Do cavers come first in the British Caving Association? NO!

J

John S

Guest
I have spent a while reading the constitution and trying to see why the statement maybe false. It all comes down to 4.6 in the constitution and the letter published by David Judson of BCA interpretation of it and the CRoW legislation. http://www.british-caving.org.uk/membership/landownership+caves_240310.pdf

4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.
Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be
obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those
agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.


This means that access bodies, regional bodies and the national body all have to go along with whatever a landowners says. This may seem quite sensible on the face of it but it does produce several major problem.

A bit of history now.  In 1932, 99% of the upland in the Peak District was out of bounds. A rambling club decided to go against landowners wishes and trespass. The place was of course Kinder Scout, and this set a chain of events in action. The National Council of Ramblers (RA)was formed in 1935, which pushed the agenda forward to get definite maps of rights of way published and the National Parks set up. The first being the Peak District one, surprise surprise.

In 1985 the Ramblers Association started the Forbidden Britain Campaign. After 6 years of pressure and not getting enough progress, mass trespasses were held in 1991. This lead to CRoW legislation in 2000.

So without ignoring some of the landowners wishes, we would not have an awful lot of what we take of granted now.

But what is wrong with now saying we will go with whatever a landowners says?

It ties one hand behind you back when negotiating any access as the landowners know you have to agree at the end of the day.

Secondly the requirements could be unworkable.  Say that to promote equal opportunities, a landowners says ?all parties have to have an equal number of men and women, give or take one?. Nice bit of positive discrimination to promote wider participation (or any other clause/requirement you may think of). This goes to the local cave management group that has to accept it. This is then pushed up to the regional body and finally the national body. All of whom have to accept it, even if they find it against the general body of cavers interests. The landowner can then quite rightly say that their policy has the backing of the National, Regional and local caving bodies. This would then now appear to be national policy to those not in the know!

I think some reworking of this clause is required to take away the automatic agreement with the landowner. We should still consider what the landowner has to say but the cavers needs should be put first. After all it is the British Caving Association and not a Landowners Association to control cavers, or am I getting that wrong !!


 

langcliffe

Well-known member
If the BCA asked David Judson to provide legal justification for Clause 4.6, it would explain why he produced such weak arguments to support his conclusions.

I do agree with your point. Unfortunately, saying that, or daring to criticise David Judson's document,may well invoke a personal attack by such as Mr. Burgess. Such reactions tend to discourage sensible debate (which may or may not be their purpose).
 

Cave_Troll

Active member
its not just about crow is it ?

i agree that I see little point in restricting caving access to caves who's entrances lie on CRoW land, but there are still many entrances in farmers fields, people's back gardens, quarries etc that land owners have legitimate rights to restrict or block access.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
Well, I am flattered. And as cave troll says, the  BCA is not a single agenda organisation, as there are many sites we would never have access to without owners goodwill, and are not and never will be on crow land. My reason for objecting strongly when this came up before was the apparent personal attack on a man of great integrity which I found quite sad.
 

menacer

Active member
cry-blow.gif
 

kay

Well-known member
There is analogy drawn between the Ramblers Association and caving bodies managing access. Were the Ramblers Association also in the situation of managing access to particular footpaths on behalf of landowners?
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
My reason for objecting strongly when this came up before was the apparent personal attack on a man of great integrity which I found quite sad.
In view of the implication contained in the above statement, I would like to point out that I do not make personal attacks on this or any other public forum.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
You may imply what you like, but the comment was not directed at you. In the original discussion Daves wording was described as crap. I think the implication in those words was strong enough to merit a response.
 

paul

Moderator
John S said:
I think some reworking of this clause is required to take away the automatic agreement with the landowner. We should still consider what the landowner has to say but the cavers needs should be put first. After all it is the British Caving Association and not a Landowners Association to control cavers, or am I getting that wrong !!

I agree with your principle: cavers first, but we are in a position of considerable weakness when negotiating access.

The problems are twofold:

Firstly, the Ramblers and the British Mountaineering Council can call on much greater resources due to the overwhelming numbers of walkers, mountaineers and climbers as compared to cavers.

Secondly, if a landowner (or tenant) decides to withdraw access it is often much easier in the case of a cave or mine: totally block the entrance. This option has no real equivalent when you consider access to an area of land or a large crag.

So although it would be nice to think that the BCA has as much clout as the Ramblers or the BMC, I don't believe that is the case.

This is probably why the balance taken by the BCA is more "landowner-friendly"?
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
You may imply what you like, but the comment was not directed at you.
I inferred, rather than implied... But I thank you for taking the trouble to clarify that point.
 

graham

New member
If the existence of a cave entrance on somebody's land is going to give rights to people that would not otherwise have existed, then no landowner is going to allow digging to take place on their land.

Thus giving cavers a right of access via CRoW would immediately bring surface digging to a grinding halt. Probably underground digging as well, as I do not believe that anyone honestly thinks that digging is a "right" under any legislation.

There are other considerations as to why cavers, as well as landowners, might be unhappy about any such theoretical rights, but the above argument is the simplest and surely the most compelling.
 

Alex

Well-known member
I tried suggesting we should have the same rights as walkers and ramblers and I did a poll it seemed however more then half  are against it, so I gave up. I am afraid we are not going to win this battle unless peoples attitude towards this changes and then maybe we could have the clout as someone suggested is lacking.

Heres my post, feel free to vote, if you have not already I did set a time limit on it. Maybe my sample size was too small.

http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,9700.0.html

Oh I noticed I did not link the reason on the poll why I made the poll in the first place, to fix that please see here:

http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,9396.25.html
 

Peter Burgess

New member
I think there are quite a few circumstances when a cooperative slanted approach gives us more clout than one that takes up a demanding or even some might say confrontationally slanted approach. You get more sometimes by cooperative dialogue that shows full respect for the legal rights of the other party, and does not have as its underlying theme the idea that those rights should be challenged and changed.
 

AndyF

New member
I think this is looking for a "battle" where there isn't one....

GENERALLY (big letters) there are no access issues in the UK, all the areas are largely open  subject to local arrangements. The access peeps do a great job  (y)

The main areas of problems (!!) seems to be where some caving groups (as opposed to regional assocations) have actually been delegated the access and then proceed to go off piste with it. I think our own house needs putting in order first....
 

Hughie

Active member
Alex said:
I tried suggesting we should have the same rights as walkers and ramblers and I did a poll it seemed however more then half  are against it, so I gave up.

Surely you have exactly the same "rights" as walkers and ramblers?

What you're really saying is you want more rights than walkers and ramblers.
On what grounds?
 

Peter Burgess

New member
Or walkers, ramblers and cavers to all have the same extended rights...... would an owner be able to insist on certain conditions such as no novices, and so on. Imagine the fun CRO would have helping out all those ramblers exercising their rights.
 

khakipuce

New member
AndyF said:
...
The main areas of problems (!!) seems to be where some caving groups (as opposed to regional assocations) have actually been delegated the access and then proceed to go off piste with it. I think our own house needs putting in order first....

Or would that be where local access groups are pursuing an agenda that a) they don't explain very well, and/or b) is at odds with what a large (and probably majority) group want.
 

Glenn

Member
Alex said:
I tried suggesting we should have the same rights as walkers and ramblers and I did a poll it seemed however more then half  are against it, so I gave up.

If you think that this forum is the place to make any sort of change or improvement to anything,  you are sadly mistaken. You will only make things happen by getting involved. I offered you the chance to do just by attending the CNCC AGM - you probably had something better to do.
 
Top