Crow: yes vote. worst case?

[Bob Mehew]

Apologies for the delay in response but my weekend was wiped out by a family emergency and I am just recovering from the aftermath.

Steviet_scg asks at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17199.msg226249#msg226249 having specified some pre conditions

What are the consequences to those individuals (presuming they get caught).

Someone using a metal detector on crow land would be banned for 72 hours. Would it be the same for cavers or could a more serious charge be laid against them?

The 72 hour ban applies to any one failing to comply with CRoW.  Persistent behaviour could lead the land owner to try for a charge of criminal trespass or more probably an injunction banning the individual from going on the land.  Contravention of an injunction can have legal consequences.  So the worst case is 'go to jail'.       

 

[steviet_scg]

Thanks Bob. Your reply is appreciated particularly when you've been dealing with more pressing and important matters.
Steve

 

[ah147]

Nobody seems to realise if CRoW was granted landowners CANNOT fill in a cave. They cannot restrict access in that manner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bottlebank]

Nobody seems to realise if CRoW was granted landowners CANNOT fill in a cave. They cannot restrict access in that manner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can if it's not on access land.

 

[ah147]

Nobody seems to realise if CRoW was granted landowners CANNOT fill in a cave. They cannot restrict access in that manner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can if it's not on access land.

So why is it being included in this discussion? Or am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steviet_scg]

My reason for starting this thread was to try and understand the consequences of a yes vote that failed to deliver any changes to the interpretation of the CRoW legislation with regards to caves.

One consequence that has been raised is that a landowner might take umbridge with cavers trying to secure a right to descend cavers on crow land and block the entrances. That is why it is relevant.

 

[Aubrey]

In future there will be less caves available to explore.

Under the present (status quo) many landowners are willing to allow digs on their land. Ultimately some of these digs open into caveable passages. The landowner currently has the right to control access at any time and therefore does not see any great downside to the dig because he has control of what happens.

If CROW applied to caves he would loose this right to control access to any cave which is found. The footfall on his land would increase and cavers would be free to come and go at any time of day or night. If this became an annoyance he would be unable to do any thing about it. In practice this would also devalue his land.

How can a landowner protect his assets?  By not allowing a cave to be discovered on his land by not allowing digging to look for it.

p.s. This will be good for long term cave conservation because no one will ever get into the cave!

 

[Pete K]

Perhaps as a community of cavers we should accept that although digging is important to the future of the sport, it is far less important in the scheme of things than a legally enshrined right of access to caves on CRoW land.
Any situation is a compromise and not everyone will be pleased.

 

[Bottlebank]

Perhaps as a community of cavers we should accept that although digging is important to the future of the sport, it is far less important in the scheme of things than a legally enshrined right of access to caves on CRoW land.
Any situation is a compromise and not everyone will be pleased.

You can accept that if you want, but I don't.

And this isn't just about diggers, it may impact commercial cavers as well, and if it goes wrong it'll affect all cavers.

A legally enshrined right of access to caves on CRoW land simply isn't needed.

 

[Aubrey]

Perhaps as a community of cavers we should accept that although digging is important to the future of the sport, it is far less important in the scheme of things than a legally enshrined right of access to caves on CRoW land.
Any situation is a compromise and not everyone will be pleased.

Caving is not just sport!

 

[graham]

Perhaps as a community of cavers we should accept that although digging is important to the future of the sport, it is far less important in the scheme of things than a legally enshrined right of access to caves on CRoW land.
Any situation is a compromise and not everyone will be pleased.

Caving is not just sport!

 

[Pete K]

Sport, pastime, hobby, obsession. Semantics.
Commercial concerns wouldn't change from what they are now. Access would still need agreeing and in some cases paying for.

 

[Spike]

Sport, pastime, hobby, obsession. Semantics.
Commercial concerns wouldn't change from what they are now. Access would still need agreeing and in some cases paying for.

Science? Research? Exploration?

 

[Pete K]

All of the above. That's why it's so important to secure access rights for the future, despite the short term problems.

 

[Aubrey]

All of the above. That's why it's so important to secure access rights for the future, despite the short term problems.

My argument is CROW will prevent access to yet undiscovered caves.

 

[Pete K]

That may be the case on CRoW land and it is a concern. I however think it is more important to secure what we have that worry about what we don't even know exists yet.
Non CRoW land it's business as usual with digs.

 

[droid]

What we have is already 'secure'. For all the whinging the regional councils haven't done a bad job. If there's problems it's been caused by cavers as much as landowners

 

[Pete K]

Hardly 'secure' if a landowner can stop access any time they wish without so much as an explanation is it?

I am an officer of a regional council and they do a stunningly good job IMO. This debate is about CRoW is it not, nothing to do with the councils?

 

[droid]

That isn't exactly a common occurrence is it?

One of the major Pro-protaginists comes from an area where access problems seem to be caused by cavers not landowners.

And exploration is the bedrock of the sport. The caves you take your clients down were discovered and explored by someone, and that 'someone' probably wasn't a commercial operator....

 

[Pete K]

Commercial interests are of no relevance in this thread. Giants is on private land. Bagshawe is on private land. Carlswark is on private land. Peak is on....... you get the idea. This CRoW debate will not effect my business and is nothing to do with my view.
I doubt any new cave was discovered by led trips either. Don't see any reason to make that point apart from getting a cheap shot in at those who make a living doing something they love. :thumbsdown:

Anyway, I've still not been convinced that the importance of something yet to exist or be discovered out ways a legally enshrined right for all cavers.