How do BCAs problems impact cavers, caving, and caves?

[Kenilworth]

so you consider your moral integrity to be superior than your fellow caver 

I'm only saying that popular morality is not part of what shapes my conscience. It has nothing to do with "my fellow caver" because I'm not "a caver". Moral integrity is relative to one's individual knowledge and conscience, so I have no business judging that of anyone other than myself.

 

[cavemanmike]

if your not a caver then what are you !!

 

[Kenilworth]

A man

 

[todcaver]

A troll ! 

 

[mikem]

Just coz someone has a different opinion to yourself does not make them a troll:

In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.

Mike

 

[cavemanmike]

Just coz someone has a different opinion to yourself does not make them a troll:

In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.

Mike

troll it is then  :spank: :spank:

 

[Kenilworth]

Just coz someone has a different opinion to yourself does not make them a troll:

In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.

Mike

troll it is then  :spank: :spank:

Can I address this head-on just once? A load of you have thrown the term troll around in response to my posts, and have evidently complained to moderators that I am trolling this site. There is no doubt that I have started arguments, even upset people. But I have not set out to sow discord or to provoke an emotional response. I'm looking for intelligent, critical, thoughtful, and informative debate. If some of it is passionate, that ought to be ok. If we ardently disagree, that too is ok. I have made some emotional responses of my own, and said some things I shouldn't have, but that's not trolling. Moreover none of the fury on display in any of the threads I've started is amusing to me.

Of course, you can continue to accuse me of trolling if you wish, but these accusations are another symptom of the mental laziness that has made attempts at conversation on this site so frustrating.

 

[NewStuff]

Just coz someone has a different opinion to yourself does not make them a troll:

If they were honestly held opinions, I'd agree wit you. However, I remain convinced they are designed and aired in a way that will stir things up, otherwise known as a troll.

 

[alastairgott]

the mental laziness that has made attempts at conversation on this site so frustrating.

Cheers pal, making friends again I see!

when you talk of mental laziness, what was this about?

A man

You are starkly polar opposites being an American on here. In America, I presume access to someones land is still along the lines of going up to them and asking in person or risking it and them accusing you of trespassing before they shoot your head off with a choice of guns on their pickup.

In the UK access to land is much different, for one do a search for Ingleborough estates office online and you might get some idea...
other than that particular example, some of the land in Yorkshire is owned by people who run Grouse (or bird) shooting on their land. So potentially you've got a much higher chance of getting your head blown off if you get it wrong!

Most of the land in the UK is quite intensively farmed, mainly sheep farming where we go caving, and farmers get quite protective over their little baby lambs, so a little tact when dealing with landowners is sometimes needed.

For this reason, people understand and have respect for those people who deal with landowners on our behalf, ie the organised bodies you seem HELL bent on Scorning.

take one look at a new topic on mouldridge mine.

our country is smaller and much more densely populated than your Karst areas, landowners are understandably worried about walkers walking into a hole.


please respect the position we are in, and we may try to respect you and your opinions.

otherwise, FEEL OUR FURY! and amuse yourself elsewhere on the internet.

 

[mikem]

Access in the south eastern states seems to be very similar to here (certainly in canoeing terms, so I guess caving as well)

 

[Kenilworth]

You are starkly polar opposites being an American on here. In America, I presume access to someones land is still along the lines of going up to them and asking in person or risking it and them accusing you of trespassing before they shoot your head off with a choice of guns on their pickup.

In the UK access to land is much different, for one do a search for Ingleborough estates office online and you might get some idea...
other than that particular example, some of the land in Yorkshire is owned by people who run Grouse (or bird) shooting on their land. So potentially you've got a much higher chance of getting your head blown off if you get it wrong!

Most of the land in the UK is quite intensively farmed, mainly sheep farming where we go caving, and farmers get quite protective over their little baby lambs, so a little tact when dealing with landowners is sometimes needed.

For this reason, people understand and have respect for those people who deal with landowners on our behalf, ie the organised bodies you seem HELL bent on Scorning.

Things are very different in our respective places. I understand this. And I know how much work goes into access arrangements and I respect the work done along those lines by UK cavers and organizations. However, the fact that most cavers in the UK (and in the US) seem to depend on someone else's arranging access in their behalf is confusing to me. I have negotiated access with private landowners (mostly protective farmers), government agencies, cave conservancies, industrial corporations, hunting clubs, logging companies, and private preservationist organizations. And I have done a whole lot of trespassing. Is there a reason that cavers in the UK could not do the same for themselves?

The strength in numbers argument seems to me only a little more than bullying. If a landowner says no to a polite and respectful individual, why should he be pushed by a body? If a landowner doesn't want cavers around, why use the law to get your way? Is that kind to the landowner? Would not discretion, or even concession, be better options?

 

[mikem]

We have the situation where any member of the public may cross access land (or even climb on it) legally, but is not allowed to descend a hole beyond daylight...

 

[Kenilworth]

We have the situation where any member of the public may cross access land (or even climb on it) legally, but is not allowed to descend a hole beyond daylight...

According to some... I've read all the threads.
If I were caving in your country I imagine I would treat access land exactly as I do any other land. If I could cave on it discreetly, I would do so, legally or not. Otherwise I would contact the owners/tenants/lessees/or caretakers and ask permission.

 

[kay]

Things are very different in our respective places. I understand this. And I know how much work goes into access arrangements and I respect the work done along those lines by UK cavers and organizations. However, the fact that most cavers in the UK (and in the US) seem to depend on someone else's arranging access in their behalf is confusing to me. I have negotiated access with private landowners (mostly protective farmers), government agencies, cave conservancies, industrial corporations, hunting clubs, logging companies, and private preservationist organizations. And I have done a whole lot of trespassing. Is there a reason that cavers in the UK could not do the same for themselves?

We do arrange access ourselves - the organised bodies are cavers. But:

1) Landowners want to be assured that the people going into their cave know what they are doing, and they won't have the mess of a major rescue on their land.

2) Landowners may want the security of Public Liability Insurance even if strictly it's not needed

3) Some landowners want to operate a permit system, to limit the number of cavers and to know which days they will be there, but they don't want to administrate this (and why should they?)

The BCA has arranged PL Insurance cover, and, given we don't have a "caving test", next best is that, if someone has gone to the effort to join the BCA or a caving club, they will at least have come across other cavers and probably will have learnt what they are doing. The local access bodies administrate permit schemes, so the landowner only has to deal with one individual - and this allows a relationship to be developed and any problems to be sorted out quickly

The strength in numbers argument seems to me only a little more than bullying. If a landowner says no to a polite and respectful individual, why should he be pushed by a body? If a landowner doesn't want cavers around, why use the law to get your way? Is that kind to the landowner? Would not discretion, or even concession, be better options?

If a landowner says "no" to a polite and respectful individual representing the regional access body, say, CNCC, then CNCC will communicate that decision as well as it can to all cavers in the region - for example on the Access pages of the CNCC website.

If a landowner says "no" to a polite and respectful individual who isn't in touch with the local access body, he won't easily be able to let people know, and the landowner will continue to have requests from polite and respectful individuals to whom he says "no" - an irritation which he can well do without, and at worst he may decide to get rid of the problem by blocking the cave entrance entirely.

It's not about "bullying", it's about presenting a single coordinated approach to minimise annoyance.

 

[Kenilworth]

We do arrange access ourselves - the organised bodies are cavers.

I meant individuals. I wonder what percentage of active cavers are involved in arranging for their own access?

It's not about "bullying", it's about presenting a single coordinated approach to minimise annoyance.

I see. Really then my last question is pointless since a high percentage of cavers have no conceivable reason to get involved in access arrangements.

The only real US/UK difference here seems to be population. If there are so many UK cavers that the absence of these organizations would result in excessive landowner annoyance... then you have a caver overpopulation problem, and I again return to questioning the wisdom of active recruitment of more cavers.

 

[kay]

The only real US/UK difference here seems to be population. If there are so many UK cavers that the absence of these organizations would result in excessive landowner annoyance... then you have a caver overpopulation problem, and I again return to questioning the wisdom of active recruitment of more cavers.

Of the order of one tenth of one per cent of our population are cavers. I doubt that that is much larger than your percentage of cavers. According to World Bank data, the US has an average population density of 35 people per sq km; we have 269. That affects far more than number of cavers. It affects accessibility/wildness, for example - we can't rely on an unpublished cave remaining unknown and unvisited.

 

[alastairgott]

I again return to questioning the wisdom of active recruitment of more cavers.

you've already made a topic about that, stick to the current topic please!

 

[Kenilworth]

Of the order of one tenth of one per cent of our population are cavers. I doubt that that is much larger than your percentage of cavers. According to World Bank data, the US has an average population density of 35 people per sq km; we have 269. That affects far more than number of cavers. It affects accessibility/wildness, for example - we can't rely on an unpublished cave remaining unknown and unvisited.

Caver overpopulation wouldn't have to do with caver:general population, but with caver:cave.

AG- This is on topic. Though the absence of BCA would mean initial inconvenience to cavers and landowners, what effect might it have on caver populations? In other words, is the cure creating the disease?

 

[Madness]

In other words, is the cure creating the disease?

What disease?

 

[alastairgott]

What disease? I was in Kingsdale at the weekend getting piss wet through when I was changing, there were very few other people there.

Some of the current arrangements in place LIMIT the amount of cavers allowed into certain systems.

Albeit Access has been improved in Peak cavern to allow more cavers access. It used to be the fact that access was only allowed in winter months, and then that got extended to Sunday's only and now we have free-er access through keyholders.

FYI in this country Caver populations have been relatively constant in recent year and are much LOWER than they used to be.

Active recruitment of Cavers:
1) keeps the sport alive.
2) keeps the relevant Rescue organisations topped up with experienced cavers.
3) Is not detrimental to the state of the Caves in the UK.

The only real US/UK difference here seems to be population. If there are so many UK cavers that the absence of these organizations would result in excessive landowner annoyance... then you have a caver overpopulation problem, and I again return to questioning the wisdom of active recruitment of more cavers.

You are basically trying to poke holes in our country and find problems where there are none!

What makes you draw the spurious link between "landowner annoyance" with "overpopulation".

Take Leck fell as a prime example, during the last year there was only one point in the year when there was landowner annoyance, and it is very unlikely that this situation will arise again in the Next 10-40 years.
Under normal conditions, there is one dedicated caver who deals with permit requests and therefore limits the amount of Cavers driving up the lane.

we have all given you plenty of real world examples as to how you are incorrect, but I do not see you researching any of the examples that any of are giving and poking holes in them. which I'm sure there will be holes which you can enlarge!