This has been split off from the original topic - http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,8503.0.html
by request as its now just turned into a huge debate about SSSI's, Quangos, fly tipping, Whitelackington, the colour of my underpants etc etc.

Babble away here till your hearts content

Sam

Jackalpup said:

Time to jump in at the 11th hour ?.

?Dunc? has hit a nail on the head which I think is driving most of us totally potty and that is (not to put too fine a point on it) ?too much bitchy political shit?.

A MAJOR problem we (as cavers) face is the differing ?political? opinions of persons (landowners, other cavers etc.) and so called ?bodies? (BCA, CCC, PDCMG, CCW etc.).

I have only been caving seriously for around 3-4 years and , frankly, the utter rubbish that I have witnessed that has been thrown in the way of ?progress? is so frustrating that sometimes it makes me feel like giving up caving altogether and I will wager a number of other cavers feel the same way.

It just seems that some people exist to cause problems.

. . .

After we began the new entrance we were advised (by the police) that we were digging SSSI land and thusly committing an offence (actually, they were very arsey about it). We genuinely were not aware of this (yes, the landowner should have told us) and obviously we co-operated to remedy the position. We applied to the CCW to continue the dig but we were refused. Strange really as the dig was in a quarry spoil heap and the reason for the SSSI was to protect special ?fauna? (of which there was none on the quarry spoil). However, with the threat of prosecution and a refusal of permission we were compelled to abandon the project and re-fill the ?entrance?. Powerplay? Politics?

In another instance, a dig had been on-going for in excess of 10 years and the land was suddenly designated SSSI. The CCW ordered the dig to be stopped as the dig spoil was being tipped outside the cave entrance. The CCW argued it was destroying the ?fauna?. The diggers argued that there was no fauna (on account of the tipped spoil) and hadn?t been for at least 10 years prior to the order. Guess who won that argument.

. . .

Seems to me that we are being stiffled with utter rubbish from the powers that be who say ?you can?t do this?. You can?t do that ?. Etc. etc.?.

. . .

Ian

Click to expand...

A similar instance occurred at Llangattock years ago when Bill Gascoine (secretary of the Agen Allwedd Cave Management Committee), Steve Pedrazolli (warden for the Gwent Cave Rescue Team) and John Morrisey were progressing a dig just below and to the left of the waterfall along the Llangattock quarries tramroad, a short distance prior to the main entrance to Eglwys Faen.

The diggers called their new cave Eglwys Faen Fach, but they were asked by the Nature Conservancy Council (not the Police) to stop work because they may have been endangering rare plant species. The diggers cooperated and the site has never since been restarted to my knowledge.

You are now saying that the Countryside Council for Wales, which has taken over the responsibilities of the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales, is using the Police to enforce their policies?

Yes, we do live in a democracy - not a Police state - unless we allow such a phenomena to take over. Everyone should watch the 1955 film '1984', from the novel by George Orwell. It might be dated, but it was made from the perspective of WW2 having just been won against fascism only ten years earlier - looking ahead to potential dangers in the future. Perhaps now we are right in the middle of choosing which way the future will actually pan out?

So, every time you ask for a CCTV camera to be installed 'for security reasons' just ask yourself whether it is actually going to help you or help take away your freedom? In April 2006 I saw a motionless man being squashed into the pavement by someone wearing worn-looking jeans and casual dress sitting on top of him, with his knee pressing into his spine. The man had to support his chest by holding his bent elbow in front of his face, otherwise I suspect he would have suffocated. This took place outside the Odeon, Leicester Square in London. To cut a long story short, when I asked the Police Complaints Authority to confirm the Police story that this man had been acting violently, by checking the CCTV footage (which the Police officer I talked to, who had been in charge of the cells where the man had subsequently been locked up, told me was good for the area), the Complaints Authority wrote back to me and informed me that they had closed the case (without looking at the footage and therefore without my consent).

I would say that given you had the permission of the landowner you should not accept the Police action which, provided you were not carrying out a 'potentially damaging operation', was unlawful. You need to check the designation of the SSSI concerned to see what has been covered. Caves, cave entrances (actual or potential), sinks and resurgences may or may not be listed. It's all in the wording to determine the extent of the authority granted through the designation of the 'SSSI'. Making a complaint against the Police is not advisable, unless you have a pressing need to do so, evidence and, ideally, an independent witness(es) to back up your claim. Don't forget in built-up areas that CCTV footage can easily be 'lost' to order.

The Countryside Council for Wales relies for wardening its reserves on voluntary support. They do not have the money to pay for all the work required to carry out their brief and responsibilities. So, if arbitrary and unreasonable decisions are being made in a certain area then I would suggest that cavers in that area think very carefully before offering any support to the CCW in that area, until a reasonable and cooperative atmosphere has been restored. However, you must keep in contact with the landowner(s) and ensure that they are happy for you to be crossing and/or working on their land in the fashion that you propose.

If there are rare plants in one spot, then why not come to the reasonable agreement to dump the spoil (carefully) where there are not any? And don't forget not to leave any open (uncovered) shafts on land where animals or people could fall down them by accident.

Also, don't forget the upside of SSSIs is that, given their existence, it is less likely that quarrying permission will be granted for removing the caves that you enjoy visiting!

I think most officers working for the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and English Nature are only too pleased to work cooperatively and constructively with cavers, because each need the other for the flow of information which is required to manage and protect the natural world to the best effect.

Clive G ? In short, ?Yes?, the CCW are using the police to enforce their rules (policies?) etc. and your points on how to deal with them are well made and echo the manner in which we (myself and those I cave with) behave with and towards them.

I think what ?Dunc? was driving at (and certainly what I jumped on the back of) is the vast amount of ?bitchy politics? that now exist and the vast amount of hoops we have to jump through and should we really have to do it at all?

I asked what gave them the right to do this and Graham answered that we are in a democracy and that our elected leaders gave them the right (either directly or indirectly). Unfortunately, I was not clear in what I meant with my statement (my fault entirely) ~ I know we are in a democratic ?state? and I know Graham has also raised this earlier in the thread.

I?ll try to be more clear ?..

Graham?s second point about lead polluted water demonstrates the basic premise of our ?policing? in that we each have the right to be protected from our neighbour (meaning everyone else). We each also have the right to exercise our ?rights?. The government (following Royal rule) came into being to determine (amongst other things) policy on what ?rights? we each have and what we should be protected from. Later, a ?police force? was created to ?police? those laws.

However, ?quangos? are non-elected bodies although I expect to hear an argument that they are created from and by an elected body and, as such, remain ?democratic?. I am aware (of course) that the democratic process and the ?law? gives the CCW (and other such bodies) the ?right? to make decisions as they do.

What I really mean is, regardless of the position in law, what actually gives a body or a person the ?right? to dictate to you and I what we can and cannot do (say, on our own land) ?

In Graham?s example the actions of the landowner were detrimental to his neighbours and the ?law? exists to protect us from our neighbours so there is no real conflict there.

However, in the case of a particular bit of ?fauna? ? who was it that decided it was rare or special? Who was it that decided it was to be protected and scheduled? Who was it that decided the boundaries of the scheduling? Who is it that decides if something is potential damaging? Who is it that wields the prosecution axe?

In every case I expect the answer is NOT an elected person or body and I suggest that this is NOT acceptable per se. Was it an ?expert? in the field that made that particular decision or a group of pen-pushers sat around a table with pencils and paper?

Are we even entitled to know who made such decisions?  If not, why not? As we certainly have to suck up to them when we want something.

I would wager that none of the democratically elected persons are involved or were even ever involved. Do you believe that our elected MP?s or elected councillors sat down around a table and decided ?what is what with regards to fauna? ?

Ask this question too ?. Who was it that decided to create a quango (the answer may be different for different bodies) ? was it a group of elected persons sat around a table or was it some ?appointed official? who made an ?executive decision? ?  The quango may not necessary therefore be democratic in any event.

In any case ?. When the quango(s) was/were created, did the elected persons have a meeting to discuss how exactly they should operate or was the quango given a basic mandate open to their own interpretation ?

I think we all know that the people working for these bodies have a mandate to work with and have certain powers to enforce it.

Still, one might argue that  this is still ?all to the good? ?. Obviously, I am not one such person and I think that many of us (cavers) are fed up with it.

There is a HUGE difference in Protection and Interference.

I am not just suggesting that certain bodies in some instances ?step over the line? but I am also suggesting that;

Quangos should not be empowered to make policy.

Persons working in or for quangos should not be empowered to make policy.

Persons working for such bodies are clearly biased (the quango exists for a defined purpose) and should not be empowered to make decisions.

Without detriment to their neighbours and within the law, landowners should be allowed to do what they want with their land (I am not a landowner).

In essence, I can see no reason to even have these quangos and do believe they ?interfere? more than they ?protect?.

That?s just the negative points ?.. As for the ?positive? things they do, I think they are equally as bad (as I gave examples in the previous post).

I take Graham?s point that there are two sides to every argument and you cannot draw a conclusion without knowing the full picture so I will use one that you DO know the full picture of ?. Footpath regeneration in Snowdonia ?. Of course, anyone living in the area will be aware that some quango or other has taken it upon themselves to re-stone all the major footpaths in Snowdonia up and around the mountains (all in the name of preserving the paths) ?

Now ask yourself why?  Footpath erosion is perfectly natural but, in any event, a lot of these re-generated paths are already damaged through wear and tear and some have fallen away in places (kind of defeats the object of having them doesn?t it). Most notably, there are many areas (and I do mean many) where the work was not finished properly on footpaths and empty rock bags are left ?hither and thither? (some half buried in the paths). There are virtually no paths that meet the ?idealism? laid down at the outset. Frankly, the paths are (in the main) a disgrace and distract from the beauty of the mountains.

So, whose idea was that and just how much money have we (as taxpayers) spent on that little gem? Furthermore, it seems that these quangos are immune from prosecution ?. In many instances (I walk all through the mountains in Snowdonia) the work that has been undertaken has clearly and manifestly damaged the land and is, at very best, ?unsightly? ? are they accountable for that? Who will prosecute them? Will the individual who pushed his pen across the paper and made the decision be personally liable (as we are in the reverse situation) or will he say he is an employee of the quango and be protected?

At the heart of all of this, I suspect, is the philosophy that we, each of us, have and assign different ?values? to things (like the preservation of fauna or the pushing of a cave system). ?Democracy? is never going to bring the differing ?values? into balance so why can?t we simply get on with our lives minding our own business without 3rd parties interfering?

Sorry about the lengthy rant but I do, as always, mean well.



Ian

From what little I know on this topic IIRC the features worthy of protection in cave SSSIs are selected by cavers/speleologists, not a quango.

Jackalpup said:

What I really mean is, regardless of the position in law, what actually gives a body or a person the ?right? to dictate to you and I what we can and cannot do (say, on our own land) ?

Click to expand...

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is the relevant legislation that gives power to the Country Agencies - NE, CCW, SNH, NIEA - to schedule the sites on private land to protect natural features, flora and forna, etc. The SSSI's are scheduled via specific processes that are open to scrutiny and can be objected to and/or modified at the time of scheduling (very similar to the planning process).
The whole process is summarised here http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1377

Jeepers Les, you are a veritable abundance of knowledge and information.

I have now looked through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and specifically sought out the details regarding SSSI ?.

Section 69, Paragraph 28(1) specifically empowers the ?nature conservancy council? (ie. the governing quango) to make an application to designate land as SSSI if they are of the opinion that it should be.

That leaves the door wide open to my earlier points as to ?who? makes the decision that something is or is not to be protected (not least on what basis). There is no detail on the criteria to be used in the determination of what is or is not to be protected.

How ?fair? is that ?

I also find it highly unlikely that particular fauna etc. exists within very well defined boundaries on maps (ie. it does exist on one side of a fence but not on the other side where there is a different landowner).

Furthermore, the act also provides that a PDO can be undertaken (as opposed to an application to do something that doesn?t interfere with the reason for the scheduling) provided the authority issues a licence.

That says to me ?you can only do this if we say so? (powerplay and money raising?).  Is it not the case that something so rare or special should be protected in any event?

I am afraid I am un-moved. I appreciate you pointing to the actual legislation that governs us all but it does not address any of the concerns raised that decisions are arbitrarily made by unelected people or bodies and enforced by the same persons who are clearly prejudice.

I also noticed that the act covers the preservation of ?natural beauty?. That?s really cool ?. Can we now prosecute all those responsible for ruining almost every footpath in Snowdonia ?

??No ?  I thought not.

I also appreciate you (Les) explaining the process involved in getting the land scheduled. However, my experience (and before that what I witnessed of the experiences of those around me)  in dealing with these people (to date) has been, shall we say, ?difficult?. Although there has not been any unprofessionalism. there has been no offer to ?help or assist?  and no effort whatsoever on ?their part? to attempt to find a mutually agreeable way forward. Furthermore, their records and information remained clandestine at all times.

I am sure that not all ?individuals? who work for such organisations are as ?unhelpful? and I do hope that my experiences are not representative of other areas.

I still believe (like others on here) that we are being subjected to ?bitchy politics?  and still cannot understand why we (us all) can?t just be left alone.



Ian

Les has given the up to date answer, but I'm not sure that is quite what Jackalpup wanted. However, the answer to:

What I really mean is, regardless of the position in law, what actually gives a body or a person the ?right? to dictate to you and I what we can and cannot do (say, on our own land) ?

Click to expand...

cannot be given without reference to the position in Law. In technical terms, but without using the jargon, it's not actually your land, it's land that you hold, basically because the Crown has granted it to you, or to someone else who has granted it to you. In this day and age and for most purposes this doesn't matter as most of us aren't interested in doing all sorts of exotic stuff in our back gardens (most of us, Les!). But it is this fundamental aspect of it that gives the government of the day the power to have the final say, in planning terms and in situations like this. In other countries it's different, In France for example, IIRC land is ultimately owned by the Commune, though even then they have to bow to the will of the Prefecture and, ultimately, the central government.

Jackalpup said:

That leaves the door wide open to my earlier points as to ?who? makes the decision that something is or is not to be protected (not least on what basis). There is no detail on the criteria to be used in the determination of what is or is not to be protected.

How ?fair? is that ?

I also find it highly unlikely that particular fauna etc. exists within very well defined boundaries on maps (ie. it does exist on one side of a fence but not on the other side where there is a different landowner).

Furthermore, the act also provides that a PDO can be undertaken (as opposed to an application to do something that doesn?t interfere with the reason for the scheduling) provided the authority issues a licence.

Click to expand...

Could go on all night, & don't have time so just these few extra points:

I It is a "good thing" that the law is not to prescriptive as it means we don't have to amend it every time a new rare species of beetle is discovered.

2 It's not meant to be "fair" why should it be?

3 The reason for using defined land packets on maps is so that the land registry can be used inform just what land is scheduled and for what purposes.

4 Licences to enact PDO's on scheduled land are enacted all the time. This is the process whereby the authorising body can agree with the landowner and users what can reasonably be done & what shouldn't be done. lots of cavers on Mendip have had lots of contact with the relevant folks from Natural England (or whatever the government have renamed them this week) and I, for one, have been happy to receive grant assistance in carrying out conservation work.

I, for one, have been happy to receive grant assistance in carrying out conservation work.

Click to expand...

Probably not recently, Graham. They're broke.

I believe I'm right in saying that the majority of funding now comes from Europe.

Hughie said:

I, for one, have been happy to receive grant assistance in carrying out conservation work.

Click to expand...

Probably not recently, Graham. They're broke.

I believe I'm right in saying that the majority of funding now comes from Europe.

Click to expand...

Fair point, mate.

Graham,

Firstly, I have no wish to fall out with you (or anyone else) and secondly, within the ?debate? of this thread my intentions are still well meaning.

I know that we have a ?regime? (for the want of a better word) and I am committed to finding the best way forward in using the regime (as opposed to fighting it).

However, the crux of the debate is being skirted around and not answered.

I take your points 1 to 4 and referring in order ?.

1) ?Who? decides what is or is not rare or special and on what basis ? I have suggested that this is some unelected person(s) sat behind a desk whom has imposed his/her opinion on the rest us of with the full weight of law and to our detriment. Nothing has yet been shown to demonstrate the criteria used by that person(s) or indeed who that person is. Are you seriously suggesting that we all just sit back and accept that an unknown person(s) can make decisions of such magnitude that affect us in such a huge way based on their opinion without knowing what criteria they have to satisfy (if any) in their process ?

2) Why should it be ?faIr?? Well, by that what I mean is that we have a right to be protected FROM our neighbours. Arguably, our neighbours (in this case certain quangos) actions are detrimental to us. Like THEM ruining the natural beauty of Snowdonia for instance? ?fair? might be the wrong word ? try ?equitable?. 

What about OUR rights?  What if they came along to your garden and told you that the single dandelion in the corner was now being scheduled and you lost your whole garden to scheduling ? how would you feel ?   

I imagine you (and everyone) will think that is a ridiculous example HOWEVER, the film company I spoke of earlier filming in Dinorwig quarry in Llanberis were compelled to use camouflage netting on the fauna there and this ?fauna? was common ferns. Ferns (which I might add) which have not even been there very long (but more than the 20 years as the act provides) as the quarry is, essentially, one huge spoil heap.

So, ok, it doesn?t have to be ?fair? but equally, (apart from the fact they have the law on their side) why should we (the victims) sit back and take it up the backside just because someone has decided something where there is no apparent accountability for that decision and no apparent need to justify it ?

3) The land is scheduled so the land registry can register it as such ? well, I can accept that.  It is, however, exceedingly difficult to then support or justify the stance that ALL of that scheduled land would be potentially damaged in some kind of activity, as there is, by concession, some area of it that is not of special scientific interest.

4) I haven?t suggested that licences are not granted ? I was illustrating a hypocrisy of the ?regime?

Doesn?t the fact that this thread and this debate exist prove the point that some cavers are making that we are being subjected to ?bitchy politics? ?  After all, if we were not, we wouldn?t be exchanging these views would we ?

:-\

Ian

Jackalpup - your concerns are not ill-founded. Having been the on the recieving end of designation, and nore recently involved in a "consultation" process. It's not caving related so will probably pm you (later -have to go out now), However, I would trust NE as far as I can throw Les W.

Ian

Again, I don't have the time to do justice to a long essay covering all your points, so I will just take one which, I believe does illustrate the pragmatic nature of these arrangements, though it doesn't actually have much bearing on the situation at Draenen.

3) The land is scheduled so the land registry can register it as such ? well, I can accept that.  It is, however, exceedingly difficult to then support or justify the stance that ALL of that scheduled land would be potentially damaged in some kind of activity, as there is, by concession, some area of it that is not of special scientific interest.

Click to expand...

Pragmatically, the land covered has to be defined in a way recognised by the legal authorities. This means using field boundaries that appear on definitive mapping, what other way can you use that is clear to all? I do remember (and I believe I've made this point recently on here) that CCW were very careful, when LNRC was scheduled, to draw the boundary to cover the minimum amount of land. However, that all the PDOs in a given schedule would not be problematic on every part of the land is the exact reason why licences are regularly granted. Would you prefer that the CCW (etc.) drew up a prescriptive schedule of PDOs for each separate field over a given cave?

Hughie said:

Jackalpup - your concerns are not ill-founded. Having been the on the receiving end of designation, and more recently involved in a "consultation" process. It's not caving related so will probably pm you (later -have to go out now), However, I would trust NE as far as I can throw Les W.

Click to expand...

Oh come on Hughie, we all know that you could chuck Les W all the way to the bottom of Templeton, several hundred metres at the very least.

graham said:

Hughie said:

Jackalpup - your concerns are not ill-founded. Having been the on the receiving end of designation, and more recently involved in a "consultation" process. It's not caving related so will probably pm you (later -have to go out now), However, I would trust NE as far as I can throw Les W.

Click to expand...

Oh come on Hughie, we all know that you could chuck Les W all the way to the bottom of Templeton,

Click to expand...

graham said:

several hundred metres at the very least.

Click to expand...

Graham,

I have already conceded your point on boundaries. I am even happy to concede your pragmatism too  :ang:

The real points remain moot  :blink:

Ian

actually, although it can be really inconvenient, Britain is actually really really weak in its protection
of the enviroment. If you compare Britain's National parks to those of the USA then the level of protection
is pretty poor.  I agree accountability is important but bodies like CCW don't have much in the way or resources
or powers. 

Overall, I'd prefer Britain to have more controls on what happens in the enviroment...

Shortscotsman,

What additional controls would you like to see ?



Ian

Jackalpup said:

What additional controls would you like to see ?

Click to expand...

Reintroduction of wolves to control the faunal population and reintroduction of bears to control the human incursions.

8)

Jackalpup said:

 
I imagine you (and everyone) will think that is a ridiculous example HOWEVER, the film company I spoke of earlier filming in Dinorwig quarry in Llanberis were compelled to use camouflage netting on the fauna there and this ?fauna? was common ferns.

Click to expand...

Someone got muddled there, then, didn't they? Ferns as fauna  :tease:
But what do you mean by 'common ferns' - what species were they?

Ferns (which I might add) which have not even been there very long (but more than the 20 years as the act provides) as the quarry is, essentially, one huge spoil heap.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, some of the richest orchid sites in the country are ex-industrial. Nob End in Bolton, for example - high ph waste alkali deposits from the Leblanc process.

I'm much happier that a quango staffed with professional biologists should make these decisions than a directly elected body of MPs looking over their shoulder at the next election.

Even as I type, the CCW guy I dealt with over Neath is on TV with Griff Rhys Jones, Ray Wood. Same prog as had the sewer stuff last week.