“Gadget Geek” Geocachers in SC Cemeteries
I guess things are heating up in South Carolina.
The Columbia Star publishes a story today continuing to report on the clash between geocachers in that state and House Member Catherine Ceips.
High–tech scavenger hunt Geocachers invade hallowed ground
Listen to some of the language in this story (emphasis mine):
Once the gadget geeks pinpoint the loot, they engage in a curious ritual. They trade an item from the cache for something of their own, sign the logbook, and return the container to its hiding spot.
What’s so curious about noting your find and rehiding what you found?
The practice has raised suspicion among homeland security officials who don’t view the placement of geocaches under bridges as the harmless fun claimed by geocachers.
That much may very well be true. However, the article does not highlight any justification for this view. If it is simply because geocaching is unfamiliar to them (the most likely reason) many people are reflexively suspicious of the unfamiliar. There is nothing inherently dangerous about geocaching, of course. It would not be an effective terrorist threat to hide your bomb where only certain people could find it.
Knowing what geocaching is, does it make sense that it could be a threat to homeland security?
The suggestion that homeland security officials are concerned about geocaching makes you wonder what actual threat will be missed while they are focusing on a harmless activity.
A closer analysis of the story I linked above proves interesting to the “concerned citizen.” Here is an exercise for the critical reader. Look for any mention of geocachers causing any damage. You find none. No mention of property damage. In fact, no mention of actual instances of illegal tresspassing.
There is no mention here regarding whether the rules of geocaching mention restrictions on the placement of caches. In fact, they do. One of the accepted rules of geocaching is that no cache should be placed where the land owner or land manager would not want people to be.
There is very little useful detail in this story that would back up any fear of geocaching — just some creative wording. There is no mention of what reaction the geocaching community had when they learned that caches were placed where they were not welcome.
There is an attempt at balance near the end of the story, mentioning the practice of CITO (Cache In Trash Out). But the author works to downplay any benefit of removing trash from cache locations, astutely pointing out:
Countless other clue chasers, who are not members of the [SC Geocachers Association], have equal access to the Internet clue postings as do the eco–friendly association members.
The implication being, of course, that: (A) Only members of the SC Geocachers Association clean up trash and (B) They are in the minority of cachers.
I have to say, I’m extremely glad I am not a resident of South Carolina, and hope there is no snowball effect.
To be clear, I can completely understand the idea of having places where geocaches are not welcome. But I feel that should be left up to the land managers. I don’t feel we need politicians getting involved and passing laws, because there is a tendency among politicians to stir up outrage to get their name in the paper. Witness the idea mentioned in this story that the problem extends beyond a few cemeteries to encompass national security.
We’ve already seen the silly invention of “free speech zones.” Will we next be visited by “free movement zones” to eliminate all chance that someone might trespass somewhere? When proponents trumpet that national security is at stake, it’s hard to tell how far they intend to go.