Access controlling bodies and the BCA [Split from Re: Does your club rep...]

[droid]

The BCA has bugger all say anyway.

I realise that we are in a Brave New World of Love and Peace with the BCA (until the new generation start falling out) but the BCA is still impotent when it comes to local access issues.

Andrewmc is clearly keen to get involved, but has seen very little of the profoundly anarchic politics/power struggles of the past. He also thinks that there's a connect between climbing and caving. There isn't, not organisationally at least.

 

[Canary]

From the British Moutaineering Councils (BMC) core principles:

d. Land Ownership, Acquisition & Management.
The BMC?s policy is as follows: The first option will always be to secure access through other means such as informal or statutory agreements. Where this is not possible, access should be secured by encouraging an appropriate 3rd party (e.g. a local authority) to purchase or lease the site. As a final option the BMC will consider purchasing land itself to secure access.

In such circumstances the following factors should be taken into consideration:

purchase cost
management implications e.g. staff/volunteer time, liability, ongoing costs, long term management problems such as erosion or vandalism etc
significance of the site, including its popularity and the availability of alternative venues, and
scope for access problems being resolved in the future
The BMC also recognises that there are many schemes under which landowners and occupiers may receive payments for the providing and managing access. Where it is not possible for a banned site to be included in such a scheme and the above options have been explored, unsuccessfully, the BMC may consider a final option of paying for the management of the site (including the provision of access), either indirectly through a 3rd party or directly as an occupier. This should only be considered in the case of intractable problems at nationally significant sites. Any such agreement must not compromise the provision of free access to other sites. The BMC has a policy of dedicating its own land as access land under the CRoW Act 2000 wherever possible.

 

[2xw]

Andrewmc, I will keep this short. Don't put words in my mouth please. Your lengthy waffle seems to revolve around a false assumtion of what I was (not) saying. My simple and short message was that if a body was ejected from the BCA then the BCA no longer had any say whatsoever in how that body functions. You would get a better result for all cavers by using civilised intelligent intercourse.

Tony/Graham is talking pretty obviously about charterhouse here in reference to the recent AGM.

Obviously, if a body was ejected from the BCA, then  other bodies would be free to negotiate access. CCC has a long term lease on the site but the landowner has a big say in terms of access, or so we are assured by CCC.

But the discussion here is probably more interesting on a national rather than local scale.

 

[droid]

Obviously that would depend on whether the landowner/leaseholder *wanted* to negotiate with another putative ACB.

 

[cap n chris]

Obviously that would depend on whether the landowner/leaseholder *wanted* to negotiate with another putative ACB.

Moot. Highly unlikely is the answer. Any landowner finding themselves caught up in a caver-created shitstorm is almost certain to conclude the obvious remedy.

 

[BradW]

There are number of ordinary clubs that actually own caves or have special arrangements for access to caves and mines. Carterhouse is just the start of this nonsense. My comments are meant to refer to a wider issue and focussing on just one is wrong, and masks a wider issue of BCA expecting everyone to use the same prayer book.

 

[nearlywhite]

I realise that we are in a Brave New World of Love and Peace with the BCA (until the new generation start falling out) but the BCA is still impotent when it comes to local access issues.

Glad to see your pessimistic glib contributions haven't dried up.

The BCA isn't interested in local access issues.

People have referred to the CCC issue as an example but that was only engaged with by BCA Y&D as a discrimination issue and the fear that one badly thought out bit of 'legal pondering' might become the template that rewrites all access agreements in future.

The impotency of the BCA is mainly due to people having their own axes to grind when setting up the body - the amount of policy and procedure in the constitution makes it quite clear it was set up to never really achieve anything.

Anyway, to throw another bit of kindling on the fire: I think we should have a minimum standard operating procedure and democratic structure for ACBs so that protracted disputes can be sorted by cavers coming to a compromise and not bothering the poor landowners.

 

[David Rose]

That is an attractive idea, nearlywhite.

There is certainly a perception among some cavers that the access bodies responsible for caves that have evoked the most controversy operate in a somewhat opaque fashion.

I hate to mention Ogof Draenen. It usually leads to tears. But so far as I can see, one reason for the long and bitter disputes there is that there is a disconnect between the democratic structures of the PDCMG and the trustees who negotiated and are actually responsible for the access agreement with the landowner. In other words, the reach of decisions taken at PDCMG meetings is rather limited.

If I have got that wrong, I apologise in advance.

 

 

[droid]

Glad to see your pessimistic glib contributions haven't dried up.

My aim is to please....


But I prefer the word realistic to pessimistic.


Read Capn Chris' post above: that's realism too. Caving might be important to you, but landowners have other priorities and I suspect caving is pretty low in that list.

And getting involved in caver politics will be even lower.

 

[andrewmcleod]

It's funny how nobody really has any serious problems with landowners - or at least, you hear little criticism of how the regional bodies negotiate with landowners. You here exactly the same stories of building personal relationships with landowners through hard work from the south and the north. Most people recognise that some landowners are fantastic, some are intractable; some are fairly tolerant and some need cavers to behave or follow reasonable (or sometimes less reasonable) requests. I think people recognise that landowners come in different types, from the large estates of the North where the landowner may be local or may be remote, to the government-managed hills of South Wales, to the smaller farmers and local people in the south _and_ the north, through to commercial venues like show caves and Longleat, to the generally ignored landowners with caves on their land but no entrances (like half of Priddy)...

It's only really ACBs and other caving bodies that attract ire and dispute - which just proves only a caver can really piss other cavers off I don't know if the collective noun for a group of cavers should be a 'committee' (since we seem to have probably ten times as many as any other sport) or an 'argument' of cavers...

 

[BradW]

People have referred to the CCC issue as an example but that was only engaged with by BCA Y&D as a discrimination issue ?..

As some cavers know, there is far more to the confrontation here, and it's largely down to personalities, pre-conceptions about motives, and is a sad reflection of the BCA's failure to engage in a civilised manner with those that certain individuals wish to vilify. The fact that those spinning the axe-grinding wheel appear to be disinterested in civilised engagement speaks volumes to me.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Andrewmc is clearly keen to get involved, but has seen very little of the profoundly anarchic politics/power struggles of the past. He also thinks that there's a connect between climbing and caving. There isn't, not organisationally at least.

Organisationally the set up is wildly different. The challenges are similar. One body does an excellent job of reaching consensus on both local and national issues, and one doesn't... perhaps we could learn something

And before the usual argument about 'bigger and paid staff' comes out - then why do we have committees upon committees upon committees?

You could probably re-organize the BCA to be a similar top-down organization to the BMC without actually changing any of the people involved, though - just the job titles and committee structure. Local people will always do local access... Personally I would like to see all cave access managed through the regional bodies, who would then be free to delegate this to (for example) clubs that run leader-led caves.

 

[Bob Mehew]

The impotency of the BCA is mainly due to people having their own axes to grind when setting up the body - the amount of policy and procedure in the constitution makes it quite clear it was set up to never really achieve anything.

As one who was heavily involved in the setting up of BCA I would concede that there was a faction who strenuously tried to restrain what BCA could do.  The BCA constitution was a modified version of the then NCA constitution which in turn had changed over time.  So it may take another 40 plus years to shift things on.

Anyway, to throw another bit of kindling on the fire: I think we should have a minimum standard operating procedure and democratic structure for ACBs so that protracted disputes can be sorted by cavers coming to a compromise and not bothering the poor landowners.

BCA has adopted a requirement that any newly joining club should have an acceptable constitution.  There is no reason why a General Meeting could not extend this requirement to cover existing group members though I concede it would be difficult to justify a minimum standard relating to discrimination against under 18s. 

It's funny how nobody really has any serious problems with landowners - or at least, you hear little criticism of how the regional bodies negotiate with landowners.

That is because cavers don't like to broadcast their views because of the fear of pissing off the land owner.  I can think of one case which I won't name where there was serious concern about what one regional body was doing in response some unreasonable demands of the land owner.  And another where it could be said that the regional body has deliberately gone against the land owner and made it public.

 

[BradW]

Anyway, to throw another bit of kindling on the fire: I think we should have a minimum standard operating procedure and democratic structure for ACBs so that protracted disputes can be sorted by cavers coming to a compromise and not bothering the poor landowners.

So, BCA are not interested in local access issues, yet you think this. You dismiss CCC as a discrimination issue, but CCC is a local access body (which BCA are not interested in you say). Who will set the standard you propose? BCA I imagine. So how is that not getting involved with local access issues, were this baton you are waving about be picked up?

 

[droid]

The challenges are similar.

No.

Climbing takes place on cliffs, in the open air (sorry  :-[ ) and very visibly. Any landowner
can control approach. The affected area is the cliff and a small area above and below the cliff. So breaches of access agreements are easily spotted.

Caves are (to the landowner) randomly situated over their land, often in productive areas. Each cave may have it's own approach. This is much more difficult to monitor and control, and the problems may be very specific to any one landowner.

Hence the proliferation of ACBs and access conditions.

You are not comparing like with like.

 

[NewStuff]

The fact that those spinning the axe-grinding wheel appear to be disinterested in civilised engagement speaks volumes to me.

You know perfectly well the nasty, in some cases personal, tricks your side have pulled, so you may want to dismount from that lofty perch, people in glass houses and all that.

Civil discourse gets thrown out the window when the other party is wilfully bogging progress down, and has no intention of doing anything other than carrying on regardless.

 

[BradW]

I don't know who you think I am, but I have nothing to do with either BCA or CCC. However, I have been around long enough to remember when cavers were nice to each other regardless, and certainly did not grab opportunities presented to them to be vindictive purely out of revenge or spite.

 

[droid]

What you describe there, NewStuff, is a product of social media, where the chance of meeting your adversary face to face is remote.

I, like you, wouldn't say or do anything on social media that I wouldn't say or do in front of the person concerned.

 

[Ed]

....... which just proves only a caver can really piss other cavers off I don't know if the collective noun for a group of cavers should be a 'committee' (since we seem to have probably ten times as many as any other sport) or an 'argument' of cavers...

Sport, sport      !!!!

Caving isn't competative. Or is it. May be we need a committee to decide if caving is a sport or not.....

 

[andrewmcleod]

Climbing takes place on cliffs, in the open air (sorry  :-[ ) and very visibly. Any landowner
can control approach. The affected area is the cliff and a small area above and below the cliff. So breaches of access agreements are easily spotted.

That's a different (and therefore interesting) change from the usual argument that caves are different because they are _easier_ to control (since entrances are easily blocked).

Caves are (to the landowner) randomly situated over their land, often in productive areas. Each cave may have it's own approach. This is much more difficult to monitor and control, and the problems may be very specific to any one landowner.

Hence the proliferation of ACBs and access conditions.

You are not comparing like with like.

They aren't quite the same thing, I would agree. But there are still similarities - fundamentally it still involves negotiating access with landowners.
I suspect there are far, far more climbing areas than caves in the UK most are in the 'wilder' areas - you don't tend to have the oddities like Singing River Mine or Robinson's Pot. But there are plenty of access conditions and issues. For example, Cheddar has extensive (and complicated) access conditions. Climbers have access to Fairy Cave quarry but with different conditions to the cavers. A large fraction of sea (and some inland) cliffs have seasonal bird restrictions which are both voluntary and widely obeyed (and much more common in my experience than seasonal bat restrictions). Access was recently in jeopardy at Almscliffe because of boulderers climbing at night against the landowner's explicit request, despite considerable BMC publicity. Bolting can be even more of an issue above ground than below ground, but in the main consensus across the country (with regional differences) has kept the peace for longer than I have been climbing.

But I think there are lessons to be learned (perhaps in both directions). The 'Core Principles' about land acquisition (something the BMC rarely does, when you consider the size of the organization) would be an entirely reasonable BCA policy. The BMC RAD (Regional Access Database) is a single point of contact where the access information for the vast majority of UK crags can be easily found, without having to worry about which region it is/which website to use... But it is the _Regional_ access database, and that access information will be compiled by local volunteers, just like in the BCA.

If there is an organization more similar to the BCA in terms of access bodies, or even similar, I would be (genuinely) interested to know what. I am somewhat biased (or blinkered) as I am far more familiar with the BMC than other sporting bodies. It would be mistake to think we can't learn from other bodies (both their successes and their mistakes)...