David Rose
Active member
Over at Darkness Below, a news report just out says the landowner of the land above Ogof Draenen supports the closure by the Welsh heritage body Cadw of the cave's fourth entrance, Twll Du.
https://darknessbelow.co.uk/landowners-speak-out-on-twll-du-closure/
In my recent BCA newsletter, I wrote an editorial lamenting the conflict that has existed for some time over this cave:
http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=news_eventsct18
I've had a further thought which I toss out here for discussion. Is it possible that one reason for the amount of ill-feeling provoked by disputes over the cave is the way the PDCMG is constituted? As I understand it, supporters of there being only one entrance have justified their position by stating that the PDCMG is a democratic body, with (I think) 15 clubs represented and twice-yearly meetings. However, whatever those meetings might decide or discuss, I further believe that the three PDCMG trustees are nevertheless responsible for the current access agreement with the landowner - which grants access only to the original entrance, not The Nunnery or Drws Cefn, the (still open) second and third entrances.
If I have characterised the position accurately - and I apologise if I haven't, and invite those better informed to correct me - then the PDMG's democracy is somewhat limited, as it would still leave the trustees responsible fro the access agreement. Might that help explain the tension?
I'd be interested to read what people think. And please, let us keep this discussion polite.
https://darknessbelow.co.uk/landowners-speak-out-on-twll-du-closure/
In my recent BCA newsletter, I wrote an editorial lamenting the conflict that has existed for some time over this cave:
http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=news_eventsct18
I've had a further thought which I toss out here for discussion. Is it possible that one reason for the amount of ill-feeling provoked by disputes over the cave is the way the PDCMG is constituted? As I understand it, supporters of there being only one entrance have justified their position by stating that the PDCMG is a democratic body, with (I think) 15 clubs represented and twice-yearly meetings. However, whatever those meetings might decide or discuss, I further believe that the three PDCMG trustees are nevertheless responsible for the current access agreement with the landowner - which grants access only to the original entrance, not The Nunnery or Drws Cefn, the (still open) second and third entrances.
If I have characterised the position accurately - and I apologise if I haven't, and invite those better informed to correct me - then the PDMG's democracy is somewhat limited, as it would still leave the trustees responsible fro the access agreement. Might that help explain the tension?
I'd be interested to read what people think. And please, let us keep this discussion polite.