Crow: yes vote. worst case?

[Ian Adams]

... 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 ....

Tony

The BCA have made it very clear that each individual is expected to make their own enquiries before they vote and it is a matter for that individual to make their own determination which way to vote based on their own understanding and opinion.

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

I shall write to the CLA then. Do you think they will reply to 6000 individual enquiries?

 

[Bottlebank]

I shall write to the CLA then. Do you think they will reply to 6000 individual enquiries?

My thoughts precisely. And maybe the big estate owners at the same time.

The BCA really should review that statement, in my opinion.

 

[Ian Adams]

I shall write to the CLA then. Do you think they will reply to 6000 individual enquiries?

What right have you got to purport to represent 6000 cavers ?

Who do you think you are ?

The BCA exists precisely for this reason - They have established a process, they are engaged in that process - why don't you let them make good on that process ?

Is it just because you don't like it ?

Can't you stop causing trouble for just 5 minutes and let the people who are actually working on this for EVERYONE's benefit do their best ?

Your remarks remain inflammatory and childish. It seems you have good friends on the moderation team that allow you to make such remarks and edit out others that sit on the other side of the fence.

Ian

 

[Jenny P]

I think Bob Mehew has done his best to outline the legal position and to give all the facts.  Certain points are quite clear legally and Bob has detailed these.  However, because other aspects are not clear and seem to be open to interpretation in different ways by different people, I think we have reached the point where BCA really does need direction from its members as to whether it should take the matter further with all the effort and potential expense that implies.

Even before the ballot, work is already being done to try to clarify the situation: how many caves will be affected and in which areas; which of these are SSSIs or have other scheduled protection as SAMs, NNRs, etc.; which caves should be the subject of a section 26 agreement to limit access; what is the position of long-abandoned mines which lead into natural caves; and many other aspects of the issue.  This work should help inform us all whichever way the ballot goes because it will clarify some legal issues which we are currently unsure of and also concentrate cavers' minds on investigating the most effective ways of conserving caves, regardless of whether they are open to the general mass of cavers or are taped, locked, or even leadership-system protected.

Cave conservation is an important issue and all cavers need to be educated - but this won't be done just by certain sites being kept locked.  I don't believe that landowner restrictions about the numbers of cavers crossing their land has a great deal to do with conservation either - that's a negative attitude.  I would much prefer to see BCA get really positive about cave conservation and, if it is agreed that there need to be restrictions on certain sites, we understand why the restrictions are needed, who should be in charge of dealing with this and are agreed on a sensible policy for obtaining access (under appropriate conditions) to such restricted sites. 

At present it's a mess and in some cases it is near impossible for a caver from outside the area or who is not "in the know" to gain access to some sites - leading to frustration and, in extreme cases, to busting or removing locks and gates.  We need a sensible system, transparent to all cavers, which we can agree on as a pragmatic way of managing vulnerable sites.  And we need this whichever way the ballot goes.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Jenny - it's really good to see people doing all this, but as far as I can see it's all enquiries within the caving world. Even a few simple enquiries at a basic level to authorities and other important third parties would allow us all to judge the mood of those who need to be brought on board if anything is ever going to change. That's all I am referring to - not an all-encompassing enquiry, just simple enquiries to see how the land lies. It might save a great deal of wasted time, effort and money. Our money. It would also help direct effort where it needs to be put in the longer term.

 

[Ian Adams]

Jenny - it's really good to see people doing all this, but as far as I can see it's all enquiries within the caving world. Even a few simple enquiries at a basic level to authorities and other important third parties would allow us all to judge the mood of those who need to be brought on board if anything is ever going to change.

The BCA will be at liberty to do this after the ballot. Right now, you are asking it to be done for you and/or the "no" campaign which is, frankly, bang out of order.

Neither "side" (or any single person) has any right to make demands of the BCA executive until after the ballot and until they have their mandate.

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

If I know that the process is going to antagonise people I don't want to annoy, then I would like the vote to be NO. It's a very important factor for me. How can I know if the process will antagonise people if nobody has asked them?

 

[Ian Adams]

If I know that the process is going to antagonise people I don't want to annoy, then I would like the vote to be NO. It's a very important factor for me. How can I know if the process will antagonise people if nobody has asked them?

Did you miss this little important ?hard fact?;

The BCA have made it very clear that each individual is expected to make their own enquiries before they vote and it is a matter for that individual to make their own determination which way to vote based on their own understanding and opinion.

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

No of course I didn't Ian. I replied accordingly when it was posted earlier. 

 

[Bottlebank]

I think Bob Mehew has done his best to outline the legal position and to give all the facts.  Certain points are quite clear legally and Bob has detailed these.  However, because other aspects are not clear and seem to be open to interpretation in different ways by different people, I think we have reached the point where BCA really does need direction from its members as to whether it should take the matter further with all the effort and potential expense that implies.

Even before the ballot, work is already being done to try to clarify the situation: how many caves will be affected and in which areas; which of these are SSSIs or have other scheduled protection as SAMs, NNRs, etc.; which caves should be the subject of a section 26 agreement to limit access; what is the position of long-abandoned mines which lead into natural caves; and many other aspects of the issue.  This work should help inform us all whichever way the ballot goes because it will clarify some legal issues which we are currently unsure of and also concentrate cavers' minds on investigating the most effective ways of conserving caves, regardless of whether they are open to the general mass of cavers or are taped, locked, or even leadership-system protected.

Cave conservation is an important issue and all cavers need to be educated - but this won't be done just by certain sites being kept locked.  I don't believe that landowner restrictions about the numbers of cavers crossing their land has a great deal to do with conservation either - that's a negative attitude.  I would much prefer to see BCA get really positive about cave conservation and, if it is agreed that there need to be restrictions on certain sites, we understand why the restrictions are needed, who should be in charge of dealing with this and are agreed on a sensible policy for obtaining access (under appropriate conditions) to such restricted sites. 

At present it's a mess and in some cases it is near impossible for a caver from outside the area or who is not "in the know" to gain access to some sites - leading to frustration and, in extreme cases, to busting or removing locks and gates.  We need a sensible system, transparent to all cavers, which we can agree on as a pragmatic way of managing vulnerable sites.  And we need this whichever way the ballot goes.

Peter's quite right.

OK Jenny, if we accept that, then surely the ballot question is premature and needs changing?

If you want us to back you to explore the issue further that's what the question should be.

Jenny - it's really good to see people doing all this, but as far as I can see it's all enquiries within the caving world. Even a few simple enquiries at a basic level to authorities and other important third parties would allow us all to judge the mood of those who need to be brought on board if anything is ever going to change.

The BCA will be at liberty to do this after the ballot. Right now, you are asking it to be done for you and/or the "no" campaign which is, frankly, bang out of order.

Neither "side" (or any single person) has any right to make demands of the BCA executive until after the ballot and until they have their mandate.

Ian

With respect that's nonsense.

We're asking for the BCA to explore the problem fully before a yes/no vote for a campaign is held - which is a perfectly reasonable request - and one which I suspect many people on both sides not to mention some that are undecided would agree with.

If they feel they don't currently have a mandate to do that then they should be asking for that mandate - not a yes/no decision.

 

[CatM]

It seems to me that, aside from conservation, the main concern here is potentially soured relationships with landowners, which in turn could lead to loss of access.

Ways of dealing with conservation have been suggested (even if not accepted by some), and the true extent of the impact if CRoW is re-interpreted can only be found out if and when the time comes; until that point it is purely speculation.

However, speaking to landowners is something that could (and probably should) be done and would help to establish whether or not these fears are unfounded. And for this to mean anything, it would need to be done by BCA or local access bodies, rather than numerous individuals accosting farmers in their fields.

I also think it would be highly useful to hear from BCA what their "campaign" would involve. Jenny has given some suggestions above (thanks for that) but at the moment I believe these are just personal expectations; an official outline (even if brief) might help alleviate some concerns.

 

[Badlad]

It is my understanding that the BCA chairman has already consulted with Natural England and DEFRA.  The regions have also been in touch with them together with bodies like, NRW, YDNPA, NT etc.  Certainly the CNCC minutes report contact between local landowners and the access officer on this issue.  Let's not forget a prominent QC has also been consulted, and more stuff has been written about CRoW and access in the last six months than almost any of us could have ever imagined we needed to read.

The poll on UKcaving of over 100 cavers show overwhelming support for BCA to look further into this.  Let's just wait and see what the national poll shows.  We all know who is against it and who is for it on this forum, let's give the rest of BCA members a voice now.

[gmod]PS - can those who find this topic becoming heated please step away from the keyboard for a few minutes, otherwise it will get locked[/gmod]

 

[Ian Adams]

With respect that's nonsense.

We're asking for the BCA to explore the problem fully before a yes/no vote for a campaign is held - which is a perfectly reasonable request - and one which I suspect many people on both sides not to mention some that are undecided would agree with.

It isn't nonsense, you are asking the BCA to "take sides" before the ballot and act in the interests of one side of the "campaign".

Since the issue is very clearly divisive, the BCA have stated that individuals will need to make their own enquiries - that is a perfectly reasonable position and places everyone on an equal footing.

If you are concerned, make your own enquiries before you vote ?

Look at what other people are doing to prepare - the students are an excellent example.

Ian

 

[Badlad]

I am also informed that the ballot paper will show what BCA intends to do if there is a yes vote and what it intends to do if a no vote prevails.  Therefore, all voters will be able to see what it is they are voting for.  It sounds quite simple, straight forward and fair to me.

 

[CatM]

OK Jenny, if we accept that, then surely the ballot question is premature and needs changing?

If you want us to back you to explore the issue further that's what the question should be.

We're asking for the BCA to explore the problem fully before a yes/no vote for a campaign is held - which is a perfectly reasonable request - and one which I suspect many people on both sides not to mention some that are undecided would agree with.

If they feel they don't currently have a mandate to do that then they should be asking for that mandate - not a yes/no decision.

I agree, the question does seem a bit premature, and I think that is part of the reason I'm still on the fence about the whole issue. As Jenny has said:

"At present it's a mess and in some cases it is near impossible for a caver from outside the area or who is not "in the know" to gain access to some sites - leading to frustration and, in extreme cases, to busting or removing locks and gates.  We need a sensible system, transparent to all cavers, which we can agree on as a pragmatic way of managing vulnerable sites.  And we need this whichever way the ballot goes." (my emphasis)

So why not try to achieve this without CRoW. Without wishing to start back on the whole CNCC politics things again - I know it's a different issue but it seems the interest in CRoW was sparked as a means to get around the problems with CNCC; they are now under new management so why not give them time to improve things a bit. If people are still not happy, then maybe come back to CRoW. I know it's probably too late for this as the referendum will be going ahead anyway but those are just my thoughts.

One of my concerns is that if the result of the referendum is "no" because, like the in the case with Scotland, people don't think there's sufficient insight as to what the future might hold, then that will be it. There's unlikely to be another referendum on the issue in the future, so where do we turn if access issues start to get worse with the staus quo?

 

[Peter Burgess]

It is my understanding that the BCA chairman has already consulted with Natural England and DEFRA.  The regions have also been in touch with them together with bodies like, NRW, YDNPA, NT etc. 

Tim - that's good to hear - however, I personally, and many others do not know what those bodies (in particular landowner bodies) think as the BCA chairman or whoever, hasn't spread the word (unless you know otherwise) to allow us to add it into our deliberations. That is all the point that is being made. If the message from these third parties is highly discouraging, then perhaps the BCA should not be wasting time money and effort on this. If it isn't, then fine, I am the first person to abide by the views of whichever majority view comes out of it, but I also think the vote should be done with maximum visibility of information received from every quarter. I am sorry if others think expressing this concern is inflammatory or unnecessary, but the main purpose of an influential message board is to be fair to everyone who wishes to use it to publicise their concerns, provided they don't do so inappropriately. If you ever think this is the case, then just say so! I do my best to keep comments impersonal and unemotional - and I think the majority of others here do the same. Keep up the good work.

 

[CatM]

It is my understanding that the BCA chairman has already consulted with Natural England and DEFRA.  The regions have also been in touch with them together with bodies like, NRW, YDNPA, NT etc.  Certainly the CNCC minutes report contact between local landowners and the access officer on this issue.

I am also informed that the ballot paper will show what BCA intends to do if there is a yes vote and what it intends to do if a no vote prevails.  Therefore, all voters will be able to see what it is they are voting for.  It sounds quite simple, straight forward and fair to me.

Thanks Tim, that's good to hear; I'll take a look at the CNCC minutes.

I know we've been asked to do our own research, but if BCA has been speaking to various bodies it would be good to hear what they have to say. If it could be posted somewhere that's easy to find (maybe a locked thread somewhere with all the various research documents in one place would be useful), along with what BCA plan to do whichever way the vote goes, that would be great and I think would really help people to make a proper informed decision 

I think a locked thread with an "official" statement from each side could also be beneficial as its getting quite difficult to separate the valid points from all the bickering...

 

[Jenny P]

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.

 

[Ian Adams]

"At present it's a mess and in some cases it is near impossible for a caver from outside the area or who is not "in the know" to gain access to some sites - leading to frustration and, in extreme cases, to busting or removing locks and gates.  We need a sensible system, transparent to all cavers, which we can agree on as a pragmatic way of managing vulnerable sites.  And we need this whichever way the ballot goes." (my emphasis)

This is a very good point and it is regrettable that it is being ?lost? in this thread ? I think it is worth you creating a new thread to discuss this specific issue so it can be discussed without the interference of the CRoW mechanics.

?. however, I personally, and many others do not know ?.

Are you prepared to name the ?many others? ?  Or is this another unsubstantiated ?attack? on the people working hard on your behalf and on EVERYONES behalf ?

Why do you feel it incumbent on others to do this ?research? for you?  Has it not been made completely clear to you that the BCA have stated each individual must make their own enquiries?.

In any event, a number of people HAVE posted links expressly to address the issue(s) that you (and others) have been raising and yet, you continue to barrack the very same people giving their own free time and efforts to try to appease everyone.

Ian