Access lost to Ogof Carno

[Ian Adams]

Perfectly worded and I agree that there may be such a scenerio and that, in that case, it would be better than nothing.

Accepting that this is the case, would it be prudent or sensible to try a unified approach through an agreed "body" (perhaps the BCA for example) first ?

:kiss2: 

Ian

 

[droid]

If you are dealing with a corporate body, be that public or private, then I'd say 'yes'.

My opinion might change when dealing with a grumpy old farmer though. Quite a few I've met seem to have a healthy suspicion of anything 'national' or 'official'.

 

[graham]

If you are dealing with a corporate body, be that public or private, then I'd say 'yes'.

I know a private corporate body that refuses to deal with anyone other than the group it already has a relationship with.

 

[NigR]

It's probably better for people's truths/opinions on things like this to be left off an open and public forum.........

Sorry, Estelle but not everyone appreciates being lied to......even if it can be construed as being for the 'greater good'.

The 'health and safety issues' (quoted by the OP as being mentioned in Descent) along with the 'road building issues' (as outlined by manrabbit), whilst being factually correct are most certainly NOT the real reasons why cavers are being denied access to Carno at the present time. They are just a smokescreen for the TRUE reason.

If it helps you sleep better at night by believing what you are told then that is fine, just don't be surprised when you wake up next morning and find that things are not how you imagined them to be.

 

[graham]

 

[estelle]

It's probably better for people's truths/opinions on things like this to be left off an open and public forum.........

Sorry, Estelle but not everyone appreciates being lied to......even if it can be construed as being for the 'greater good'.

The 'health and safety issues' (quoted by the OP as being mentioned in Descent) along with the 'road building issues' (as outlined by manrabbit), whilst being factually correct are most certainly NOT the real reasons why cavers are being denied access to Carno at the present time. They are just a smokescreen for the REAL reason.

If it helps you sleep better at night by believing what you are told then that is fine, just don't be surprised when you wake up next morning and find that things are not how you imagined them to be.

It's not about believing what we're being told, it's just my view that it's not healthy to 'fight' these sorts of things out on an open public forum where everyone, including landowners, can view all the heated debates, that ultimately can make cavers look like they are out to cause trouble and end up destroying landowner relations rather than improving them.

 

[droid]

I don't see that.

Most of the participants in this discussion seem fully supportive of the procedures that are ongoing to restore access.

 

[Ian Adams]

I think that there are negative issues in having ?open warfare? on a public forum but I also think there are negative issues in approaching landowners ?behind closed doors?.

Obviously open forums are available for landowners to see and they many well take a dim view of the ?fighting?. Conversely, on an open forum, more people have an opportunity to express their opinion, potentially more ideas/suggestions are floated and there is less opportunity for people/clubs with their own agenda to seek a ?back-door? agreement that benefits themselves and prejudices others.

Oh, and ?lies? and ?mis-understandings? are more likely to come out ....



Ian

 

[Duncan Price]

The bit I was involved in the exploration of in the 90's at the far end of Car Crusher North-at the top of Space Oddity pitch-was a nice bit of spacious passage, with black limestone, formations at the end a bit, like I dare say DanyrOgof! There are also areas for original exploration including a large undived -not in the index- sump at the start at of Car Crusher North.   
  Although I have not been Carno in recent years, it is a big pity access has been withdrawn.

As compiler of the Welsh Sump Index, I'd be interested in details of the sump (location etc.).  I was in there last year (a few months before it was shut) on a recce trip to the Littoral Zone with a view to resuming diving operations there.  Fortunately we never got to the stage of cacheing gear in there otherwise it could be there for an awful long time.

I believe that the "health & safety" grounds refer to the danger of releases of water from the reservior above causing the entrance of the Adit to sump off (as has happened in the past - though this might be attributed to poor maintainance).  I also understand that there are concerns about terrorists accessing the Adit disguised as cavers and blowing up the reserviour (? la Guy Fakwes) thus inundating Ebbw Vale (causing ?5 million in improvements  ).  Whilst I think perhaps the jobsworth who thought up that one might be entering the realms of fanatasy it wouldn't surpise me to hear the 9/11 card played elsewhere.

In my opinion, the situation is only temporary, another staff rotation at Welsh Water might see a more caver-friendly manager in place.  In the meantime, demaning access to sites isn't going to help though gentle badgering can often work wonders.

 

[PMN1]

It's probably better for people's truths/opinions on things like this to be left off an open and public forum.........

Sorry, Estelle but not everyone appreciates being lied to......even if it can be construed as being for the 'greater good'.

The 'health and safety issues' (quoted by the OP as being mentioned in Descent) along with the 'road building issues' (as outlined by manrabbit), whilst being factually correct are most certainly NOT the real reasons why cavers are being denied access to Carno at the present time. They are just a smokescreen for the TRUE reason.

If it helps you sleep better at night by believing what you are told then that is fine, just don't be surprised when you wake up next morning and find that things are not how you imagined them to be.

I was there when the initial meeting with the 4 WW guys took place and what has been said in Descent and what Huw has said is correct. It was handed over to Cambrian immediatley after that meeting.

 

[martinr]

..... there are concerns about terrorists accessing the Adit disguised as cavers and blowing up the reserviour (? la Guy Fakwes) thus inundating Ebbw Vale (causing ?5 million in improvements  ).  Whilst I think perhaps the jobsworth who thought up that one might be entering the realms of fanatasy.....

Rings a bell -

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/search/display.var.238248.0.po/

 

[droid]

It probably doesn't help that many cavers have a beard as large as a man's fist.... :tease:

 

[David Rose]

Graham, I find your argumet illogical. If a landowner is happy to allow a surface dig, then it surely can be assumed that he or she would be prepared to allow cavers to visit the cave which lies behind the dig, if found to exist. I am not arguing for a generalised right to carry heavy equipment and possibly explosives across private land and tip spoil away when generated. I am arguing that unless there are pressing reasons (and the roadworks at Carno may constitute such reasons, and BTW of course I know that the cave lies down a long adit), then there should be a general, legal presumption that cavers should be allowed to go down caves, just as walkers can walk up hills.

I realise it may take us a long time to get to that point. But it seems to me that our sport is getting ever more restricted, especially in Wales, for reasons which are, to put it mildly, questionable. I think it's time we started a debate about what we are going to do about this. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, very few cave entrances are on housing estates. Arguing about the general principle from a single very unusual and isolated case doesn't make sense to me.

I also think some of the restrictions which exist on caves which are partially open need revisiting. For example, why can't anyone under the age of 16 go down caves such as Agen Allwedd, Longwood and GB? I like taking my kids caving and they're pretty responsible. I like to think I am. It's amazing how many places they're not allowed to visit. (My older son will be 14 this year and is very competent.)

 

[Andrew W]

Graham, I find your argumet illogical. If a landowner is happy to allow a surface dig, then it surely can be assumed that he or she would be prepared to allow cavers to visit the cave which lies behind the dig, if found to exist. I am not arguing for a generalised right to carry heavy equipment and possibly explosives across private land and tip spoil away when generated. I am arguing that unless there are pressing reasons (and the roadworks at Carno may constitute such reasons, and BTW of course I know that the cave lies down a long adit), then there should be a general, legal presumption that cavers should be allowed to go down caves, just as walkers can walk up hills.

Walkers can't create new hills. Cavers can create new cave entrances. A landowner might be happy to allow a surface dig on the basis that he retains the right to control access to it and to fill it in if he desires in the future without locking himself into any kind of legal access arrangement. He might be much less willing to grant access if the creation of a cave entrance on his land creates a legal right of access over which he has no control and which might also affect the value of his property.

I agree that a general access right would be desirable but as others have stated there can be unintended consequences.

 

[Huge]

Thank you Huw and Paul for providing some actual information, directly relating to Carno.

 

[Ian Adams]

I think David?s post is very interesting and seems to address two issues;

1) CROW ? sadly, the wording of the legislation gives legal access (where applicable) ?on? the land and not ?under? it. It may be an oversight on the part of the legislators or it may have been very specific. I know the BCA don?t want to ?rock the boat? because if there is a test case and the court find against cavers then we may have swung the axe that decapitates us all. However, I don?t see why someone (the BCA perhaps?) shouldn?t follow up on David?s position and look formally at whether or not there is scope to include caves within CROW.

2) I agree that some restrictions that exist on some caves are excessive and are, in some cases, ridiculous. This is precisely why I am
personally not in favour of individuals or groups with their own ?agenda? approaching landowners, formulating a deal and then imposing their wishes/demands on the rest of the caving community where those wishes/demands are prejudicial or detrimental to other cavers.

Ian

 

[nickwilliams]

If a landowner is happy to allow a surface dig, then it surely can be assumed that he or she would be prepared to allow cavers to visit the cave which lies behind the dig, if found to exist.

Speaking as both a caver and a landowner, I'd say that was a far from valid assumption. There is a big difference between allowing access to a few locals who will usually do their best to keep the farmer sweet and allowing access all and sundry from all over the country, including led parties and people who have little care for or knowledge of the needs of the countryside in general and farming in particular.

 

[bograt]

Oh, Dear,
            I find it very sad that this thread has gone on so long without someone mentioning the C.C.C. , either in a supportive way or otherwise. They are the BCA associated regional body that is supposed to represent YOU to the National body, who are there to represent you to other  national bodies, if you don't trust them to do that job, get someone in there to do it, even if you have to volunteer to do the job yourself. I look at these comments and I think that co-ordination has been lost in a very significant area of caving in this piddling little corner of world caving.
Question the big boys and you question validity, circa 1968 or 2013??.

 

[graham]

Graham, I find your argument illogical. If a landowner is happy to allow a surface dig, then it surely can be assumed that he or she would be prepared to allow cavers to visit the cave which lies behind the dig, if found to exist.

No. Because if your equivalent of a 'right to roam' is established then the phrase 'prepared to allow' is not the case as all and sundry are not being 'allowed' they have a 'right'. This is a very different situation. For one thing it directly affects the value of the land as fewer buyers will be found for a piece of land if third parties have an established right to access it.

As I said before. Think it through.

 

[bograt]

"Value of land" depends upon what it was worth before the discovery. (E.U. decides)