's capacity to protect or maintain them in the current economic climate. I suspect this humiliates those communities who don't really want visitors to see what poor shape these burial grounds are in.

However, if you can accept it, there isn't really anything wrong with an overgrown cemetary in the woods. Frankly, I like it better than the industrial, flat stones so you can mow over them approach many newer grave yards have. I was going to place a cache at the endangered cemetary near here in Remley's Point, but obvioualy we'll move on to other projects. The plan was to accumulate email addresses so that if the cemetary were threatened with development, we could round up some people from outside the community to help with the fight. Now the people at Remley's point will be on their own.

#40 User is offline   manjack 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 06-December 03

Posted 08 April 2005 - 11:52 AM

This message came in yesterday.

-----Original Message-----
From: MARY MARTIN [mailto:MARTINM@scstatehouse.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 1:09 PM
To: rockg1@charter.net; NetWatcher@NetWatcher.net; sandra@spotsdesigns.com; wjhamilton@wjhamilton.com; normanlazarus@yahoo.com
Subject: H. 3777


House Bill 3777, dealing with geocaching will be revisited by the Special Laws Subcommittee on Wednesday, April 13. The meeting will be held at 9 am in room 516 of the Blatt Building on state house grounds.

Please let me know if I can be ot further assistance in any way.



Mary Ashley Martin
Law Clerk
Special Laws Subcommittee
SC House Judiciary Committee

#41 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 37914
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 08 April 2005 - 12:48 PM

Quote

What I see this submitter of this bill isn't because she hates people having fun but because she opposes people acting irresponsible.


In a "free" country people should be allowed to be irresponsible as long as it doesn't harm others. I fail to see the harm caused by juvenile log entries and people posing for photos by head stones.

#42 User is offline   Hoomdorm 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 10 April 2005 - 11:36 PM

Considering the idea that geocachers destroy cemetaries by all of the traffic caused by a geocache, has anyone thought to argue the point of the grave of Alice Flagg? I'm sure most everyone knows the story of Alice and her grave is advertised all over the Low Country as a tourist spot. They actually try to bring traffic to this graveyard. The constant flow of people visiting her grave has left a very large area around it walked bare down to the dirt. This also happens to be a very interesting grave yard, with several historical families of Horry and Georgetown counties burried there. I was there myself about a month ago and there was a lot of traffic thru this graveyard. Why is it ok for the state to say one site is ok for them to trample for tourisms sake yet our few people who hunt a geocache in a cemetary is bad?
There are also plenty of other ties between tourism and cemetaries. You can find cemetary tours everywhere. Why is that traffic thru the cemetaries ok yet the geocacher traffic isn't?

#43 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 37914
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 11 April 2005 - 03:06 AM

Quote

Considering the idea that geocachers destroy cemetaries by all of the traffic caused by a geocache...


Let's reject that idea because its not true. Admitting that we cause damage, but pointing out something that causes more damage is not the way to deal with this.

#44 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 05:10 AM

Hoomdorm, on Apr 10 2005, 11:36 PM, said:

Considering the idea that geocachers destroy cemetaries by all of the traffic caused by a geocache, has anyone thought to argue the point of the grave of Alice Flagg?

I just want to clear a few things up before you go nuclear on this topic. I met with some of the people from the local geo-community and got the whole story.

1- Yes there was damaged caused in the graveyards in question, but was it geocachers, there is not evidence of that

2- The only problem that was directly linked to geocachers was the fact that some people took some pictures that some people did not like. (Ie- propping themself against a headstone for a picture and such)

3- Yes there are a few cachers out there that can be wreckless and bring actions that are uncalled for. So far there has been no evidence linked to the problem in the low part of the state and the bill

4- Alice Flagg's grave is a virtual, and the reason for the bare ground path is because of the local legend that deals with her grave.


Your passion is great, but slow down and get the facts before you take up a personal crusaide on this

#45 User is offline   JimmyEv 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 07-July 02

Posted 11 April 2005 - 07:02 AM

You have to keep in mind that people with an agenda are not above using 'misleading' evidence, and this definately includes politicians. Are the photographs they are presenting genuine? If so, seems like the only source for them would be the logs. Do all the logs they're using, and the pictures, come from caches in South Carolina, or are they presenting evidence mined through geocaching.com, from cemetery caches located around the country, as representative of South Carolina cachers? If the evidence isn't specific to the South Carolina caches they claim are causing the problem, then this fallacy needs to be pointed out during the next meeting. And this doesn't even address the ultimate unenforceablity of the provision if cemeteries are used as virtual legs for multi-caches. which is how most cemetery caches around here are done.

#46 User is offline   Sandrich 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 18-February 02

Posted 11 April 2005 - 07:08 AM

We've just become aware of this topic in Michigan, so are watching with great interest. In our MiGO forums, we have asked our members to send an email in support of the cause.

#47 User is offline   sTeamTraen 

  • Geocachers in Alsace, France
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4010
  • Joined: 15-February 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 07:30 AM

I'm not an American, but I would have thought that disrespectful behaviour would be allowed by the First Amendment. That said, I doubt if there are many votes for state legislators in supporting people's right to behave like a**x in a cemetery.

Could you maybe take your retired minister and active missionary along to give their views from a religious perspective ?

I'm not sure if the legislation in question proposes to ban caching in cemeteries, or on all public land in SC. If the former, they would probably have my vote by now. If the latter, well, they seem to have a pretty good case for the cemeteries, but almost by extension they haven't said why it would be a bad idea on recreational land.

PS: Personally, I would never place a cache in a cemetery - and I'm the most non-religious, utilitarian, stick-me-in-a-bag-and-give-my-body-to science person I know - but that's just my preference. There must be lots of great multi-possibilities in the average cemetery.

#48 User is offline   arkansas stickerdude 

  • Stickerdude
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 30-January 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 07:33 AM

You know I think cemetary caches are great. I live in Oklahoma and 15 min west of here is a little town called Sallisaw and in Sallisaw there is a small cemetary in the back woods that has a very famous GANGSTER laid to rest there. Had it not been for geocaching I would have never known the Pretty Boy Floyd was buried there. When I found the virtual I called my dad and asked him if he know who Charles Floyde was because I knew he did, he loved the gangster movies. He told me he knew who it was and I asked if he knew where he was buried he also knew he was buried in Sallisaw. Just because my dad knew it I had to find it out by geocaching. Also about historic sites just west of the pretty boy floyd cemetary the is another virtual Sequoah's cabin this is very important to the native tribes that used to live in Oklahoma.also I would have never known it was here if it had not been for geocaching because this place is REALLY in the sticks, while there the only thing I saw was trees and a stream.

#49 User is offline   GeoGirlFriends 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 08-May 02

Posted 11 April 2005 - 12:11 PM

[FONT=Geneva][SIZE=1][COLOR=blue]

In case a survey is being taken, please count my vote as being in favor of the Bill, to just include cemeteries and not every other historic site in the State. Maybe a compromise on this Bill can be reached. However, I simply cannot see why it's necessary to GeoCache in a cemetery -- I would be so sad to think of these antics being played out at my Blessed Mother's grave.

TinSparrow, et al, thank you for engaging in this matter on behalf of SC Cachers; hopefully, wiser heads will prevail and a suitable compromise can be worked out.
MaryJane, ColumbiaSC

#50 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 04:06 PM

JimmyEv, on Apr 11 2005, 07:02 AM, said:

You have to keep in mind that people with an agenda are not above using 'misleading' evidence, and this definately includes politicians. Are the photographs they are presenting genuine? If so, seems like the only source for them would be the logs. Do all the logs they're using, and the pictures, come from caches in South Carolina, or are they presenting evidence mined through geocaching.com, from cemetery caches located around the country, as representative of South Carolina cachers? If the evidence isn't specific to the South Carolina caches they claim are causing the problem, then this fallacy needs to be pointed out during the next meeting. And this doesn't even address the ultimate unenforceablity of the provision if cemeteries are used as virtual legs for multi-caches. which is how most cemetery caches around here are done.

Yeah I have seen in the logs of someone I know pictures that were more then likely used in their presentation. TinSparrow is working on getting all the logs and pictures together and study them.

Share this topic:


  • (28 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked