Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?

Cookie

New member
Badlad said:
The BCA poll stated,

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

In the event of a majority of members saying "yes", BCA will ...

There then listed a number of bullet points including;

"lobby MPs and other persons of influence to push for CRoW to apply to going underground"

Notwithstanding the Constitution and AGM resolution which I think prevents this; normally lobbying is done face to face or by letter or by email, i.e. in private. It is not done with very public articles in the National Press. (See  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/28/cavers-fight-to-take-the-right-to-roam-to-new-lows )

Is there not a danger that cavers will face a backlash from the landowners because we are undeniably trying to diminish their rights? That danger would be minimised if this campaign was conducted more in private and less in public.


 

Brains

Well-known member
I doubt it - landowners have had many years to get used to the great unwashed lollygagging all over the open access land. The number of cavers compared to ramblers (small or big "R") is minimal. What would a landowner see as a difference should caving be specifically permitted? More or less bodies compared with "last year," or about the same? Less hassle with dealing with access bodies and a warm feeling of knowing their liability is greatly reduced? A relentless gang of urchins requesting to dig?

The membership voted for a campaign - thats what they wanted. If the fine detail of the BCA constitution is out of step with this mandate then it should be ammended ASAP to reflect the majority wishes. The ongoing campaign should include, but not to the exclusion of other methods, traditional lobbying, with the exception of back handers, holidays, directorships, retainers, speakers fees or any of the other shenanigans that usually goes with such a thing. How many press stories do you think are uncovered by investigative journos, as opposed to press releases and other lobbying methods by groups with a vested interest?

As a (mortgaged) property owner I am in a similar position to many other landowners. Should you give me defference and a forlock tug just because of that? is it a matter of scale?
 

bograt

Active member
Why don't those cavers who have an amicable relationship with landowners just ask them??, the landowners with open access property have already had years of experience with those entitled, do they think caver access will be beneficial or not??, or no different----?

Maybe those delegated the task by BCA should investigate this line of approach?

As a Peak District Landowner one thing I do know is that I do not appreciate my attitude being pre-empted by a bunch of non-farming 'individuals' who persist in putting words into my mouth to gain their own political points - I know the majority of my farming colleagues would feel the same way, meaningful dialogue with ALL 'stakeholders' is a necessity.

 

NewStuff

New member
bograt said:
Why don't those cavers who have an amicable relationship with landowners just ask them??, the landowners with open access property have already had years of experience with those entitled, do they think caver access will be beneficial or not??, or no different----?

Maybe those delegated the task by BCA should investigate this line of approach?

As a Peak District Landowner one thing I do know is that I do not appreciate my attitude being pre-empted by a bunch of non-farming 'individuals' who persist in putting words into my mouth to gain their own political points - I know the majority of my farming colleagues would feel the same way, meaningful dialogue with ALL 'stakeholders' is a necessity.

By the same token, assuming that "Pro" cavers will take the attitude they they can trample wherever the hell they want without consideration for anyone or anything else, is wrong. It works both ways.

FWIW, I know a fair few landowners in a non-caving aspect, a few of which I happen to be related to and have known all my life. In general as long as people are not leaving gates open, worrying stock or causing damage, then by and large, they don't really care either way. I can't see the addition of a few cavers changing that viewpoint.
 

JasonC

Well-known member
These are legitimate concerns, of course they are.
But haven't all sides of all the CRoW arguments been done to death, and then some, elsewhere on the forum ?
 

badger

Active member
are we assuming the pro crow camp have not spoken to land owners? or are we under the opinion they don't give a shit what landowners might think.
I am pretty certain they have spoken to landowners and do care what the landowners think.
 

bograt

Active member
Cookie said:
Is there not a danger that cavers will face a backlash from the landowners because we are undeniably trying to diminish their rights? That danger would be minimised if this campaign was conducted more in private and less in public.

I am intrigued by this statement, could you explain what rights we are trying to diminish that the landowner values so highly?.

badger said:
I am pretty certain they have spoken to landowners and do care what the landowners think.

If this is the case then I suggest the results of these conversations should be disclosed in this debate, thereby making the conjecture of this thread redundant---.
 

Cookie

New member
bograt said:
Cookie said:
Is there not a danger that cavers will face a backlash from the landowners because we are undeniably trying to diminish their rights? That danger would be minimised if this campaign was conducted more in private and less in public.

I am intrigued by this statement, could you explain what rights we are trying to diminish that the landowner values so highly?.

The right to grant or withhold access to their cave.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
People's attitudes to others tend to be governed by emotions, not by the finer points of ENGLISH (and Welsh) law. People tend to get upset by how others behave and what they say, rather than what the law says they can and cannot do.
 

bograt

Active member
Cookie said:
bograt said:
Cookie said:
Is there not a danger that cavers will face a backlash from the landowners because we are undeniably trying to diminish their rights? That danger would be minimised if this campaign was conducted more in private and less in public.

I am intrigued by this statement, could you explain what rights we are trying to diminish that the landowner values so highly?.

The right to grant or withhold access to their cave.

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: Do you really think that is high on their list of priorities, considering CROW will absolve them of all responsibility, the only reason this would be a consideration is if a significant income or financial loss were involved.
 

bograt

Active member
Peter Burgess said:
I have reliably heard of cave landowners being "disappointed", to put it mildly, by this "campaign".

Have you heard it from the landowner?
Has anyone asked why they are "disappointed" ?
 

NewStuff

New member
Peter Burgess said:
I have reliably heard of cave landowners being "disappointed", to put it mildly, by this "campaign".

I have reliably heard (Just got off the phone with them) that the landowners are not really fussed. One of them has a couple of underground features on his land, (I don't know if it's access land, but there is access land in that area), and as long as people are not "fucking around", then he has no issue. He think's we're all a bit daft for going underground anyway. He see's *far* more walkers than cavers.

See, *you* are more likely to be friends, acquaintances etc with someone opposed to open access, whereas *I* am more likely to be friends, acquaintances etc with someone that's for it. It doesn't mean either of us, or our anecdotes, are right. Ultimately, neither matter, what does is what the *law* says, and that's what we want clarified.
 

droid

Active member
bograt said:
Peter Burgess said:
I have reliably heard of cave landowners being "disappointed", to put it mildly, by this "campaign".

Have you heard it from the landowner?
Has anyone asked why they are "disappointed" ?

Because of course, all landowners think the way bograt does.....
 

bograt

Active member
Peter Burgess said:
"Reliably heard of" means I have a high level of trust in the person who told me. They would have no reason to mislead me.

But did 'they' enquire the cause of the 'disappointment' or did 'they' encourage it ?.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
I am not going to discuss this. So you have the perfect opportunity to try to discredit what I wrote. Feel free. It doesn't change the facts at the end of the day.
 

PeteHall

Moderator
Cookie said:
Notwithstanding the Constitution and AGM resolution which I think prevents this; normally lobbying is done face to face or by letter or by email, i.e. in private. It is not done with very public articles in the National Press. (See  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/28/cavers-fight-to-take-the-right-to-roam-to-new-lows )

Is there not a danger that cavers will face a backlash from the landowners because we are undeniably trying to diminish their rights? That danger would be minimised if this campaign was conducted more in private and less in public.

I'm sorry Cookie, but when have you ever heard of a secret "campaign"?

One of the main ways any campaign achieves its goals is by gaining public support through getting the public interested and getting them to see things from your point of view. Take any campaign in history as an example, be it for a general election, referendum on independence or whatever else.

Not only would trying to sneak changes through quietly be bound to fail, but would surely cause far more upset if it were passed than being open and honest and convincing everyone to see things from your point of view.

The only reason I can see for your suggesting a "private" campaign is as you know full well it will fail without public support. Why would anybody in power listen to one caver quietly asking them to reconsider their view?

The majority of cavers in the UK (or at least the majority of BCA members who cared enough to vote) support this campaign. Can't we just let the BCA get on and do what they were mandated to do rather than constantly trying to derail the process  o_O
 
Top