Crow: yes vote. worst case?

[tony from suffolk]

As things stand at the moment, why would a landowner allow permission for cavers to dig up his land anyway?

 

[jasonbirder]

The point I was trying to make was that I find it difficult to envisage a Landowner who is sufficiently pro-caving or pro caver to allow digging access (Surface dig) which he is under no obligation to grant...but anti-caving to the point where he isn't prepared to give them equal status with  Walkers/Ramblers/Climbers/Kite Fliers who can come and go as they please...

What's the argument to suggest this will be commonplace...

Do you mind if we come and dig a whole in your field? Yes, thats fine...

Do you mind if we come and go on your land in the same way as walkers ramblers and picnickers currently do? Gerroff mi land.....

 

[Peter Burgess]

I am flattered that bograt thinks any owners are interested in what I write here. I credit owners with the intelligence to think and act for themselves - which was my point. They do.

If you want to have an influence, then you need to talk to them. Now. Not after any BCA referendum or any decision by DEFRA.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The worst case scenario.

No approach made to anyone to get feelings/information of DEFRA and landowners. BCA members vote yes. DEFRA disagrees. Reaction of disaffected owners results in worsening of caver/owner relations.

Less access all round. Poorer relations due to less trust between all parties.

It's good to talk. Never assume you know what other people are thinking.

Were DEFRA to have agreed, then there might be more access but at what expense?

 

[bograt]

And the BCA doesn't need a mandate to discuss CRoW with a landowners association, they should just get on with it.

What you appear to be implying is that the BCA should determine if CLBA are likely to oppose this line of action and if so this should influence the vote.

Do you think the caving populous would be happy to be influenced in this way by a non-caving organisation?

Re - Estelles post, good point, well made. The observation I would like to make is that whilst the dig is in progress, the relationship is between the farmer and a relatively compact group of diggers, and as such is more manageable from the liability point of view. Once the dig 'goes' and becomes a 'public' system, with the increased traffic that is likely to entail, the farmers liability would be absolved  under CRoW.

I am flattered that bograt thinks any owners are interested in what I write here. I credit owners with the intelligence to think and act for themselves - which was my point. They do.

If you want to have an influence, then you need to talk to them. Now. Not after any BCA referendum or any decision by DEFRA.

I can think of at least one landowner who is very interested in the perceived attitude of cavers towards landowners, as illustrated on this site. You can be sure that if any conflict should arise, posts here will be monitored by both sides.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Monitoring is great. Being swayed by what I write I find hard to credit. Of course, if the BCA communicated with influential owner bodies, they wouldn't need to monitor, would they?

 

[estelle]

Re - Estelles post, good point, well made. The observation I would like to make is that whilst the dig is in progress, the relationship is between the farmer and a relatively compact group of diggers, and as such is more manageable from the liability point of view. Once the dig 'goes' and becomes a 'public' system, with the increased traffic that is likely to entail, the farmers liability would be absolved  under CRoW.

and you've turned it straight back around to liability which is what i said i don't think it is always about...  : I think a lot of landowners will care less about the liability than they do about people wandering freely around on their land to go caving and if they can't have an 'access system' they have an element of control over, they are more likely to stop the dig before it gets to being a cave. The nice thing about the current system is if the dig goes, you can gradually work on the landowner to open up the access to being beyond the small group of diggers thay have built a relationship with and hopefully get it as easy access for all as they get used to the fact that (most) cavers are ok people with respect for their land and property. I think some landowners are interested and like having a cave on their land, but on their terms, which is why they are perhaps happy to allow a dig in the first place. I think a lot don't think beyond the 'allowing the dig' though at the moment, but they would if they knew they would lose control as soon as it became a cave...

 

[Peter Burgess]

I think Estelle understands human nature very well. Good post.

 

[Bottlebank]

And the BCA doesn't need a mandate to discuss CRoW with a landowners association, they should just get on with it.

What you appear to be implying is that the BCA should determine if CLBA are likely to oppose this line of action and if so this should influence the vote.

Do you think the caving populous would be happy to be influenced in this way by a non-caving organisation?

The cavers I've discussed this point with are all in agreement that this should happen before any vote, including the one's that are pro CRoW, I can't speak for all cavers but yes, I suspect most would consider the response, we don't live in a vacuum.

Re - Estelles post, good point, well made. The observation I would like to make is that whilst the dig is in progress, the relationship is between the farmer and a relatively compact group of diggers, and as such is more manageable from the liability point of view. Once the dig 'goes' and becomes a 'public' system, with the increased traffic that is likely to entail, the farmers liability would be absolved  under CRoW.

Bob may well correct me for not having read the right bits of the guidance but I think in many cases the landowner would be seen as having on going liability for the dug entrance. The exceptions, if there are any, may be if digging simply opened up an existing passage, but if the dig resulted in a new shaft for example liability would not be covered via CRoW.

But that wasn't Estelle's point.

 

[jasonbirder]

care less about the liability than they do about people wandering freely around on their land

As happens now...don't forget on CRoW land walkers/ramblers/picnickers/bird-watchers/kite fliers etc etc already have free access to their access land without restriction for 14 years...

I leave it to your imagination to decide if there are significantly more cavers than walkers

The way I see it...there are currently 4 potential situations (pre-CROW clarification) that cover all potential caving/digging Scenario's

Access Land - Landowner happy to grant access for surface digs and already allowing unlimited leisure access to their land under CRoW
Access Land - Landowner NOT prepared to grant digging access but currently allowing unlimited leisure access to land under CRoW
Non-access Land - Landowner happy to grant access for surface digs
Non-access Land - Landowner NOT prepared to grant digging access

Changes to the interpretation of CRoW will not affect the latter 2 so we can safely ignore them...

Those landowners with potential underground passage that don't currently allow digs...don't currently allow digs...so nothing lost there...

Access Land - Landowner happy to grant access for surface digs and already allowing unlimited leisure access to land under CRoW

Do people genuinely believe there are significant numbers of Landowners...currently with good relations with cavers...who currently allow digging on their land (whilst under NO obligation to do so) who ALREADY have unlimited numbers of walkers and other leisure users on their land without control or restriction...that would withdraw good will to cavers for merely exercising the rights other outdoor users already have...

 

[peterk]

Do people genuinely believe there are significant numbers of Landowners...currently with good relations with cavers...who currently allow digging on their land (whilst under NO obligation to do so) who ALREADY have unlimited numbers of walkers and other leisure users on their land without control or restriction...that would withdraw good will to cavers for merely exercising the rights other outdoor users already have...

The only point I would make is that there is only a minute number of walkers who deviate from recognised footpaths - the statistics are on a "government" web site but I can't get the right search term in Google.  (For some reason I attract interest from "farmers" when roaming on access land in Upper Wharfedale )

 

[Ian Adams]

Did the ramblers association liaise with the CLA during the introduction of CRoW before representing their members interests ?

Did the BMC liaise with the CLA during the introduction of CRoW before representing their members interests ?

Did the Bird-Watchers association liaise with the CLA during the introduction of CRoW before representing their members interests ?

Etc ....

(No referendum = automatic representation).

There is no reason why the BCA should liaise with the CLA prior to a referendum (since we are having one). The referendum is being held precisely to determine whether or not the BCA members want the BCA executive to act for their rights in respect of CRoW - until the BCA have been given their mandate by the members, there is no direction for the BCA executive.

Ian

 

[cavermark]

As things stand at the moment, why would a landowner allow permission for cavers to dig up his land anyway?

A friendly chat and a bottle of scotch at Christmas seemed to work for us.

 

[NigR]

And the BCA doesn't need a mandate to discuss CRoW with a landowners association, they should just get on with it.

What you appear to be implying is that the BCA should determine if CLBA are likely to oppose this line of action and if so this should influence the vote.

Do you think the caving populous would be happy to be influenced in this way by a non-caving organisation?

The cavers I've discussed this point with are all in agreement that this should happen before any vote, including the one's that are pro CRoW, I can't speak for all cavers but yes, I suspect most would consider the response, we don't live in a vacuum.

Well, this is one pro CRoW caver who is most definitely not in agreement that this should happen (and I do not know any others who are either.) If what Bottlebank says is actually true, all I can say is that he must be ever so selective when it comes to choosing those cavers with whom he has discussions.

As Ian has demonstrated, an absolutely ridiculous idea at best.

[gmod]Childish and unnecessary insult removed. Such insults have no place here and only serve to de-rail discussion. Please desist.[/gmod]

 

[Peter Burgess]

If you aren't scared of the response you would get then there is nothing to fear by talking to anybody. If you are concerned at the reaction you would get, then ask why that is the case. I always thought the various bodies that claim to represent me and other cavers did just that. Represent us. To whom? Other cavers? No - third parties. Who are the most important third parties we ever need to be conscious of? The owners of the caves we visit. It's a no-brainer. As a member of a caving club committee, my job is to represent them. In my particular role, one of the ways I do that is to be the channel between the club and the owners of the mines we visit, or the land where we have ongoing digs.

 

[Duncan Price]

Do people genuinely believe there are significant numbers of Landowners...currently with good relations with cavers...who currently allow digging on their land (whilst under NO obligation to do so) who ALREADY have unlimited numbers of walkers and other leisure users on their land without control or restriction...that would withdraw good will to cavers for merely exercising the rights other outdoor users already have...

What Jason said.

 

[tony from suffolk]

As things stand at the moment, why would a landowner allow permission for cavers to dig up his land anyway?

A friendly chat and a bottle of scotch at Christmas seemed to work for us.

Yep, a nice friendly approach will do it, and will continue to do so when CRoW applies to caves.

 

[Bottlebank]

There's a lot of debatable points in the last six or seven posts, since no one else has done it here goes  :-\

Starting with Jasonbirders comment that he'll "I leave it to your imagination to decide if there are significantly more cavers than walkers" this doesn't need imagination, obviously true in some areas but in some of the country's best caving areas - Leck, Casterton, Kingsdale for example there are usually significantly more cavers than walkers.

Jasonbirders four potential situations covering all digging/caving scenarios leave out some of the most important, and very common ones.

Access Land - Landowner does not allow digging but allows controlled access
Access Land - Landowner may allow digging and allows controlled access

and similar for non access land.

A change in the interpretation of CRoW will not directly affect access on non access land but a sustained campaign if it's needed may well do.

Landowners that currently don't allow digs, it's not true to say nothings lost, if relations deteriorate it's even more likely they won't in future.

On this point:

"Do people genuinely believe there are significant numbers of Landowners...currently with good relations with cavers...who currently allow digging on their land (whilst under NO obligation to do so) who ALREADY have unlimited numbers of walkers and other leisure users on their land without control or restriction...that would withdraw good will to cavers for merely exercising the rights other outdoor users already have..."

If relations deteriorate or liability becomes an issue - yes.

PeterK makes a good point - walkers generally stick to paths - cavers often don't.

On Jackalpup's point - did the ramblers etc liaise with the CLA - there's a key difference between cavers and ramblers, bird watchers etc - CRoW gave them everything they needed and they didn't need to worry about reaction of landowners to areas of their interest which weren't covered.

Cavermark and Tony from Suffolk make the obvious point that a bottle of scotch and a friendly chat will work, it does and often it will again, but it's not a solution in every area. I'm concerned about the areas this doesn't work in.

And lastly - NigR - I'm not selective about who I discuss this with - but most people I cave with are diggers so obviously that's who I end up talking to.

We need to be thinking about the 5 or 10 or 20% of areas where this is going to cause problems - we don't know how many areas there will be problems in, but I worry it could be more than people think. Several people on here seem to be in complete denial that there could be problems, Jasonbirder for one.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It does concern me that some think all they have to do is pump up the tyres on the bandwagon every so often, and everything will be fine.

 

[Ian Adams]

It does concern me that some think all they have to do is pump up the tyres on the bandwagon every so often, and everything will be fine.

How untrue, inflammatory and degrading is that ?

The matter has been "debated" over a lengthy period, meetings have been organised by the BCA and now a referendum is being held to solicit members opinions.

Can you name one instance where anyone has "pumped up the tyres on their bandwagon and stated everything will be fine"?

(Otherwise, please retract the wild accusation)

Ian