BCA Executive has issued the following statement today. Electronic versions are available from the BCA website (pdf or rtf) and we would ask that it is e-mailed to Club Members as widely as possible. Paper copies will be posted out to all BCA Member Clubs later this week. http://tinyurl.com/CastertonFell also links directly to the pdf.
BCA Statement on Casterton Fell Access
- Thread starter damian
- Start date
Pete Brookdale
New member
Surely any action by the BCA, CNCC will only result in more pirate trips as I presume actions would include not granting permits or no longer being a member of the BCA/CNCC? This would only make matters worse would it not?
langcliffe
Well-known member
Pete Brookdale said:
Does this imply that nothing can effectively be done, and we'll just have to wait until the actions of the irresponsible clubs and cavers result in the fell being closed?
Pete Brookdale
New member
Well action could be taken against the members involved but that would only mean they go caving on their own without permits still. what I would do is slap their wrists tell em not to do it again, with maybe an apology to the estate office in writing or person, and just apply for a permit. Since they are digital these days it's easy, when I applied for a Dale head permit it took all of 15mins to get the reply and print it out so it's no hassle by any means. Just laziness if you ask me.
If permits are only available to BCA Member Clubs then it might be reasonable to assume that at least some of those cavers who were being naughty and going caving somewhere they shouldn't have been without a permit may have been doing so because they do not belong to such a club and are hence unable to get hold of a permit in the first place. If this is the case, I fail to see how 'appropriate sanctions' can be applied by the CNCC or BCA. Perhaps a better idea might be to find a way to issue permits to cavers who choose not to belong to a BCA Member Club.
I have a couple of technical questions for Damian (or anyone else who may care to answer):
I belong to a club which is a member of another Regional Council (Cambrian) but is not a direct member of BCA. Can we apply for permits or not?
Is Casterton Fell open access for walkers or do they need permits as well?
I have a couple of technical questions for Damian (or anyone else who may care to answer):
I belong to a club which is a member of another Regional Council (Cambrian) but is not a direct member of BCA. Can we apply for permits or not?
Is Casterton Fell open access for walkers or do they need permits as well?
Perhaps someone should make themselves available on a weekend to stand guard at Bull Pot Farm, or Leck Fell so they can police any cavers heading up that way? Graham seems to advocate measures against those that post reports on the web and yet, as the landowner has found out, the problem is far greater. By all means question those that post reports and they may think twice but when the landowner continues to see minibuses and hoards of cavers trampling over the fell (when no permits have been issued) then quite obviously the problem has not been solved. How do you educate the masses, some of whom may not even be members of BCA and may not be able to acquire permits?langcliffe said:
And as a reminder, slightly related, still waiting for clarification (separate post) on the access situation to a pothole in the Ease Gill area..
graham
New member
dunc said:
To clarify, I most certainly do not think that action should be limited just to those, but thought that the case against those who have published their actions is far more straightforward than in other cases.
There are a number of other actions that might be taken to deter pirates, many of these have doubtless occurred to the CNCC officers involved, mayhap they should discuss them with the land agents.
graham
New member
NigR said:
It's not that long ago that access to the Fell was for members of CNCC clubs only.
But some people don't want to play the game except by their own rules.
Tough, that means there are some places they are not allowed to go.
I wonder what sanctions the wider caving community might impose on someone who knowingly screwed up access to such as Casterton Fell for everybody else.
Thornycroft
New member
Would it be possible to get some background on the need for a permit system? I'm unsure how the current system helps to persuade land owners to give access to their land. If the issue is really about parking, path erosion and restrictions for hunting etc there could well be better ways of managing access, or issuing permits.
As an observation, I would note that a system requiring planning doesn't fit the habits of many cavers particularly well (except club trips, which only really exist in the university clubs anyway). Typically I'll plan my trip while I'm up at the farm, with a decision based on the current and recent weather, who's feeling like caving that day, what sort of trip we can manage etc. In many ways it's much safer that the cave we have a permit for doesn't have a bearing on that decision.
There are also some caves which are almost always pirated where it might be better for them to be except from the permit system rather than have them undermine the system where it is more justified. ( ie no permit required for Wretched Rabbit, County Pot and Lancaster Hole ). Similarly less frequented caves; do we really need to control the people entering Peterson Pot?
I have difficulty placing all the 'blame' for pirating at the feet of the cavers; the system has a large part to play. It would be appreciated if those implementing such access arrangements went some way to understanding the reasons people pirate caves, rather than dismissing it as laziness. The current access system stiffels caving activity and any way it can be simplified would be a bonus.
As an observation, I would note that a system requiring planning doesn't fit the habits of many cavers particularly well (except club trips, which only really exist in the university clubs anyway). Typically I'll plan my trip while I'm up at the farm, with a decision based on the current and recent weather, who's feeling like caving that day, what sort of trip we can manage etc. In many ways it's much safer that the cave we have a permit for doesn't have a bearing on that decision.
There are also some caves which are almost always pirated where it might be better for them to be except from the permit system rather than have them undermine the system where it is more justified. ( ie no permit required for Wretched Rabbit, County Pot and Lancaster Hole ). Similarly less frequented caves; do we really need to control the people entering Peterson Pot?
I have difficulty placing all the 'blame' for pirating at the feet of the cavers; the system has a large part to play. It would be appreciated if those implementing such access arrangements went some way to understanding the reasons people pirate caves, rather than dismissing it as laziness. The current access system stiffels caving activity and any way it can be simplified would be a bonus.
graham said:
Yes, I know that. When I was at Cardiff University in the 1970's we joined the CNCC just to get permits. My question refers to the current situation. Thanks for quoting my post in full but not bothering to answer it.
graham said:
Yes, but they are still going to go there though aren't they? Otherwise there would have been no need for the BCA to make their statement or for Damian to post it on here would there?
In the past, there have been lots of places where people have not been allowed to go officially. But they have continued to go there and eventually, because of this, access has been improved for everybody. Two examples which spring to mind are Kinder Scout for walkers and Range West at Castlemartin in Pembrokeshire for climbers.
graham said:
Hmmm......sounds just a teensy weensy bit threatening to me. You offering to be first in line, Graham? Best get yourself up to Casterton Fell on a weekend then, I'm sure you can have some interesting discussions with some of the cavers you'll meet. Make sure you take the 'wider caving community' along with you, mind.
droid
Active member
Comparing cavers on Casterton with the Mass Trespass on Kinder is specious 'Nig' and you know it.
You'll never get the sort of mass gathering of cavers, and continuing problems on Casterton will simply see access further restricted. How would you feel if a few coachloads of Northern cavers descended on Swales and simply rode roughshod over access agreements for, say OFD?
It's bloody wonderful how brave people are behind a keyboard....
You'll never get the sort of mass gathering of cavers, and continuing problems on Casterton will simply see access further restricted. How would you feel if a few coachloads of Northern cavers descended on Swales and simply rode roughshod over access agreements for, say OFD?
It's bloody wonderful how brave people are behind a keyboard....
Gollum
Member
It's simple. If you are in BCA you accept there agreements or raise your concerns through the proper channels. If you not in BCA then it don't matter what they say about access because you aint part of their agreements.
BCA need to sort their members out and leave the land owner to sort out none BCA members because BCA has no power over none members.
Do BCA CIC assessors get a permit when they take training and assessments courses in there?
BCA need to sort their members out and leave the land owner to sort out none BCA members because BCA has no power over none members.
Do BCA CIC assessors get a permit when they take training and assessments courses in there
?
TheBitterEnd
Well-known member
Just to chip in on some of the points raised above.
- Casterton fell is Access Land under the right to roam legislation, so walkers do not need permits and I believe it is now part of the National Park as well. (If caves had been included in the Right to Roam legislation then landowners would have had reduced liability and may not have been so concerned about insurance)
- I believe permits are dual purpose in that they aim to give the landowner assurance that those caving are covered by BCA insurance which indemnifies the landowner and also have a conservation role in ensuring that access is limited
- The Casterton Fell permit restricts access to two cars. It is a publically maintained road up to BPF, so we get to pay taxes to repair a public road which the landowner then says we can't use. 2 Cars for 8 cavers also seems pretty impractical
- Dunc - on Pegleg pot, contact the relevant permits secretary but I was told that a permit was not necessary
Blakethwaite
New member
Moving away from the posturing, Thorneycroft has raised some points I suspect many would sympathise with. Can anyone with an involvement in the administrative side respond?
langcliffe
Well-known member
Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but Casterton Fell is NOT in the YDNP. The proposal for extending the boundary is still under consideration.TheBitterEnd said:
See http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/specialplace/yorkshiredalesnationalpark/1.1.2r2-map-of-ydnp/ydnp-map-a4.jpg for the National Park Authority's view of the extent of the area for which they have responsibility.
TheBitterEnd
Well-known member