Crow: yes vote. worst case?

[Peter Burgess]

Can someone show me where an authoritative opinion from an important landowner representative body has been made available and I will concede Ian's point. In mitigation, if one has been posted, then I can only say it has simply been buried in mountains of drivel.

 

[Ian Adams]

I said this;

... a number of people HAVE posted links expressly to address the issue(s) ....

Not this;

.... an authoritative opinion from an important landowner representative body has been made available

I have not followed all the links (I wonder how many people have read ?everything?) and I am certain you are right about (links);

...  buried in mountains of drivel.

Ian

 

[Bottlebank]

Maybe the first point here is to understand that NE and DEFRA have been lobbied by individual cavers who are against CRoW applying to access to caves, despite NCA in 1998 responding to the original government consultation in a positive manner detailing why it was felt that caves should be included.  (Note that this is on record, it was approved by NCA C&A Committee and by NCA Council, and a copy of the original NCA responses is available as one of the documents listed in http://tinyurl.com/pro-CRoW-caving.)  In addition, the NCA response was not followed up after 2000 as it should have been, due partly to changes in personnel involved and partly because the transition from NCA to BCA was taking place and we "took our eye off the ball".  This "anti" lobbying by individuals has continued through to this year.

The situation is therefore, in the eyes of NE and DEFRA, thoroughly confused as they are being given conflicting messages: an official one from NCA in 1998, and later ones from individuals purporting to represent authoritatively the "views of cavers". 

The BCA Chairman has now had informal discussions with senior officers from NE and DEFRA and they will know that BCA members, as a whole, are now being asked for their views on whether the matter should be taken further, i.e. whether the national body is being asked formally by the majority of its members to do so.  In the event that the ballot returns a 'yes', then discussions will resume with officialdom - almost certainly on an informal basis initially - and it will be possible to explore more fully the issues.

I fully expect that this would take time and everyone will be acutely aware of the need to behave sensitively and consult with landowners and the bodies which represent them as well as with the cavers and caving organisations who manage access on behalf of cavers.  It's not a "done deal", it's a process, and some of the questions are impossible to answer unless and until BCA is further down the line of consultation.

Of course this is not an "official outline"; just my views.  But I hope and believe that it is the sort of process which would take place.  And BCA's Conservation & Access Group will have this in mind at its next meeting, which will be prior to the deadline for ballot returns.

Jenny,

I appreciate these are your views, not an official statement.

Thanks for confirming this is a process, not a decision, nevertheless the BCA on the basis of the question we are told is to be asked will be committing themselves not just to the process but to a campaign.

I appreciate the next meeting (the 22nd?) is before the deadline but anything that emerges from it may well be too late for someone who has voted.

Will the next C & A group meeting be BEFORE the ballot is sent out - i.e. is there an opportunity to amend the question - or have the ballot papers already been printed? Do you know what stage this is at?

Or can Damian, Cookie or someone else answer this one?

Thanks!

 

[droid]

To me Common Sense is the BCA representing Cavers campaigning on our behalf for better access...
Roll on the vote so we can put the factionalism behind us and let them get on with making our recognition under CRoW a reality!

The referendum will simply show the majority feeling. Given some of the rather 'over-the-top' comments above, the 'losers' are hardly likely to change their minds.

 

[martinm]

Great posts by Jenny, as usual. She, Bob Mehew and Tim Allen (members of the BCA  CRoW working group) are very knowledgeable about a lot of the issues. DEFRA/NE are being consulted and are amenable to further discussions, but want it to come from BCA and that is one reason BCA are balloting it's members.

I have personally talked to the Peak National Trust Project Manager about the issue.  They are one of the major landowners in the Peak. Neither of us thought there would be a problem. I have been told by the DCA L&I Officer that Chatsworth are amenable to discussions about the matter too. (Another major landowner.) Other landowners are being consulted too by various C&A officers in the various regions.

Until BCA has a consensus of opinion from it's many members nothing further will happen. Whichever way the vote goes, BCA will listen to it's members and proceed appropriately.

As I've said before, discussion on here is useful in helping people form an opinion, but in the end unless you vote in the ballot it won't have much effect.

My opinion, not an official DCA one. However, you should be able to read DCAs official stance on the matter when the minutes are finished and go up on the DCA web site in due course.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Sorry, I am otherwise engaged so this will be short. 

As I recall from the last Council meeting, BCA is neutral and before it takes any action (be that writing to land owners, consulting with DEFRA / NE etc) it wants to know what the views of its membership are.  Hence organising a poll. 

The poll was set by Council and C&A do not have the authority to amend it. 

 

[Peter Burgess]

From elsewhere:

The question will be: "Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) to apply to going underground?" The options will be "yes" or "no".

It's too late now, but the question might have displayed BCA's neutrality better as:

"Should BCA investigate on your behalf, by discussion with DEFRA, landowners etc, whether OR NOT it would be to cavers' advantage for CRoW to be recognised as applying to caving". This is not the same question presented a different way. But hey ho we are stuck with an unsatisfactory choice.

I think I have come to realise now, why I am uncomfortable with how this has been presented to UK cavers.

 

[damian]

Will the next C & A group meeting be BEFORE the ballot is sent out - i.e. is there an opportunity to amend the question - or have the ballot papers already been printed? Do you know what stage this is at?

Or can Damian, Cookie or someone else answer this one?

Nothing has been printed yet, but it is extremely unlikely that the question will be altered since it was agreed unanimously by BCA's senior democratic body, ie Council. It is no longer an issue for the Conservation & Access Committee, who are limiting their business to other matters.

You are, of course, welcome to communicate with me directly as to why the question should  be altered.

 

[Badlad]

Many public landowners and bodies have a statutory duty to make the land as open to the public as possible.  At the moment the National Nature Reserves are being dedicated as CRoW access land because of this statute.  It is actually a good parallel with what might happen with caving.

Most landowners/farmers in our caving regions are receiving large sums of public money as a subsidy under the various stewardship schemes.  These are granted by Natural England and the sums involved can be seen of their web site.  One well known caving landowner in the Dales, for example, has an agreement for ?576,000 over a ten year period.  Often little needs to be done for this money but one criteria is that the landowner must show he is allowing greater and or new public access to elements of his land.  Greater access to caves would secure landowners more of this cash.

There has been a gradual change in attitudes by many landowners to members of the public and recreational users over the last decade or two.  There is a lot less 'get orf my land' and a much more welcoming approach generally.  You can see it amongst various farmers in the Dales especially where the younger generation has taken over from the old.

One of the major events which changed attitudes was the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak.  This seriously affected the rural economy, not just of farming but the tourist and recreational industries too.  The farmers may have got some compensation for livestock but the rest got next to nothing.  However, the traditional rural landowners and farmers soon realised how much the other countryside users meant to them.  Many had diversified into holiday lets, bunkhouses, food and craft businesses and these were hit hardest.  It was obvious that in any given farming family the farmer and son may farm, but the wife, daughter, son in law, niece and nephew will probably be reliant on tourist and recreational users of the countryside to hire the cottages, visit the shops, restaurants, pubs and other small businesses.  This has led to a more accepting attitude to other users of the countryside.

Sure not everyone has changed but I don't see any evidence of the doom mongering to improved access that has been suggested by some in this topic. 

 

[JJ]

This especially relates to the Dales. 

 

[cap n chris]

[mod]Waver not from remaining on topic; do waver from bickering and being petty. Ta. 2 posts which did not conform to this paradisical wishworld have been moved to the offline archive.[/mod]

 

[bograt]

Badlad, WELL DONE, this shows a refreshing understanding of the non-landowning sector and thanks for that, it has revised my opinion, maybe some cavers do understand the situation.

One point;

" Greater access to caves would secure landowners more of this cash."

Public access OK, education OK, historical OK, archaeolical OK, I cannot find any reference to Geogical features in the stewardship criteria, it may be there, but I have not found it, maybe the next campaign by BSA, backed up by NGS????.

There is a category for 'education' that I know was used by instructers a few years ago, maybe ACI could look into this, I know Dave Edwards (RIP) had it sussed.

 

[Bottlebank]

Many public landowners and bodies have a statutory duty to make the land as open to the public as possible.  At the moment the National Nature Reserves are being dedicated as CRoW access land because of this statute.  It is actually a good parallel with what might happen with caving.

Most landowners/farmers in our caving regions are receiving large sums of public money as a subsidy under the various stewardship schemes.  These are granted by Natural England and the sums involved can be seen of their web site.  One well known caving landowner in the Dales, for example, has an agreement for ?576,000 over a ten year period.  Often little needs to be done for this money but one criteria is that the landowner must show he is allowing greater and or new public access to elements of his land.  Greater access to caves would secure landowners more of this cash.

There has been a gradual change in attitudes by many landowners to members of the public and recreational users over the last decade or two.  There is a lot less 'get orf my land' and a much more welcoming approach generally.  You can see it amongst various farmers in the Dales especially where the younger generation has taken over from the old.

One of the major events which changed attitudes was the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak.  This seriously affected the rural economy, not just of farming but the tourist and recreational industries too.  The farmers may have got some compensation for livestock but the rest got next to nothing.  However, the traditional rural landowners and farmers soon realised how much the other countryside users meant to them.  Many had diversified into holiday lets, bunkhouses, food and craft businesses and these were hit hardest.  It was obvious that in any given farming family the farmer and son may farm, but the wife, daughter, son in law, niece and nephew will probably be reliant on tourist and recreational users of the countryside to hire the cottages, visit the shops, restaurants, pubs and other small businesses.  This has led to a more accepting attitude to other users of the countryside.

Sure not everyone has changed but I don't see any evidence of the doom mongering to improved access that has been suggested by some in this topic.

Tim,

You make some good points. This is even more reason why the consultation should take place before the vote, if what you say IS backed up by what landowners and farmers say I'd be a lot happier with this.

You talk of doom mongering but I don't see any evidence for the blind optimism you and others are expressing.

Let's get the evidence before we make any decisions we may come to regret.

Tony

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Yes, well said Badlad.

Bograt, surely increased caving just falls under public access?

 

[bograt]

Yes, well said Badlad.

Bograt, surely increased caving just falls under public access?

Yes, but the payments go by area, not footfall, if they already have access payments for ramblers, etc., allowing cavers will make no difference either way.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

OK, shame it's not foot fall or "activity diversity" although I guess either of those is too hard to measure.  I wonder if there are any grants for RIGS (Regionally Important Geological Sites), having said that are any caves designated as RIGS and if not why not?

 

[cap n chris]

IIRC RIGS are not protected by any statute, they are just a designation for things like planning consideration etc..

 

[bograt]

A lot of Peak District caves are on RIGS sites, one of our past conservation officers had  thing about it, he managed to get them listed. As Cap'n Chris says, an extra defense against planning, unfortunately no finacial advantage to anyone.

 

[jasonbirder]

but the question might have displayed BCA's neutrality better as:

"Should BCA investigate on your behalf, by discussion with DEFRA, landowners etc, whether OR NOT it would be to cavers' advantage for CRoW to be recognised as applying to caving".

Well I specifically DON'T want the BCA to consult landowners first before a vote...I expect the BCA to take a vote on its members preferences and then do its best to implement them...doubtless that will involve discussion and negotiation with DEFRA - but that's after the fact...

I expect this is a case of the No camp hoping DEFRA will say they're happy with the status quo - and that statement delaying/diluting further activity by the BCA...

 

[bograt]

but the question might have displayed BCA's neutrality better as:

"Should BCA investigate on your behalf, by discussion with DEFRA, landowners etc, whether OR NOT it would be to cavers' advantage for CRoW to be recognised as applying to caving".

Well I specifically DON'T want the BCA to consult landowners first before a vote...I expect the BCA to take a vote on its members preferences and then do its best to implement them...doubtless that will involve discussion and negotiation with DEFRA - but that's after the fact...

I expect this is a case of the No camp hoping DEFRA will say they're happy with the status quo - and that statement delaying/diluting further activity by the BCA...

I would also like to point out that after the Foot & Mouth debacle, a lot of livestock farmers in the affected areas became disillusioned with the way CLA handled it and withdrew their membership, considering the majority of caves are on livestock land, and arable (the bigger, more influencial CLBA membership) is not in the CRoW equation, are CLBA the best people to contact?
(P.S. at the time they were the CLA, they added the 'business' bit afterwards to try to regain members)