Descent Article re CROW by Mr O 'Doc

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
In the latest issue received today. I think this fairly sums up the antipathy felt by many cavers in the south to CROW ( sic ) and the continuing waste of time and effort pursing it.
 

paul

Moderator
The Old Ruminator said:
In the latest issue received today. I think this fairly sums up the antipathy felt by many cavers in the south to CROW ( sic ) and the continuing waste of time and effort pursing it.

I personally don't think it's a waste of time.
 

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
JohnMCooper said:
felt by many cavers in the south

I'd agree if it said "felt by many of the old guard cavers in the south" but not sure it applies to all.

Old Gits comes to mind but I know my place. As for JMC he must be somewhere in the middle ground regarding age. Does wisdom increase with age or evaporate like the mist in the sun ?

Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
 

David Rose

Active member
My Descent hasn't come yet, so I haven't seen the article. I am the BCA Crow working group convenor, and I have led this project.

I and several others have spent many hours over a long period pursuing this "waste of time and effort". 

It would have been nice if the article's author had given me an opportunity to respond to his views - what we in the (hated) media call granting a "right to reply", and something we try to do every time we write an article. He does in fact know me, and I have always considered him to be a friendly acquaintance.

I have repeatedly given lengthy progress reports on the case to the BCA council, and answered all questions as they have arisen. I am easily contactable here or via the BCA. Many cavers know my email address. No one has informed me until today that many southern cavers think the whole thing has been a waste of time and effort. No one once objected in such terms at BCA meetings, at which the only voices I heard were supportive. I have been deeply aware that in mounting this case, which has cost the BCA money, I bear a big responsibility, and that I must always be accountable and transparent. 

It's a pity that these southern cavers - whether they are few or numerous - didn't take the trouble to communicate these feelings until now, but instead decided to ambush me and attack the whole enterprise in the pages of Descent and on the forum.

There is a lot yet to do in this campaign, although the current court case is, as my own Descent news article indicates, about to be settled, partly in our favour. I have a big job ahead: under the settlement terms, I need to compile a cogent and powerful submission making the case for cave access reform to the Welsh Government, which will then be mandated to respond. This too will take "time and effort".

If lots of readers feel this too is going to be wasted, and  would rather I didn't bother, please take this opportunity to make this known, whether they're from the south (as I am myself) or anywhere else.

And if you want to propose further Descent articles, whatever you may happen to think (I am in favour of free speech), do please get in touch.

It is, I think, worth stressing that the BCA does have a policy regarding Crow, and even changed its constitution to make sure it was pursued, so it's not as if my colleagues and I have been acting without a mandate. But apparently many southern cavers don't care. Is that really true?
 

Cantclimbtom

Well-known member
The stated purpose wrt public access in CRoW is to allow Jo Public to "..to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation"

Not sure that mine exploring (or caving) would be sit broadly within "open-air recreation", but if BCA can get our pastimes added (or clarified as included already) I'd be extremely grateful.

EDIT: posts crossed in Transit, I suppose this is in part directed at you David -- Thank You
 

Shapatti

New member
David Rose said:
But apparently many southern cavers don't care. Is that really true?
I'd still argue that point to actually be 'But apparently many cavers don't care.'
As far as I can see most, if not the vast majority, of cavers in the UK do not care about the machinations of politics, be it national or local, so long as they continue to be able to enjoy their hobbies and pastimes.
I for one do know what CROW could mean to parts of the UK re caving, but I simply don't care enough to pursue it as it doesn't keep me from pursuing my hobby, infact it would cost time and effort that I would prefer to be spent in other ways...
It may allow me to possibly visit sites that I wouldn't normally, but it isn't keeping me from the vast majority of sites... This may be short-sighted but it is the attitude of apathy of quite lot of British Cavers...
This is the ultimate problem of any issue with BCA...

Maybe the South will not see as many benefits locally from CROW as the other regions, though this is not a reason to not pursue a worthwhile outcome, assuming the likely outcome is worthwhile...
 

2xw

Active member
You cared enough to reply, Shapatti.

I'm not sure the "vast majority" don't care at all, I think that's tripe. They don't care about personal grudges or arguing, which unfortunately can be the most visible aspect, but folks do care a lot about bolts being installed, gates being fixed and fitted, training being done, access being negotiated, student clubs being started and maintained or any of the other myriad functions of the BCA - as evidenced by how many folk use those services, and will volunteer/turn out when they need fixing or work on them.

As you said, so long as you can continue to enjoy your hobbies and past times - there's folk that are the reason you're able to do so even if you don't appreciate them!

As far as Crow, Dave et al have a mandate for what they're doing as given by the membership, which did vote on it. It's up to him whether he has wasted his time or not - I don't think so

As an aside it might be a bit rich for any cave digger to accuse anyone of wasting time and effort  ;)
 

Stu

Active member
David Rose said:
My Descent hasn't come yet, so I haven't seen the article. I am the BCA Crow working group convenor, and I have led this project.

I and several others have spent many hours over a long period pursuing this "waste of time and effort". 

You're not wasting your time David, thanks for your effort.
 

ChrisJC

Well-known member
I agree. It is a question that needs resolving, so I am pleased that we have access to sufficiently heavyweight and committed individuals who are prepared to work on this.

Chris.
 

Brains

Well-known member
I am saddened to see the article published without a right of reply, as this would have given more insight and even "fairness" to the article. It is NOT a waste of time and needs clarifying from the current ridiculous "limit of daylight."
Perhaps if the NCA officer at the time of the CROW formulation had followed his mandate to INCLUDE caving, rather than do an about face and argue against it / do nothing we wouldnt be in this situation now.
Sadly once again it seems the Medipians are trying to push their agenda on the rest of us...

NOTE: This would only relate to CAVES and NOT mines
 

mrodoc

Well-known member
JohnMCooper said:
As for JMC he must be somewhere in the middle ground regarding age.

I'm pleased to hear being born in 1947 is middle aged :)

I recently read (and I cannot remember where) that middle age has been redefined as extending to 80 so we are both middle aged old farts or whatever!
 

mrodoc

Well-known member
Well here comes the flak! It's an opinion folks and we are entitled to them. Several friends and a members of my family voted to leave the EU. I thought it would a total mess but they believed Boris's bus so there you go.
 

Rhys

Moderator
I'm not sure the immediate lack of a right to reply is really such a big deal or something to get worked up about. It's hardly a hard hitting thorough article; just the short personal musings of Pete Glanvill. I'm sure David could get a piece published in the next Descent (or numerous other places if desired).

There are a few glaring holes in the piece: reference to Cornish mines (could never be covered by CROW), charging money to cross land (would be illegal if CROW land). Not to mention the fact that Pete's GPs-against-the-government fight was ultimately successful and surely an encouragement to keep up the CROW fight!

None the less, I see where he's coming from, but this is a question that does need answering.

 

PeteHall

Moderator
Speaking as a (relatively) young southern caver, I am all for improved access through CRoW. I appreciate that there may be limited benefit in Mendip, but I do cave in other regions too and I see the benefit to our sport/activity as a whole.

I'm not sure I know anyone of my generation who is opposed to the application of CRoW to caving.

For what it's worth, my Grandmother (a former Mendip caver), who couldn't be considered young even by the aforementioned metric, is also all for improved access to caves in law. She worked in Rights of Way for Somerset County Council for many years and is astounded that anyone thinks that CRoW doesn't already apply to caving, as it was written to include all outdoor activities that weren't specifically excluded.
 

Rhys

Moderator
PeteHall said:
...as it was written to include all outdoor activities that weren't specifically excluded.

Unfortunately, it didn't do that. It relates to "open-air" activities. Which is the reason for this sorry mess - in case people need reminding.
 

PeteHall

Moderator
You are right in the specific wording Rhys.

However, the point I was making is that when the legislation was written it was intended to cover the sort of activities broadly described by both the public and government departments as "outdoor activities". For example the Adventure Activities Licensing Scheme, which states (my emphasis):

The aim of the adventure activities licensing scheme is to give assurance that good safety management practice is being followed so that young people can have opportunities to experience exciting and stimulating activities outdoors while not being exposed to avoidable risks of death or disabling injury.

The following activities are within the scope of the licensing scheme:

1. caving (underground exploration in natural caves and mines including potholing, cave diving and mine exploration), excluding show caves or tourist mines open to the public, or parts of mines which are still being worked
2. climbing (climbing, traversing, canyoning, abseiling and scrambling activities except on purpose designed climbing walls or abseiling towers)
3. trekking (walking, running, pony trekking, off-road cycling, off-piste skiing and related activities when done in moorland, or any terrain over 600m, which is remote, ie over 30 minutes travelling time which will be never more than 2.5km from the nearest road or refuge)
4. watersports (canoeing, rafting, sailing and related activities when done on the sea, tidal waters, or large or non-placid inland waters)

Whatever the specific wording used in the CRoW Act, the purpose and spirit of the legislation was to allow access for these types of activities. The fact that caving is a slight anomaly in terms of a view of the sky, is irrelevant to the type of activity it is. There are plenty of forests where you could quickly find yourself completely free from daylight; is this any different to caving?

Either way, the only way to resolve the interpretation of a piece of legislation is through due legal process, so I fully support the BCA and David doing whatever it takes to see this through. I only hope that common sense wins the day, rather than some bullshit technicality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top