Crow: yes vote. worst case?

[martinm]

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.

There is a database being built by various people in BCA. There is already a booklet produced by the BCA CRoW working group detailing the pros and cons and the number of sites in each region likely to be affected by all this.

As long as people are nice to the landowners whether big or small, there's no reason why any access or digging agreements already in place should be adversely affected. Or new ones for that matter...

it's all a matter of using common sense really and I think the majority of people on regional councils and those attending BCA C&A meetings realise that...

 

[Peter Burgess]

Ian - There are comments posted from time to time that simply ignore genuinely held concerns, and sometimes even accuse other posters of being inflammatory! That's what I mean.

 

[Bottlebank]

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.

There is a database being built by various people in BCA. There is already a booklet produced by the BCA CRoW working group detailing the pros and cons and the number of sites in each region likely to be affected by all this.

As long as people are nice to the landowners whether big or small, there's no reason why any access or digging agreements already in place should be adversely affected. Or new ones for that matter...

it's all a matter of using common sense really and I think the majority of people on regional councils and those attending BCA C&A meetings realise that...

Sorry, I've obviously missed something here - what booklet - just had a quick look at the BCA site and I can't see anything?

 

[Ian Adams]

Ian - There are comments posted from time to time that simply ignore genuinely held concerns, and sometimes even accuse other posters of being inflammatory! That's what I mean.

That's not even close to what you said nor is there any contextual basis .....

Can you name an instance to which you refer or will you now retract your untrue, inflammatory and degrading comment ?

There are a great many people working very hard for the benefit of ALL cavers (including you) and it is shameful that you slight people in the manner.

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

I find many things annoying Ian. I don't go around demanding retractions, but accept that other people see things differently.

I was given a warning a few days back about "bickering" - which annoyed me, but I simply took heed of it. And as I was given that warning, I do not intend to start bickering here. As a colleague, I simply advise you to do the same.

 

[Bottlebank]

As long as people are nice to the landowners whether big or small, there's no reason why any access or digging agreements already in place should be adversely affected. Or new ones for that matter...

it's all a matter of using common sense really and I think the majority of people on regional councils and those attending BCA C&A meetings realise that...

Common sense - I agree with.

Common sense suggests you don't abandon a position which largely works well in favour of one with lots of potential to cause problems unless there are significant benefits which outweigh any potential problems, and before you've gone as far as possible to ensure people who will be affected are happy with the change and those problems will be minimised.

Asking cavers to vote for on whether to have a campaign with an uncertain outcome before establishing all the risks or consulting with the landowners likely to be affected doesn't really match that description.

 

[Ian Adams]

So Peter,

You stand by your accusation that some people go around pumping up their tyres shouting everything will be ok then ?

How insulting is that ?

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

As long as people are nice to the landowners whether big or small, there's no reason why any access or digging agreements already in place should be adversely affected. Or new ones for that matter...

it's all a matter of using common sense really and I think the majority of people on regional councils and those attending BCA C&A meetings realise that...

Common sense - I agree with.

Common sense suggests you don't abandon a position which largely works well in favour of one with lots of potential to cause problems unless there are significant benefits which outweigh any potential problems, and before you've gone as far as possible to ensure people who will be affected are happy with the change and those problems will be minimised.

Asking cavers to vote for on whether to have a campaign with an uncertain outcome before establishing all the risks or consulting with the landowners likely to be affected doesn't really match that description.

Yes that's about right.

 

[jasonbirder]

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!

 

[Bottlebank]

To me Common Sense is the BCA representing Cavers campaigning on our behalf for better access...

Agreed, we just disagree on the way to achieve better access

 

[jasonbirder]

Agreed, we just disagree on the way to achieve better access

Agreed!

 

[Jenny P]

Bottlebank said:

Sorry, I've obviously missed something here - what booklet - just had a quick look at the BCA site and I can't see anything?

What Mel said was inadvertently slightly misleading as the booklet has not been produced by the CRoW Working Group itself, but by three individual members of BCA (who are also members of the CRoW W.G.).  It is referred to in Bob Mehew's posts and can be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/pro-CRoW-caving-01.  It was available at Hidden Earth and a printed copy was posted to all DCA members on 16th. October.  If you PM me I can supply it as a pdf.

There is a zipped file of a set of further relevant documents, both for and against, which can be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/pro-CRoW-caving.

The C&A pages of the BCA website (http://british-caving.org.uk] [url]http://british-caving.org.uk[/url] ) have the minutes and various documents put to the meeting on 16th. August. If you go to the C&A pages you will also find a news section, which has information on the meeting the BCA Chairman had with Natural England on 8th. September.

 

[Ian Adams]

Agreed, we just disagree on the way to achieve better access

Agreed!

.... Agreed !!

 

[Bottlebank]

Bottlebank said:

Sorry, I've obviously missed something here - what booklet - just had a quick look at the BCA site and I can't see anything?

What Mel said was inadvertently slightly misleading as the booklet has not been produced by the CRoW Working Group itself, but by three individual members of BCA (who are also members of the CRoW W.G.).  It is referred to in Bob Mehew's posts and can be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/pro-CRoW-caving-01.  It was available at Hidden Earth and a printed copy was posted to all DCA members on 16th. October.  If you PM me I can supply it as a pdf.

There is a zipped file of a set of further relevant documents, both for and against, which can be downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/pro-CRoW-caving.

The C&A pages of the BCA website ( [url]http://british-caving.org.uk]http://british-caving.org.uk] [url]http://british-caving.org.uk[/url] ) have the minutes and various documents put to the meeting on 16th. August. If you go to the C&A pages you will also find a news section, which has information on the meeting the BCA Chairman had with Natural England on 8th. September.

Sorry Jenny, I had seen that, but it's produced by three members of the Pro camp and essentially is the publicity brochure for CRoW - which is fair enough - that's who produced it.

I accept it does discuss some counter arguments.

What it doesn't do is simply lay out all the arguments for and against in a way that clearly warns of the pitfalls.

 

[paul]

So Peter,

You stand by your accusation that some people go around pumping up their tyres shouting everything will be ok then ?

How insulting is that ?

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Ian

[gmod]Jackalpup , please desist from the personal bickering.[/gmod]

 

[Jenny P]

Bottlebank also said:

Asking cavers to vote for on whether to have a campaign with an uncertain outcome before establishing all the risks or consulting with the landowners likely to be affected doesn't really match that description.

I would agree absolutely with him.  I would expect that, if the the vote is for BCA to take further the matter of access to caves on CRoW land, the first thing it would do is to begin to talk to the landowners most likely to be affected to understand what their concerns might be. 

I would further expect that, if BCA is asked to take the matter further, it will consult with cavers on the best way to conserve sites which are felt to be particularly vulnerable and how this might best be achieved within the legal framework.

The word "campaign" seems to imply fuss and shouting, demonstrations and the like.  I am quite sure that this is not what will happen and that BCA will work sensibly with landowners, Natural England, etc. for the best outcome for the majority.  It is clear that some cavers will never be satisfied with the present situation and wish to change it, others are entirely happy with the status quo and yet more are uncertain about it. 

What needs to be clarified in the first instance is whether the majority of BCA members as a whole think the present interpretation of the law is incorrect and we should seek to change it - and the only reasonable way to find this out is to ask them - hence the ballot.  Only when the views of the majority are known can BCA take further steps.

 

[Ian Adams]

So Peter,

You stand by your accusation that some people go around pumping up their tyres shouting everything will be ok then ?

How insulting is that ?

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Ian

Jackalpup , please desist from the personal bickering.

Would you be good enough to remove the insulting and libellous remark that the OP refused to retract then please ?

Ian

 

[paul]

So Peter,

You stand by your accusation that some people go around pumping up their tyres shouting everything will be ok then ?

How insulting is that ?

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Ian

Jackalpup , please desist from the personal bickering.

Would you be good enough to remove the insulting and libellous remark that the OP refused to retract then please ?

Ian

[gmod]No. The remarks you consider "insulting and libellous" do not contravene this Forum's Acceptable Use Policies. Your personal bickering does. You may wish to revisit the Policies at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=1872.0 .[/gmod]

 

[Ian Adams]

Selective moderation and libel is fine. Nice.

Well, with regards to the ?anti-crow? lobby, it does concern me that some think all they have to do is pump up their voices, run roughshod over the hard workers, slap down the hard-workers, spite the work done for the benefit of ALL cavers, condemn and criticise without evidence, make statements without supporting facts and behave in an inflammatory manner and everything will be fine.

.... and before you moderate that out, it doesn't break any rules you just pointed me to - it is a direct response to unfounded allegations made throughout this debate in this thread which have not been moderated.

Ian

 

[Bottlebank]

Bottlebank also said:

Asking cavers to vote for on whether to have a campaign with an uncertain outcome before establishing all the risks or consulting with the landowners likely to be affected doesn't really match that description.

I would agree absolutely with him.  I would expect that, if the the vote is for BCA to take further the matter of access to caves on CRoW land, the first thing it would do is to begin to talk to the landowners most likely to be affected to understand what their concerns might be. 

I would further expect that, if BCA is asked to take the matter further, it will consult with cavers on the best way to conserve sites which are felt to be particularly vulnerable and how this might best be achieved within the legal framework.

The word "campaign" seems to imply fuss and shouting, demonstrations and the like.  I am quite sure that this is not what will happen and that BCA will work sensibly with landowners, Natural England, etc. for the best outcome for the majority.  It is clear that some cavers will never be satisfied with the present situation and wish to change it, others are entirely happy with the status quo and yet more are uncertain about it. 

What needs to be clarified in the first instance is whether the majority of BCA members as a whole think the present interpretation of the law is incorrect and we should seek to change it - and the only reasonable way to find this out is to ask them - hence the ballot.  Only when the views of the majority are known can BCA take further steps.

Jenny,

Thanks for that, at least it gives us an insight into the process but you are asking us to make an uninformed choice.

What you are describing is exactly how I would expect and want the BCA to deal with this - but they don't need a referendum or mandate to identify the risks and likely effects - their job is to represent us and that gives them a clear mandate for example to talk to landowners about CRoW.

Essentially you are admitting that the BCA hasn't fully explored this - so you are asking us to vote before all the information we need to make an informed choice is available - it's not just cavers who don't have it but the BCA don't have it?

It increasingly looks as though enthusiasm for greater access is resulting in not just a few cavers getting carried away but our national body also getting pulled out with the tide.

We need all the facts - on both sides - clearly laid in a very public way by the BCA prior to a referendum which means the process you describe needs to take place first.

BCA is potentially placing itself in the unenviable position of being obliged to campaign for a change which after further investigation it feels it cannot support?

Tony