Extraordinary Meeting of blah blah blah

[graham]

I think you are. As a caver, would you not wish that the conservation of caves might take some precedence over the supply of roadstone? Or do you simply believe that the guy with the ability to buy the land can do what the hell he likes with it and sod the cavers?

 

[Ian Adams]

As a "caver", yes of course I would be saddened but I also have to accept that the landowner is the landowner and it is their right to do as they will.

I was also saddened to see the QE2 sold off to Dubai and not retained here in the UK as part of our heritage but I was (and am) equally powerless to do anything about it.

"Should" I be given the right to interfere in either of the above instances? ....... No.

Have I understood correctly now ?



Ian

 

[graham]

As a "caver", yes of course I would be saddened but I also have to accept that the landowner is the landowner and it is their right to do as they will.

I was also saddened to see the QE2 sold off to Dubai and not retained here in the UK as part of our heritage but I was (and am) equally powerless to do anything about it.

"Should" I be given the right to interfere in either of the above instances? ....... No.

Have I understood correctly now ?



Ian

So, when your neighbour build a cabbage recycling plant in his back garden, you won't complain about the smell? 'cos it's right to do as he wills?

 

[Ian Adams]

I may well be unhappy but provided he has not broken the law I would be unable to stop him. (I assume he would need planning permission and that there are no restrictive covenants or local by-laws)

There would, however, be nothing from preventing me ?asking? him to desist or trying to negotiate some kind of compromise but I can see no justifiable reason why I should be given any ?power? or ?right? to interfere.

:blink:

Ian

 

[graham]

...but I can see no justifiable reason why I should be given any ?power? or ?right? to interfere.

And that's where we differ. That's why planning laws exist and why the various advisory bodies appertaining to such things exist. None of us lives in isolation, what we do affects our neighbours (near and far) and the environment and thus needs to be controlled and regulated for the good of all.

 

[Ian Adams]

It is where we differ to ?a degree?.  What we do ?may? affect our neighbours and that is why the planning laws exist (not to say that they are infallible). It is, however, too strong a statement to say that the environment ?needs? to be controlled and regulated.

To state that it ?needs? is to command dominion over everyone and (as you yourself pointed out) we live in a democracy. I do not believe it would be fair, reasonable or equitable for any of us to impose our views (or values) on each other undemocratically.

As a democracy we (as a country) have already agreed that we should ?act? to protect the environment and as a country we are already doing precisely that.

I have been arguing, amongst other things, (with respect to the quangos) that; 

1) The degree to which they are protecting the environment is beyond necessity
2) That they are, in some cases, unnecessarily obstructive
3) That they are clandestine when they ought not to be
4) That their pro-active actions are, in some cases hypocritical and contrary to their own mandate
5) That some of their actions are actually damaging the very thing they are supposedly conserving

I doubt you will agree with any of the above but I don?t think it matters. In the context of caving, it is clear from well before I added a comment that a number of cavers feel stifled and fed up with the ?politics? of the environment and how it affects their caving.  I feel like that too.



Ian

 

[graham]

Ian

That could read like you just want freedom to trash caves without let or hindrance. I am sure that is not what you mean, but that is what it sounds like.

 

[Clive G]

. . .

Clive G, I appreciate your definitions of Flora and Fauna although have already openly stated that I do not profess to understand such things. The question still remains ?who? makes the decision etc. etc ??

As for your QED example of political activism, I should point out that I am not a political activist and as I said very early on I am committed to working with the various bodies and not against them. I have no intention to ?fight the system? and have taken no pro-active steps (in any manner) to try to bring about change.

. . .

Ian.

. . .

Thanks for coming back to me on my point Ian. There was no intention to include you in the BCRA argument as far as 'political activism' is concerned.

You constantly seek to discover "Who makes the SSSI decisions and why?" And "Why are they unaccountable and creating obstructive designations?"

Well, the answer is that at one time as many cavers as possible were encouraged to join the British Cave Research Association (BCRA) (as I was) which promoted, first and foremost, "the study of caves and associated phenomena wherever they may be situated, for the benefit of the public."

In the final few issues of a magazine I once supervised and edited, which was once published by BCRA, 'Caves & Caving', was included a series entitled 'Discovering . . .' The concept behind this series was to provide an introduction to all aspects of cave science for established cavers and newcomers to caving alike. It was written by established cave scientists using technical terms, but intended to be couched in as caver-friendly a fashion as possible. [Have a look at 'Caves & Caving' No. 90, Spring/Summer 2001 and No. 91, Autumn/Winter 2001. Ernie Shield used to sell copies, but not any more apparently - however, you may be able to find the name of whoever is now looking after BCRA publications from Ernie: ernie dot shield at tesco dot net and if you do contact him please mention this posting.]

You see, when caves and their surroundings are being designated as SSSIs it is essential that cavers participate in this process and have a sufficient grip of the issues behind the difficult decisions which have to be taken, in order that we can all end up becoming ambassadors to the general public - for helping explain the importance behind protecting the sites as designated. And for that we need to know something about the science, not necessarily to degree-level, but sufficient to know whether the decisions are founded on good or bad science.

It is right to suggest that there should be limitations on the use and exploitation of land, but only when due consideration is given to all the interests concerned, especially those of the landowner. You've commented on the construction of mountain footpaths which are designed to prevent the erosion of the natural ecosystem. One narrow 'stone road' is far prefereable to a wide muddy quagmire which can be seen as a brown scar on the landscape from far and wide. In summer such quagmires can set rock solid and then you find walkers damaging and breaking their ankles or seeking out non-trampled grassland to either side.

What I think you are objecting to is apparent 'double standards' where you are not permitted to do your cave dig, with some 'bully-boy' tactics from the Police and the threat of prosecution, supported by the statutory body, thrown in for good measure to frighten you off. This is all over a dig which has a relatively tiny impact on the surroundings in return for a huge potential gain once the cave inside is opened up - almost certainly out of an unreasonable pique of 'control and enforcement' being exerted by the statutory body concerned - and therefore why should you tolerate disturbances to the natural landscape by the same or similar bodies, which are far greater in scope and visual impact?

But spare a moment . . . New Blaen Onneu Quarry above the Usk valley in South Wales was authorised to be worked on the basis that no scar should be seen on the skyline through the quarrying activity. Once a scar did actually start to appear the objections soon came in and (eventually) that was that - the end of the quarry. So, it's not as simple as saying the landowner should be able to do anything he wishes and, at the same time, it's also not as simple as giving all the power to limit the freedom of landowners to use their land as they see fit to a small body of unaccountable (untouchable), unelected officials.

Once cavers no longer understand what is going on with SSSIs and find their actions pounced on by the Police (as has happened to you) then I submit that the plot has been lost and the ethos behind running the national caving body has become skewed and tarnished. The idea of cowtailing to your betters, because they know better, went out after the end of the 2nd World War - it was called 'the swinging 60s'. A system where everyone is busy falling over themselves cooperating BECAUSE IT IS MANDATORY TO DO SO, OPPOSED TO THERE BEING PERSONAL DISCRETION AND A GENUINE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL CHOICE - especially without understanding the reason why or even feeling you necessarily agree with what you are being asked to do - for fear of being ostracized and branded 'a troublemaker and an outsider' if you don't 'cooperate' - is no real democracy.

 

[cap n chris]

That could read like you just want freedom to trash caves without let or hindrance

Although it is axiomatic that removing barriers to caves will result in greater damage to them through increased traffic it does not follow that someone is arguing for the right to have the freedom to trash caves simply because they were debating for less restrictive access conditions.

 

[kay]

Kay,

Ferns and fauna .... well, I don't profess to understand such things or what the distinction is, nor do I know what species they were.

I picked up that because you said they were 'common ferns'. They may well have been, but ferns aren't particularly easy to identify, and they may have been something that wasn't at all common. Britain is important on an international scale for ferns - it's because of our wet climate.

The whole thing of plant conservation is difficult. Virtually none of the UK is 'natural' - it all  has been influenced by man at some stage. Left to itself, a flower-rich bit of grassland will start to grow scrub and then trees, and then the trees will grow old, fall and decay, and so on. What the conservationists are trying to do is to look at a national or  even international scale and make sure that as many species as possible continue to exist. This is not just for fun - it is as a botanical bank for the future, when we need to use them to breed new varieties of plant to cope with changing conditions, or perhaps develop new drugs to cope with evolving diseases.

So if you have a site which is a good repository of a number of species which are uncommon, you end up trying to 'freeze' it in its current state of succession - for example, by preventing growth of scrub either by removal by hand or by carefully controlled grazing.

Old industrial sites can  be excellent plant sites because the soils are not fertile in the high nitrogen sense, so that plants which can tolerate such conditions can grow there without being out-competed by dandelions, thistles, docks and the rest.

I know a little about plant conservation, but very little animals. But the same sort of principles apply. It's not just about preserving the soft and cuddly (like water voles). Near me is a beauty spot, with cars parking along the road side, so that there are long areas of completely bare sandy soil. To the casual observer (ie me until I was told about it) this looks completely uninteresting ... but it is an important site for more than one rare mining bee.

I'm not saying everything is fine - I really don't know one way or the other. I'm just saying it can be difficult from the outside to see what is being preserved, and how and why.

 

[graham]

Sod the ferns, dig 'em up - you never know the second entrance to Draenen might be just underneath

 

[NigR]

Sod the ferns, dig 'em up - you never know the second entrance to Draenen might be just underneath

No ferns above the second entrance, just concrete and turf.

 

[Ian Adams]

Graham,

I have no desire to trash caves and I have no desire to seek freedom beyond landowners consent (in fact, I have been arguing in favour of the landowner having a much greater say in what they do on or with their land).

For me (and I suspect most (all?) of us on here) the caves hold many riches which we seek to enjoy. I am very careful not to disturb the treasures hidden underground, I am careful where I stand and I only ?look? (and photograph) the wonders of the underworld.

I am sorry if I have led you to believe otherwise.

I see we are at variance in our opinions on the conservation of the environment but that doesn?t mean we don?t share the same passion(s). I would love to see the underworld preserved for generations to enjoy and policed from damage. I think we only differ on how we reach that goal. My ?debate? was never indented to be hostile and I am sorry if you have taken it that way.


Clive G,

Thank you for your post, it is very well thought out and much appreciated. I also appreciate the obvious amount of enthusiasm and hard work you have done, over time, in pursuit and the dedication of your (and our) passion.

I very much like your analogy that we (as cavers) should be ?ambassadors? and I agree with you on that point. I am not so sure that there should be restricting legislation though.

I was fearful when you began a sentence ?it is right to ?.? As that is phrase used frequently by Gordon Brown which immediately precedes a political opinion. However, you continued and substantiated your position and I agree with it. Although you didn?t say it, I would suggest that a landowner can do ?as he will? with his land provided we (as his neighbours) are not injured by his actions. I realise we could argue ?degree? but I also think we are also wise enough to accept the principle without the quantum.

I very much regret (because I do not wish to be confrontational) that I do not agree with your premise on footpaths though. The ?narrow stone road? has hopelessly failed in Snowdonia and virtually all such footpaths are an eyesore being incomplete, faulty, already degraded and/or having bags of waste abandoned. In addition, I have a very bad knee (I make no claim that any disability I may have should impact on the manner in which we progress) and walking DOWN these stone paths is a nightmare.  A ?wide muddy quagmire? (although maybe not very picturesque) is entirely natural and I see no reason to interfere with it.

Also, your analysis of the problems I (we as a caving club) have faced is spot on but I am happy to accept that this may well represent the exception rather than the rule (I hope so anyway).

In essence, I am ?with you? and believe you to be very considered and a credit to the caving community.


Cap ?n chris,

Of course you are right and I agree (as I outlined above with Graham)


Kay,

I said they were ?common ferns? because that is what was reported by the press. Were they actually ?common? ferns? Well, I can?t say I really know.

I do understand what you say that nothing is really ?native? and the same applies when we try to trace back our own ancestry (are we French? Roman? Norse? Etc etc.) I also understand that you (not you specifically) are trying to preserve ?things? as and when they manifest.

I can (honestly) see the nobility in this but must ask you also to consider this as an analogous example ?..

If we discriminate against someone on the grounds of race, sex, or whatever then we are ?guilty? of a crime. (ie. morally (and legally) we are democratically told we should not and cannot do so). In my opinion (and it is unsupported in law) we commit the same crime if we pro-actively discriminate on the same basis in favour of those elements ? as the rest of us have been discriminated against).

I am applying the same logic to the ?orchid?, the flora and the fauna. In essence, I do not believe that ?you and me? should be damaged by the positive discrimination of an ?element? that may be prejudice as a result of a natural course of events.

I accept your point though, that it can be difficult (sometimes) for the outside world to understand a course of events and I am very grateful to you for your clarification.

In fine, I think we are all aiming towards the same objectives but I remain of the opinion that some quangos (or individuals within them) are overpowered and counterproductive and I believe we should be easing the problems and not complicating them.

As I have maintained from the beginning, I remain well meaning.



Ian

 

[graham]

Ian

I in no way think you have been hostile, apologies if it came over that way.

 

[Ian Adams]

Cool ..... No Worries 

 

[kay]

I do understand what you say that nothing is really ?native?

I didn't say that nothing is really 'native', I said that the habitats were not natural, in that they have all been influenced by man. But many of the organisms that inhabit those habitats are native, in the sense that we have no knowledge of them having been introduced (unlike things like the purple flowered rhododendron, the pink himalayan balsam with explosive seeds, various water plants clogging our ponds, where we do know when they were introduced). Some of the things which grow in the UK grow nowhere else in the world, there are other things which do grow elsewhere, but we have the bulk of the world's stocks.

I can (honestly) see the nobility in this but must ask you also to consider this as an analogous example ?..

If we discriminate against someone on the grounds of race, sex, or whatever then we are ?guilty? of a crime. (ie. morally (and legally) we are democratically told we should not and cannot do so). In my opinion (and it is unsupported in law) we commit the same crime if we pro-actively discriminate on the same basis in favour of those elements ? as the rest of us have been discriminated against).

I am applying the same logic to the ?orchid?, the flora and the fauna. In essence, I do not believe that ?you and me? should be damaged by the positive discrimination of an ?element? that may be prejudice as a result of a natural course of events.

I'm not convinced there is an analogy. But if there is, there is always a balance to be struck. We accept that businesses should make 'proportionate' adjustments to accommodate those with disabilities - in other words, we don't expect a business to go belly-up in order to maintain a disabled person's right to employment. Similarly, one would have to consider the balance between the caver digging another entrance to a known cave, for example, and the possible extinction of a plant species - and there is the self interest argument - the plant has a potential future use to mankind. Is the caver's or the cave's future use to mankind similarly disadvantaged by not digging that second entrance? (this is all getting so hypothetical as to be farcical, so I shall give up here)

 

[Ian Adams]

Kay,

I would say that something that has been influenced by man is still ?natural? if it occurred within the normal course of human activity (ie. a spoil heap from mining is a natural consequence of man?s ?normal? activity).

I also think that ?things? can get mixed up around and throughout the world as in the normal course of mankind?s exploits (such as potatoes) and I can?t really see why we (the human race) should do anything to alter this ?natural state? unless we are damaging ourselves or our neighbours (the use of fossil fuel is ultimately very damaging to ourselves as an example).

With regard to the analogy, you suggest that we have accepted that businesses should make proportionate adjustments for the disabled (this might seem off topic but it isn?t because it is analogous). I would say that ?we? haven?t accepted it but rather that such as law has been imposed on us by our (elected) government. if I owned a small business I could not reject a job applicant on the grounds of their disability and if I did so I would automatically be guilty of an offence even if I were unable to accommodate that disability. I would, therefore, be ?damaged? by a law that was set up to protect the disabled person and I find this to be inequitable.

In fact, I see no reason why I, as a hypothetical small business employer, should have to find a balance at all ? why could I not employ who I feel is the best person for the job ?

The very same thing is happening in the great outdoors and the same logic applies with the landowner ?.. why should a landowner not be able to do what he wants with and on his own land (provided he acts within the limit of the law) ?

As sad as it may be if the Cheddar gorge complex was bought to be quarried for limestone then ?so be it?. I am not convinced that we should legislate to have a right to interfere with other peoples ?rights? and ?lawful actions? just because we don?t like what they are doing.

I think that our politics (in the UK) are already far too convoluted and I am not in favour of quangos being empowered to arbitrarily decide what ?you and I? can and can?t do just because they have an opinion. I am also concerned that when  quango?s arbitrarily pro-actively protect something they may, actually, be ?damaging? the very same habitat that their mandate requires them to conserve and, further, when they make a pigs ear of it (like the ruination of the footpaths in Snowdonia) why are they not accountable and why isn?t someone prosecuted as we would be if we dared to even tamper with a patch of SSSI land?

Please don?t take this personally as I can see from your post that you are clearly passionate about conservation and (maybe surprisingly) I am in favour of looking after what we have too.  I am not, however, a great fan of politics.

:blink:

Ian

 

[graham]

I would say that ?we? haven?t accepted it but rather that such as law has been imposed on us by our (elected) government. if I owned a small business I could not reject a job applicant on the grounds of their disability and if I did so I would automatically be guilty of an offence even if I were unable to accommodate that disability. I would, therefore, be ?damaged? by a law that was set up to protect the disabled person and I find this to be inequitable.

Not quite as straightforward as that, you are not obliged to take on partially sighted taxi drivers, for example! However, you do seem to have a rather unusual view of the law, conceptually speaking, that is.

 

[Ian Adams]

Graham,

The ?law? itself would prevent a partially sighted person from driving a taxi. In your example there is no ?choice? available to the employer which is the point I was trying to make in drawing the analogy to Kay?s cave digger.



Ian

 

[kay]

I would say that something that has been influenced by man is still ?natural? if it occurred within the normal course of human activity (ie. a spoil heap from mining is a natural consequence of man?s ?normal? activity).

Other people might not share that definition

I also think that ?things? can get mixed up around and throughout the world as in the normal course of mankind?s exploits (such as potatoes) and I can?t really see why we (the human race) should do anything to alter this ?natural state? unless we are damaging ourselves or our neighbours (the use of fossil fuel is ultimately very damaging to ourselves as an example).

We are damaging ourselves because by allowing indiscriminate spread of thing not native to this country and which don't have natural predators here, we are affecting the survival of things that are native (and may not be found elsewhere). At the very least we are depriving ourselves of pleasure  - red squirrels are declining and few of us get the chance to see them, diversity of wildflowers is decreasing - particularly obvious along streamways where the banks are often a monoculture of himalayan balsam, a recent study found that woods are becoming more and more uniform - the same plants in all. At worst, we are eliminating plants which might otherwise be a source of genetic material for the future.

With regard to the analogy, you suggest that we have accepted that businesses should make proportionate adjustments for the disabled (this might seem off topic but it isn?t because it is analogous). I would say that ?we? haven?t accepted it but rather that such as law has been imposed on us by our (elected) government.

Enough of us have accepted it for it not to be political suicide for a government to introduce it.

if I owned a small business I could not reject a job applicant on the grounds of their disability and if I did so I would automatically be guilty of an offence even if I were unable to accommodate that disability.

You don't have to make a disproportionate adaptation - in other words, if you genuinely cannot accommodate that disability, you are not guilty of an offence. To take a ridiculous example - there is no offence committed when a wheelchair user is turned down for the Fire Service.

In fact, I see no reason why I, as a hypothetical small business employer, should have to find a balance at all ? why could I not employ who I feel is the best person for the job ?

The law requires that you should employ the best person for the job - that you shouldn't turn someone down for being disabled. It does not require you to appoint a disabled candidate just because they are disabled. It does not even require you to interview them - only if their application form shows they meet the advertised job requirements.

The very same thing is happening in the great outdoors and the same logic applies with the landowner ?.. why should a landowner not be able to do what he wants with and on his own land (provided he acts within the limit of the law) ?

Why should any person be allowed to have a harmful effect on other individuals or on society as a whole, just because he is operating on land he/she owns?