Why does British Caving need a national body?

Cookie

New member
There are several reasons why I think we must have a viable national organisation in British Caving.

The BCA gives British caving a broadly-based stable platform on which to secure and develop the future of our sport.

Whether we like it or not, in this day of litigation, we need insurance. In the case of an unfortunate event blame could be pointed at someone with potentially significant financial consequences for both an individual and their club. It is a disaster waiting to happen and we need to insure against it. Also of course the BCA insurance gives other advantages such as landowner protection helping towards easier access etc.

We need to have a training scheme with good quality certification to enable leaders to take novices into caves as safely as possible. Government legislation suggests all organisations of our type have an appropriate scheme in place or risk it being foisted on us from outside. Training and certifying the professionals who lead novices into caves helps to ensure that caving maintains a good name in the public eye which benefits us all, promoting conservation and encouraging interest among new recruits to the sport.

Similarly, the Government dictates that we have to have a Child Protection Policy to give guidance to people working with young children and vulnerable adults.

In my opinion it is very good that we have an equipment and techniques group to research caving procedures and equipment and make both as safe as possible. Cavers across the country benefit from the anchors which are placed with the assistance of the scheme organised by BCA?s E and T committee.

The British Caving Association does and always will treat cave conservation and access as a cornerstone of the organisation. To give even more protection to the underground environment there may need to be changes to the law and the BCA needs to be able to lead this.

Our publications section that is nationally funded and organised, regularly produces high quality material which is freely available to all its members.

The science section of British caving under its BCRA umbrella is well respected throughout the world as a premium scientific institution.

The British Caving Association in conjunction with its science partner BCRA has a very good caving library, available to all members.

International work, including supporting British expeditions via the Ghar Parau Foundation has enabled British cavers to explore more caves around the world than any other nation.

BCA, through its officers, should be negotiating on behalf of its members with Government institutions wherever the activities of government have a potential impact on caves, cavers and caving.

We appreciate the help we get from British cavers and would like even more help and understanding into the future.

As chairman of the BCA I am NOT naturally a bureaucratic person so I can?t say I like all thebureaucracy, however, I accept it?s something that somebody must do and coordinate.

Cavers often compare BCA with the British Mountaineering Council, there are severalvery significant differences.
(1) The BMC has over 82,000 members, we have 6,000.
(2) They have over 30 paid staff many are full time, we have 4 part time.
(3) BMC has some government funding partly because of ?sport climbing? now being an Olympic sport. BCA receives no government funds.
(4) Their annual subscription is about twice that of the BCA.

They generally do succeed in putting on a professional front. However, they have recently had their own political problems.

My fellow officers and I do it all entirely unpaid, we put an enormous amount of time, effort and worry to try and make British caving better for its members. We need the help and support of BCA's membership to take it forward and make it better still. There are cavers with appropriate skills who could be extremely useful and help in many interesting areas such as IT, equipment testing and development etc. also with all kinds of administration.

Cavers with ideas on how to help or improve BCA including making it more attractive and relevant to its members should contact me at chairman [at] british-caving.org.uk

Andy Eavis BCA Chairman May 2017.
 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
There is nothing in the original post above which I disagree with and I'm one of the many members who are extremely grateful for all the volunteer effort put in on behalf of the caving community.

But I can add one small thought; the specialised aspects of the insurance which BCA makes available so cheaply are very much appreciated. In my case the cave diving element has proved hugely valuable; without this CDG members would have a very big problem to try and solve. I'm sure others who make use of expedition insurance, EUG cover etc will also be grateful that such options exist at all. In my opinion, the way BCA officers (past and present) have provided all this is excellent.
 

Kenilworth

New member
Andy,

Your comments above are obviously sincere and fit easily and respectably within the framework provided by modern recreational organizational structure. I have no doubt that, as far as these sorts of clubs go, BCA has many positives. Still, I have made many ungainly comments on this site regarding what I see as the negative aspects of BCA and other national caving organizations. Despite the fine character, intelligent hard work, and sincerity of a good number of BCA/NSS etc. members, I am unable to abandon my reservations regarding the purpose and impact of these organizations. So I hope my pointing out a few objections to your statement is not seen as disrespectful.

I disagree for example, that insurance is important. The possible consequences of an unfortunate event are only a small part of the decision making process. Far more important is understanding the likelihood of incident, and making reasonable efforts to minimize unneeded risk. And no matter how litigious a society, its members should never defer responsibility to insurers or lawyers. If an individual believes that insurance is needed for his own peace of mind or because of his choice to engage in particularly high risks, then there is absolutely no reason that he should not be responsible for insuring himself. BCA insurance is convenient, but certainly not needed.

Similarly, safety and techniques can be personal and communal responsibilities. Cave safety is not even slightly complicated, and the standardization so celebrated as an aid to easy education also leads to intellectual stagnation.

The comments about required training schemes and youth protection are examples of circular logic. They would not be required if BCA did not exist. Moreover many would argue that it would be more ecologically responsible for caving to have no public reputation instead of a good one. This brings up again the question of what BCA is for. Not what is does, why it does. Who/what is really being served?

The BCA ?cornerstone? of cave conservation is at best an unrealistic effort to combine two opposing ideals; caring for something, and providing duty-free recreation at its expense. At worst it is a piece of propaganda. Both are realities under BCA.

Your first statement, though, defines the difference in our views. You write that, ?The BCA gives British caving a broadly-based stable platform on which to secure and develop the future of our sport.? I cannot comprehend why anyone should care about the future of so impersonal and indistinct a thing as a ?sport?. This determination to put an activity, performed under a formulaic recreational system, above the health of land and people points to some serious lack of understanding. It is also revealing that the thought of losing BCA or NSS is met with something like a panic by two groups: egotistical speleo-politicians and lazy cavers, neither of whom the world has any need for.

Some aspects of BCA are good. There is no reason that these could not be better performed independently of an all-encompassing caving body. I have long suggested, for example, that NSS could be gainfully replaced by an American Caving Library. Unaffiliated state cave surveys and conservancies in the US are already accomplishing much more practical good than NSS. Whenever a body attempts to be involved in too many things over too large of an area, it is guaranteed to do none of them well.

For these reasons, I disagree that a national body should be a priority for any activity, especially one of such intimacy and singularity as caving. Nonetheless, I respect your work, and I hope that if BCA and NSS continue to exist that they will try to take more seriously their responsibility to land, caves, and community, to create a culture of care, and to cease being organizations for their own sake.





 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
Why are you so interested in how BCA does its business Kenilworth if, unless I'm wrong, you aren't a member? I see flaws in several parts of your post immediately above but I'm in the middle of an impossible evening (too much to do in too little time) - otherwise I'd take issue with you (constructively of course). But I suspect I'm not the only one who disagrees with the detail you've articulated here.
 

NewStuff

New member
He's Trolling. He's doing it for the reactions. He finds an emotive point, and takes an firmly opposite stance, and trots out whatever spiel is needed to fill in the gaps.
 

martinb

Member
NewStuff said:
He's Trolling. He's doing it for the reactions. He finds an emotive point, and takes an firmly opposite stance, and trots out whatever spiel is needed to fill in the gaps.

I am a member of BCA and respect the organisation, however flawed it may be, as they - the committee, are volunteers doing an important job for little or no recompense.

I don't like people like Kenilworth spouting garbage just to provoke a reaction. Trolling is the lowest form of wit. Whenever I see a post from him, I don't read it, click the 'X' in the top right corner and move on to something else.  :icon_321:
 

mrodoc

Well-known member
I think BCA have it about right. The BS-AC which started in a similar way moved towards becoming over commercial and attempted to become the sole arbiter of good diving practice and training with  consequences to itself particularly when other organizations entered the field. The other issue  is aggrandisement of officials who can develop over inflated concepts of their importance.  We need some kind of national organization in our dealings with others in a society such as ours.  There is a lot one could say on the subject but I like to be brief when possible.
 

mrodoc

Well-known member
Cannot see what this has to do with catching mackerel:

troll: fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.
 

NewStuff

New member
mrodoc said:
Cannot see what this has to do with catching mackerel:

troll: fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
 

TheBitterEnd

Well-known member
At risk of getting back on topic I know but...

I?m sure a functioning and representative national body is a good thing but I can?t help but wonder if the current byzantine and divided organisation is doing more harm than good.
 

mikem

Well-known member
I mean it's not like the Americans have a history of interfering in other countries' politics...

& a common enemy is still the best way to unite a bickering organisation into a coherent force!

Mike
 

Amy

New member
As a member of both the BCA and NSS...I feel I get way more for my BCA membership despite not even living there. I know there must be the inner squabbles and I hear bits n pieces about crow and such, but that is still way better than fighting about purchasing pencils and should they cancel mailed newsletters and whether or not alcohol will be allowed at convention. At least with the BCA it seems it is squabbles about actual important cave-related topics. I've said it for many years...the reason I maintain NSS membership is that our state cave survey requires current NSS membership. Which I find odd, I mean, they would happily take all my data and surveys and deny me access to the database, if I dropped my NSS membership.  :-\

To me, national clubs exist for 1) social reasons  2) promote the sport/hobby 3) protect interests of the sport/hobby. Since (1) is largely unnecessary due to the Internet and social media, it means clubs MUST work heavily on (2) and (3). Cavers here are super tight liped and dont really want to promote caving (kennilworth's general excentricities are probably true of a majority of our caver population including current leadership - NSS owns and manages multiple cave preserves, one here in Huntsville. But just *try* getting access. It ain't happening. It's locked ot keep everyone out even cavers), BCA seems to care to see it as an acceptable hobby not just those crazy dirty people so they do better on (2). As for (3), the NSS lost it during WNS doing nothing about it for about two years at which point it was too late politically to influence policy, and everything was playing catch-up and they still are. The BCA I see to be much more pro-active in this modern world.

People when they sign registers and such here put their NSS number. Dunno why. Just a thing. I put my BCA number instead hehe.
 

robjones

New member
Intriguing reply - especially as you have experience in both countries.

In many respects UK caving is organised 'bottom-up': cavers mostly belong to one or more local clubs and those clubs form the regional access bodies; the national organisation is mostly concerned with national matters - promotion of caving, representing cavers to national and governmental bodies, and providing certain over-arching services such as insurance, equipment testing and standards, certain (limited) funding, and library. How does the organisation of caving compare in the USA? 'Bottom-up' / 'top-down' / bit of both / altogether different? I (and maybe other UK cavers) would be interested in your take on it, not least because you have a reasonable feel for how things work in the UK. Thanks.
 

RobinGriffiths

Well-known member
I did wonder about starting a cheeky 'Why Does British Caving need local bodies' thread, and then going to hide behind an armchair.
 

Kenilworth

New member
Pitlamp said:
Why are you so interested in how BCA does its business Kenilworth if, unless I'm wrong, you aren't a member? I see flaws in several parts of your post immediately above but I'm in the middle of an impossible evening (too much to do in too little time) - otherwise I'd take issue with you (constructively of course). But I suspect I'm not the only one who disagrees with the detail you've articulated here.

Of course it may be flawed, but so far no one has disagreed with said detail. I am interested, not in the way BCA does business, but in people, land, and caves, which brings me toward caring about any issues that impact any or all, in any country.

Martinb - I am not attempting to be witty, even in the crudest sense, nor am I engaging in the entertainment of provocation. I am simply gnawing, as I must, and in my own clumsy way, at the guy-lines of idiotic artifice.

Robjones - You apparently find that Miss Hinkle has a "reasonable feel" for the workings of UK caving because her comments are complimentary and align neatly with your own. They are not, however, borne out of any understanding of caving culture or politics, American or British. Her post, as usual, is woefully inaccurate and I will gladly rebut it in detail if asked.

Mrodoc says, "We need some kind of national organization in our dealings with others in a society such as ours." I know for a certainty that such an organization is unneeded in the US. Why the UK needs it I do not know, and mrodoc, in his love of brevity, has declined to tell us. Similarly, Thebitterend is "sure a functioning and representative national body is a good thing," but the source of that certainty is left a mystery. It seems that this body is seen as good and needed because it claims to be good and needed.

I am proposing that decisions as to the value of BCA be made on the basis of more, and more important, things than the "future" and convenience of formulaic hobby participation.
 

NewStuff

New member
I think you're trolling, but this is for those that swallow your shite....

Once you cancel out the waffle, the post amounts to "Waaahhhhh" She's wrong!" The post complains about brevity in others posts, but at no point justify why the UK should NOT have a governing body. This is coming from a club that *left* the BCA, but are firmly of the opinion that the UK needs a national body. If/when it removes the ability for the heel draggers to bitch, moan and derail the process, we'll happily rejoin it. We want to change things so that the situation Amy describes does not happen here. "Empire building" is bullshit, and here in the UK, it's slowly dying out with a refreshing new attitude to access.

The idea that judgement be made on "more important" things than the future is, well, so fucking stupid (Sorry Jane, language is firmly needed for this one)... what is more important than the future of our caves? Be it access for future generations, discovering more of them for future generations to see, or looking after them for future generations. It's not just about us here and now, it's about all those that come after us.

 
Top