Access lost to Ogof Carno
- Thread starter Martin Laverty
- Start date
it sounds like discussions are in hand and hopefully will secure the access for the future. It's probably better for people's truths/opinions on things like this to be left off an open and public forum where anyone (including the landowners) can see inflammatory discussions which are far more likely to end up losing access than regaining it...manrabbit said:
paul
Moderator
[gmod]Perhaps it would be best to A. Keep on Topic and B: Faimiliarise yourselves with the Forum gudelines at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=1872.0 [/gmod]
Ian Adams
Active member
David Rose said:
I think this is a very important issue and I think it needs to be addressed properly and not in the same manner as some other instances where various ?groups? have run ?roughshod? over the top of other interested parties claiming victory and brainwashing ?landowners?.
I am totally in favour of negotiated access with Landowners but, in the same breath, I am totally against a person/persons or group approaching a Landowner with their own agenda (purporting to be in the best interests of everyone concerned) and then ?Policing? the rest of the caving community.
We already have a ?body? (the BCA) and the various regional councils (I assume this would fall under CCC?) and I would much prefer to see representations made by such bodies rather than other ?persons? with their own motivations.
For my part, I would be seeking to keep access as open as possible in as easy as manner as possible. I don?t like ?gates? (I like concrete even less) although I accept that sometimes ?gates? are necessary. I personally believe there are an excess of gates and an excess of ?control? that really is not needed. (as an example, why does Draenen need a locked gate? - seriously?)
I appreciate that a ?mile long water board tunnel? is different to a long, wet crawl entrance (Draenen) but is it not possible to work towards a unified system of either open access (where appropriate) or a combination lock where a gate is necessary ?
In short, I support David?s suggestion that we should do something to protect access.
Ian
droid
Active member
In this case, where a corporate body is the owner/lessee, I'd agree.
However when dealing with some landowners, they would prefer to deal with a local group and people they can approach personally in case of problems. YOUR beef should then be with the controlling group or club.
Each situation is individual, which is why the solution is often individual.
However when dealing with some landowners, they would prefer to deal with a local group and people they can approach personally in case of problems. YOUR beef should then be with the controlling group or club.
Each situation is individual, which is why the solution is often individual.
Ian Adams
Active member
There is, however, a distinction. I was making a suggestion ? you were making a statement.
I do believe (an opinion) ?debate? is good ? I am sure we all want the same thing (access). I believe (an opinion) that the ?powerplay? in the Draenen issue caused the problems and I was suggesting a means by which we (cavers) might ?unify? an approach to securing access.
If you don?t agree on the approach I suggested then fair enough ? that is the basis of debate.
Ian
I do believe (an opinion) ?debate? is good ? I am sure we all want the same thing (access). I believe (an opinion) that the ?powerplay? in the Draenen issue caused the problems and I was suggesting a means by which we (cavers) might ?unify? an approach to securing access.
If you don?t agree on the approach I suggested then fair enough ? that is the basis of debate.
Ian
droid
Active member
You were making vague insinuations of empire building ("policing") by unspecified individuals/organisations. That's an opinion, rather than a statement.
And as I stated, I partly agree with what you said.
But the issue is far bigger than 'the Draenen issue', which sounds to me (opinion) to be a bugbear of yours.
And as I stated, I partly agree with what you said.
But the issue is far bigger than 'the Draenen issue', which sounds to me (opinion) to be a bugbear of yours.
Ian Adams
Active member
I referred to the Draenen issue (by name) and since it was (and I would guess still is) moot, I made no "statement" but used it as a reference where there was clear dis-agreement.
I agree the issue of "access" is much greater than Draenen and it was this "issue" that I was replying to in respect of David Rose's post.
And you are right that Draenen is a "bugbear" to me but there is little value in re-visiting the arguments except, perhaps, to acknowledge that we (cavers) could possibly have handled it better.
As you already pointed out, each situation is individual and we are all (of course) also individual. A recipe for war perhaps? Since I doubt we will all be able to reach consensus, I was suggesting that we (cavers) might place the matter of "access" into the hands of a body that we might all agree is appropriate.
It is perfectly acceptable to disagree ...
Ian
I agree the issue of "access" is much greater than Draenen and it was this "issue" that I was replying to in respect of David Rose's post.
And you are right that Draenen is a "bugbear" to me but there is little value in re-visiting the arguments except, perhaps, to acknowledge that we (cavers) could possibly have handled it better.
As you already pointed out, each situation is individual and we are all (of course) also individual. A recipe for war perhaps? Since I doubt we will all be able to reach consensus, I was suggesting that we (cavers) might place the matter of "access" into the hands of a body that we might all agree is appropriate.
It is perfectly acceptable to disagree ...
Ian
droid
Active member
And I (partly) agreed with you.
I was merely insinuating that there may be a class of landowner that would rather negotiate with a local group. I realise this might lead to a 'local caves/mines for local people' situation, but it's (opinion) better than nothing.
Did I get away with not making a statement there? :kiss2:
I was merely insinuating that there may be a class of landowner that would rather negotiate with a local group. I realise this might lead to a 'local caves/mines for local people' situation, but it's (opinion) better than nothing.
Did I get away with not making a statement there? :kiss2:
