CROW make my mind up time bca ballot papers are here

[Alex]

I did say I think .

 

[cavermark]

Is dancing allowed under CROW?

I am sorry but I cannot resist giving a longer answer than needed.  Any activity which come within the definition of open air recreation is permitted unless it has been specifically prohibited.  I did write one document which included dancing as an example of such an open air recreation.  But playing loud music may be considered to disturb others which is prohibited.  (There are other Acts which prohibit holding raves etc however.)  So yes you can dance and possibly even to quite music.

 

[Duncan Price]

Why would they propose doing anything against the interests of the cavers they represent?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Well? If CSCC member clubs were not happy with the way the CSCC run things, they have the option to change things. It has happened before.

 

[tony from suffolk]

Many will not agree with my views but we all have to think of the big picture.  We all have to think what is best for caving all over the country - not just in the north - a vote yes will damage caving. 

So what is "The Big Picture" here? It's surely safeguarding access to as many caves as possible for as long as possible for all cavers, not clinging on to the hope that landowners will continue to bestow access for a period but that a change in circumstances could deny that access at any time.

I'm dismayed by the short-sighted attitude exhibited by some folks. Of course there are risks to this, but then what in life hasn't a fair few? I know what's a more risky strategy here, and it sure ain't seeking greater freedom of access to caves.

 

[Bottlebank]

Many will not agree with my views but we all have to think of the big picture.  We all have to think what is best for caving all over the country - not just in the north - a vote yes will damage caving. 

So what is "The Big Picture" here? It's surely safeguarding access to as many caves as possible for as long as possible for all cavers, not clinging on to the hope that landowners will continue to bestow access for a period but that a change in circumstances could deny that access at any time.

I'm dismayed by the short-sighted attitude exhibited by some folks. Of course there are risks to this, but then what in life hasn't a fair few? I know what's a more risky strategy here, and it sure ain't seeking greater freedom of access to caves.

Tony,

If we were living in a time where access to caves was getting harder, and we were being barred from more and more areas, I'd agree with you.

In fact the opposite is happening, access is improving slowly year on year. Campaigning for CRoW could even reverse that improvement - especially if the campaign fails which it may well do.

If we keep the status quo and in a few years time find that we are increasingly losing access then that would be the time to think about CRoW.

Why take the risk now when we don't need to?

Cheers,

Tony

 

[Peter Burgess]

Comment on AditNow:

It was CROW that precipitated the sealing of Cwmystwyth and probably other places, I also wonder about the new and often pointless fences that sprouted up everywhere like mushrooms.

from someone who should know what he is talking about.

One wonders what effect simply raising the profile of CRoW again might have with landowners who have mines under their Open Access property, looking at what happened when the legislation first appeared. Never mind whether what happened was legally necessary or not, it happened, and it caused grief.

 

[Badlad]

If we were living in a time where access to caves was getting harder, and we were being barred from more and more areas, I'd agree with you.

In fact the opposite is happening, access is improving slowly year on year. Campaigning for CRoW could even reverse that improvement - especially if the campaign fails which it may well do.

If we keep the status quo and in a few years time find that we are increasingly losing access then that would be the time to think about CRoW.

Why take the risk now when we don't need to?

I wonder how the improved access you mention has come about.  Landowners just woke up one morning and thought they'd be a bit more generous to caving?  The truth is that it has come about on the backs of other peoples campaigning.  The Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council, the Open Spaces Society and most other sports representative bodies are continually campaigning for better access for their members.  These hard fought campaigns have resulted in legislation such as the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and more recently CRoW.  Access for all recreational users has improved immeasurably over the years because of it and caving has benefited too.  Documented history has shown that at every stage landowners have opposed change and improvements to access for the general public, but in end landowners have always accepted the outcomes. 

The 'big picture' is surely to campaign for a legal right of access to those caves where we can.  Secure access for our sport into the long term future.  Not wait until we loose access (or BCA are unable to renew insurance policies) and start campaigning then.

 

[Ian Adams]

Comment on AditNow:

It was CROW that precipitated the sealing of Cwmystwyth and probably other places, I also wonder about the new and often pointless fences that sprouted up everywhere like mushrooms.

from someone who should know what he is talking about.

One wonders what effect simply raising the profile of CRoW again might have with landowners who have mines under their Open Access property, looking at what happened when the legislation first appeared. Never mind whether what happened was legally necessary or not, it happened, and it caused grief.

That all happened a number of years before the CRoW debates which have led to the BCA Ballot.

The actions (in relation to CRoW) of cavers and mine-explorers had no bearing on the decision made by the landowners at Cwmystwyth.

Yes, the OP does know what he is talking about but I don't think it is reasonable for you to extract from his credibility to present a "quote" to argue a current issue where the OP was relating to a historical issue that was not affected by the current BCA ballot.

Ian

 

[Bottlebank]

If we were living in a time where access to caves was getting harder, and we were being barred from more and more areas, I'd agree with you.

In fact the opposite is happening, access is improving slowly year on year. Campaigning for CRoW could even reverse that improvement - especially if the campaign fails which it may well do.

If we keep the status quo and in a few years time find that we are increasingly losing access then that would be the time to think about CRoW.

Why take the risk now when we don't need to?

I wonder how the improved access you mention has come about.  Landowners just woke up one morning and thought they'd be a bit more generous to caving?  The truth is that it has come about on the backs of other peoples campaigning.  The Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council, the Open Spaces Society and most other sports representative bodies are continually campaigning for better access for their members.  These hard fought campaigns have resulted in legislation such as the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and more recently CRoW.  Access for all recreational users has improved immeasurably over the years because of it and caving has benefited too.  Documented history has shown that at every stage landowners have opposed change and improvements to access for the general public, but in end landowners have always accepted the outcomes. 

The 'big picture' is surely to campaign for a legal right of access to those caves where we can.  Secure access for our sport into the long term future.  Not wait until we loose access (or BCA are unable to renew insurance policies) and start campaigning then.

Tim,

It's come about for a lot of reasons, some of which you highlight, but I suspect mainly because the relationship between us and the people whose land we use has improved. Regardless of why the main thing is it has come about and the trend is positive.

The biggest threat I can see right now to access would be a failed campaign for CRoW. I don't want to take that risk.

If we lose insurance, if the trend reverses, I'd support you fully, but the time is not right for this.

You've got a big voice in the CNCC (no idea how as you're not in a member club so far as I know) - use that to work towards improving what the CNCC does - get access for all cavers by fixing the CNCC and through negotiation with landowners.

Cheers,

Tony

 

[Peter Burgess]

Comment on AditNow:

It was CROW that precipitated the sealing of Cwmystwyth and probably other places, I also wonder about the new and often pointless fences that sprouted up everywhere like mushrooms.

from someone who should know what he is talking about.

One wonders what effect simply raising the profile of CRoW again might have with landowners who have mines under their Open Access property, looking at what happened when the legislation first appeared. Never mind whether what happened was legally necessary or not, it happened, and it caused grief.

That all happened a number of years before the CRoW debates which have led to the BCA Ballot.

The actions (in relation to CRoW) of cavers and mine-explorers had no bearing on the decision made by the landowners at Cwmystwyth.

Yes, the OP does know what he is talking about but I don't think it is reasonable for you to extract from his credibility to present a "quote" to argue a current issue where the OP was relating to a historical issue that was not affected by the current BCA ballot.

Ian

Why not? The OP who we agree knows what he is talking about goes on to say:

It seems to me that start meddling and all you do is stir the pot.

And I agree with him.

 

[jasonbirder]

So your example is that something totally unconnected to caving (walkers/ramblers on the hills near that particular slate mine) has caused the Landowner to deny access...

And on the back of that;your suggestion is...DON'T try and obtain secured access to caves on CRoW land - leave it all in the hands of the Landowners goodwill!

 

[Peter Burgess]

Lead mine. Not entirely unrelated to "caving".

 

[Peter Burgess]

Demonstrate to an owner that you want to increase footfall, and unregulated footfall at that, and if they have "dangerous" mines on the property, then of course they are going to feel twitchy. I would.

 

[bograt]

Its more likely that because underground access was not included in CRoW the landowner decided to isolate these features from the permitted areas, probably under advice that they were not covered by CRoW indemnity.

 

[jasonbirder]

Lead mine. Not entirely unrelated to "caving"

The increased footfall was because of CRoW bringing increased numbers (or concerns of increased numbers) of walkers onto the Moor...nothing to do with the Lead Mine

 

[tony from suffolk]

Many will not agree with my views but we all have to think of the big picture.  We all have to think what is best for caving all over the country - not just in the north - a vote yes will damage caving. 

So what is "The Big Picture" here? It's surely safeguarding access to as many caves as possible for as long as possible for all cavers, not clinging on to the hope that landowners will continue to bestow access for a period but that a change in circumstances could deny that access at any time.

I'm dismayed by the short-sighted attitude exhibited by some folks. Of course there are risks to this, but then what in life hasn't a fair few? I know what's a more risky strategy here, and it sure ain't seeking greater freedom of access to caves.

Tony,

If we were living in a time where access to caves was getting harder, and we were being barred from more and more areas, I'd agree with you.

In fact the opposite is happening, access is improving slowly year on year. Campaigning for CRoW could even reverse that improvement - especially if the campaign fails which it may well do.

If we keep the status quo and in a few years time find that we are increasingly losing access then that would be the time to think about CRoW.

Why take the risk now when we don't need to?

Cheers,

Tony

So it's fingers crossed that access will continue to be allowed on the current basis then? The longer time goes by the less likely it will be that the argument for CRoW being applicable to caves can be made.

 

[Cave_Troll]

I've always thought it was odd that i can go for a walk across some areas of the Yorkshire dales. I can even go for a walk wearing wellies and a yellow PVC suit, but as soon as i trip over and fall down a hole i'm trespassing.

That said I don't believe i have access to all caves everywhere (even ones with gates, "trespass fees", permit systems or in back gardens).

It may happen that permit caves on rights of way / access land may just have rubble / concrete dumped down them to solve the problem

 

[Peter Burgess]

Lead mine. Not entirely unrelated to "caving"

The increased footfall was because of CRoW bringing increased numbers (or concerns of increased numbers) of walkers onto the Moor...nothing to do with the Lead Mine

It hardly matters why the increase in footfall. The result was a denial of access! Obviously something that doesn't bother you.

 

[Peter Burgess]

And in case you don't know, access is now possible, only because of a mine explorer going out of his way to sort it out through negotiation, setting up a trust etc etc, and not by using CRoW legislation as a fix all. I just say thank God for such people.