This issue is worthy of some wider discussion and awareness.
There is a seemingly insignificant sentence in the BCA constitution. Section 4.6 states;
?That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access?.?
In 2014 the BCA polled its members on whether to campaign for the Countryside and Right of Way Act to be recognised as applying to caving. The poll showed a majority in favour but those opposed to a campaign used this section to argue that such a campaign was against the BCA constitution. Following complaints from CSCC and a number of motions, those opposed to CRoW successfully argued their case at the BCA AGM last summer. The result of this was to effectively derail the BCA CRoW campaign pending an amendment to the constitution. Just recently the Exec has put forward the following amendment which appears to be pretty much the same as that proposed at the 2016 AGM;
?That any rights held by the owners or tenants of property or mineral rights, to grant or withhold access, be respected?
At face value this amendment seems harmless enough ? why wouldn?t you want to respect rights? However, considering the misuse of the original clause, wiser cavers than me have pointed out that this amendment is actually worse than the original. This would commit the BCA to respecting ?any rights held?. This could be the rights of a quarrying company to quarry away a cave ? BCA would have to respect that right and would be unable to mount a campaign to save the cave. Similarly, if cavers came into conflict with the holders of shooting rights, mineral rights, planning rights, any rights, BCA would be powerless to pursue its own interests.
Despite warnings in council, the constitutional change timetable is now very short leaving some with little time for discussion. At the recent CNCC meeting people were quite concerned to hear about this especially as the potential costs of the postal voting requirements could run into many thousands of pounds.
To me it seems sensible to remove the sentence from the constitution altogether. Landowners have plenty of powerful organisations and lobbyists working for them they do not need more help from cavers.
There is a seemingly insignificant sentence in the BCA constitution. Section 4.6 states;
?That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access?.?
In 2014 the BCA polled its members on whether to campaign for the Countryside and Right of Way Act to be recognised as applying to caving. The poll showed a majority in favour but those opposed to a campaign used this section to argue that such a campaign was against the BCA constitution. Following complaints from CSCC and a number of motions, those opposed to CRoW successfully argued their case at the BCA AGM last summer. The result of this was to effectively derail the BCA CRoW campaign pending an amendment to the constitution. Just recently the Exec has put forward the following amendment which appears to be pretty much the same as that proposed at the 2016 AGM;
?That any rights held by the owners or tenants of property or mineral rights, to grant or withhold access, be respected?
At face value this amendment seems harmless enough ? why wouldn?t you want to respect rights? However, considering the misuse of the original clause, wiser cavers than me have pointed out that this amendment is actually worse than the original. This would commit the BCA to respecting ?any rights held?. This could be the rights of a quarrying company to quarry away a cave ? BCA would have to respect that right and would be unable to mount a campaign to save the cave. Similarly, if cavers came into conflict with the holders of shooting rights, mineral rights, planning rights, any rights, BCA would be powerless to pursue its own interests.
Despite warnings in council, the constitutional change timetable is now very short leaving some with little time for discussion. At the recent CNCC meeting people were quite concerned to hear about this especially as the potential costs of the postal voting requirements could run into many thousands of pounds.
To me it seems sensible to remove the sentence from the constitution altogether. Landowners have plenty of powerful organisations and lobbyists working for them they do not need more help from cavers.