BCA 'referendum' on CRoW

[MJenkinson]

Forgive me if I have missed this in previous discussions but..

How many caves would have access limitations removed if CROW applies, versus how many nice caves would have access constraints lifted thus running the risk of damage?

Surely everyone has a right to go down a cave if on access land within the country which they fund through taxes and the like?  Some caves may see more traffic and they may get vandalised but isn't that a small price to pay for opening up the sport of caving to more people as and when they want to do it?

 

[ianball11]

Some caves may see more traffic and they may get vandalised but isn't that a small price to pay for opening up the sport of caving to more people as and when they want to do it?

no

 

[MJenkinson]

Some caves may see more traffic and they may get vandalised but isn't that a small price to pay for opening up the sport of caving to more people as and when they want to do it?

no

Well I guess we differ. In my opinion, it just seems there is a fundamental difference between those who want to be able to cave as and when they choose and those who want to restrict access. I am not all for damaging caves or ignoring conservation, but I guess I feel that access is more important. Other views are available.

 

[graham]

And there, in a nutshell, is the problem. Some people value their own convenience against the protection of fragile environments. 

 

[Bob Mehew]

How many caves would have access limitations removed if CROW applies, versus how many nice caves would have access constraints lifted thus running the risk of damage?

The fairly rough figures are around 2500 caves are on Access Land, of which around 1500 are on SSSIs (within a few hundred).  Of these we think around 20 have gates and of these only 4 are understood to have a leadership control system.  (Data in the download at http://tinyurl.com/pro-CRoW-caving-01 is a bit out of date.)  I exclude Forest of Dean from the above which is a odd case in that the Forestry Commission control the 75 caves on Access Land and have used their legal powers to ban access without permission to 63 , hence stepping around CRoW.

My first pass is that 4 do have a case for control of access if CRoW applies to caving with possibly another 20 or so given they are locked but have no such control.  I can't see it is feasible to make case where the cave is not locked. 

 

[MJenkinson]

And there, in a nutshell, is the problem. Some people value their own convenience against the protection of fragile environments. 

Who are you to decide who gets to see which cave and when? I consider myself a careful caver, I have not touched delicate formations, crossed any tape or damaged anything thing on purpose. Yes, my presence / movement through a cave is in itself damaging to a cave but then that applies to all caves.  I have no wish to venture into a cave and damage it. I fully believe that leader systems are required in some caves and appreciate the efforts of those who set them up - but taking the stance that this, which applies to a fistful of caves, should override my ability to cave and enjoy the outdoors at my leisure in my country, seems a bit short sighted.  I stress this is my view, everyone gets a vote.

If the wheels turn so slowly in government as referenced regarding getting an access restriction in place under CROW, what are the chances of these gates being cut off caves immediately? Are cavers really that desperate to see St Cuthberts or wherever ( I am sure they are not as the leader system is working well for all cavers is it not?) that they would start cutting off gates? Joe Public would have already damaged these gates if they wanted in.  Surely you then have time to sort restrictions out? There wont be a queue of people, hammers in hand, ready to descend X cave as soon as it's passed that CROW applies. 

The above combined with some delay before it is actually formally acknowledged that CROW applies to caves, should surely give us time to sort out the special cases. I stress, us, as all cavers want caves protected to suitable level.

 

[graham]

And there, in a nutshell, is the problem. Some people value their own convenience against the protection of fragile environments. 

Who are you to decide who gets to see which cave and when? I consider myself a careful caver, I have not touched delicate formations, crossed any tape or damaged anything thing on purpose. Yes, my presence / movement through a cave is in itself damaging to a cave but then that applies to all caves.  I have no wish to venture into a cave and damage it. I fully believe that leader systems are required in some caves and appreciate the efforts of those who set them up - but taking the stance that this, which applies to a fistful of caves, should override my ability to cave when and where I want seems rather short sighted.  I stress this is my view, everyone gets a vote.

If the wheels turn so slowly in government as referenced regarding getting an access restriction in place under CROW, what are the chances of these gates being cut off caves immediately? Are cavers really that desperate to see St Cuthberts or wherever ( I am sure they are not as the leader system is working well for all cavers is it not?) that they would start cutting off gates? Joe Public would have already damaged these gates if they wanted in.

Two points. I do not judge who should or should not visit caves, but I do try to help people do this carefully. Leaving delicate caves open to anyone only results in damage. This is demonstrable by anyone who has read early accounts of Swildon's Hole and visited it now - and has then visited St. Cuthbert's

Gates have been taken off caves in the past and recent examples of this, often in Wales can be found on this forum. Take a look. Some people have also indicated that they would most certainly make moves for gates to be left open immediately if this campaign succeeds. Am I going to name those people here? No, of course I'm not but , again, if you read the threads, you'll find some really rather indicative posts.

 

[graham]

My first pass is that 4 do have a case for control of access if CRoW applies to caving with possibly another 20 or so given they are locked but have no such control.  I can't see it is feasible to make case where the cave is not locked.

I can name more than 4 without even having to think hard. Not all on Mendip, either.

 

[MJenkinson]

Some people have also indicated that they would most certainly make moves for gates to be left open immediately if this campaign succeeds. Am I going to name those people here? No, of course I'm not but , again, if you read the threads, you'll find some really rather indicative posts.

Well, that's a piss poor state of affairs, and I find it very hard to believe that any caver would actually do that to a fragile cave. Will they be jumping down holes on Leck Fell immediately - I expect so and I can't personally see an issue with that.

I will leave it at that.

 

[Mark Wright]

And others Graham, probably the vast majority, (the referendum will likely confirm this) value the right to go caving at their convenience on an equal par with conserving those same caves we all love so much.

Of course there will be challenges along the way if the referendum outcome is a 'yes' but those challenges will be overcome with time. I'm sure nobody really thinks the cave vandals are waiting for all the gates to be removed so they can go and trash a cave before you get your protection in place.

The examples you (Graham) give against a 'yes' vote are extreme worst case scenarios. If we live our lives always setting policy on the worst case scenario then we will never do anything.

Another worst case scenario to consider would be somebody makes a claim on the BCA insurance for ?5M resulting in us not being able to afford the premiums, or more likely being refused further cover. Where would that leave us under the current system when access agreements have been made on the basis of having such insurance cover.

Whether BCA members vote 'yes' or 'no', there will always be an element of risk, however high or low you perceive it to be.

Cheers,

Mark

 

 

[Peter Burgess]

Perhaps people are expecting too much from these discussions. As I see it, the discussion is helpful if the following are achieved:

People unsure what to do can ask for information that helps them decide one way or the other.
People who have an opinion are permitted to express it without being chastised for doing so.
People who simply want to understand the opposite viewpoint can ask for it without being expected to change their own point of view.
People who read what is posted come to their own decision without actually getting involved in the debate.

What is not going to happen are the following:

People change their mind because they are insulted or abused. This is, in fact, counter-productive.
The referendum is cancelled because some people think it is a waste of money.

Perhaps, if those who wish to get involved in this debate bear the above points in mind the debate will have some value. If we don't, all that is achieved is animosity, and division. Both completely unnecessary in my opinion.

 

[graham]

And others Graham, probably the vast majority, (the referendum will likely confirm this) value the right to go caving at their convenience on an equal par with conserving those same caves we all love so much.

So your convenience is of the same value is it.

I suggest you tell that to the people who spent their time digging "unnecessary" bypasses to delicate passages in order that the later might be kept intact.

Your "convenience" would have had "Neverland" renamed "Don't bother it's f****d land" 

 

[badger]

we have 16 pages where the 2 sides have yet to move forward and at the moment never will. we can start as many threads as people want the outcome will be the same the 2 sides have different views.
Bottlebank has summed up the whole issue up very well, graham has stated that whilst he will not change his view he wants cavers to except that until or if it happens we will not know.
I am with Bottlebank, close all crow threads, there is enough information to troll through to make a decision
we will know soon enough which way cavers want the BCA to proceed

 

[Peter Burgess]

It isn't expected that the "sides" will move, but it is important that "individuals" are encouraged to come to an informed decision.

 

[Bartleby]

Have tried to get my head round exactly what this CROW act means to me, a mine explorer who ventures into caves when hell freezes over.  I don't want a long convoluted, drawn out answer, or a rant about whos right or wrong.  I genuinley have no idea whast going on.

 

[graham]

Have tried to get my head round exactly what this CROW act means to me, a mine explorer who ventures into caves when hell freezes over.  I don't want a long convoluted, drawn out answer, or a rant about whos right or wrong.  I genuinley have no idea whast going on.

I understand, according to those that know about mines that they will not be affected by any changes to CRoW that affect caves. there is one voice (only one) who thinks otherwise. I expect you won't notice, one way or the other.

Unless Hell does freeze over, of course.

 

[Ian Adams]

I agree with Badger's thoughts and still think Bottlebank's post is excellent.


Bartleby,
Sorry you have found yourself in the middle of a "rumpus". I am afraid I don't think the position with mine exploring is very clear (certainly I am not clear on it).

There is a line of thought that suggests it is covered but there is also the consideration of the "mines & quarries act" (which doesn't cover older mines in the same manner) which may override CRoW legislation.

Personally (my opinion), I would expect the mines & quarries act to supersede CRoW..... (I am agreeing with Graham that I don't think they will be affected by CRoW)

Hopefully someone with better knowledge than me will be able to give you a more definitive answer.



Ian

 

[Chocolate fireguard]

Does anyone think this Topic has run its course and is again, going nowhere?

Yes.
You got a few answers to this sensible question and then the terminally self-absorbed took over again.

 

[robjones]

There is a line of thought that suggests it is covered but there is also the consideration of the "mines & quarries act" (which doesn't cover older mines in the same manner) which may override CRoW legislation.

My post way back on page 8 of this thread might help a little with regard to the current definition of mine in UK statutes, and with regard to the current status of Mines & Quarries Act 1954 section 151.

It is my unqualified interpretation that if the CRoW Act was intended to supersede the obligations placed on owners of abandoned mines by the M&Q Act 1954, then the CRoW Act would have contained specific provision in that regard -  e.g. a section clarifying intent in this regard, such as M&Q Act 1954 ceasing to apply to mines on access land. In the absence of such provision, it is my unqualified interpretation that the provision of the preceding legislation (M&Q Act 1954) remain unaltered and that consequently the CRoW Act does not enable access to abandoned mines that fall within the M&Q Act 1954. 

As Ian (I think) noted upthread, there are some abandoned mines that fall outside the M&Q Act 1954. These can be summarised very broadly as non-coal  or stratified ironstone mines abandoned prior to 1872. With regard to such mines, I am very uncertain whether one could claim individual entrances as being not covered, or whether an entire mine would have to have been not worked after 1872. Most metal and slate mines of any size saw some degree of working after 1872, so whether 'mine' in this instance indicates 'an entrance' or 'the entire mine' would
seem to be relevant. As with so many aspects of access for mine explorers, I suspect its a can of worms best left unstirred. 

I am, however, merely a mine explorer on the Clapham omnibus...

 

[John S]

If I am understanding Graham correctly, he is after a time it would take to put a locked gate on (or keep it on) a CRoW cave.

We know gates can help conserve a cave but still the best method is education. We can?t put everyone in a classroom, but we still have a very good, on site educational tool. That is taping. It is not going to stop an idiot damaging stuff (nor is agate for that fact) but it will indicate what is important to preserve and it makes people think. That?s half the conservation battle won.

On a trip into Upper Flood Swallet with its gate and leader system, I was concerned about the in cave measures at the sharp end as it were. Some were very good but others need more work. A quick look at photos of UFS, will show that some have had tape removed. This means that when its re-laid it can extend the damage zone. ( Its almost as bad as seeing photographic models on the wrong side of the tape.) And this damage is done with leaders present I assume. Maybe this is another topic, so back to the main one.

So in summary, gates can help conserve a cave but we don?t need a Section 26, to tape sensitive areas. We can always keep quiet for a few weeks if we find something that really, is in need of the extra protection that a gate may provide.  So far this is less than 1% of know CRoW caves, we can put plenty of time in to get this handful sorted out. Not a huge wave to inundate the relevant authority.