BCA and Access Campaigns

[Hammy]

In addition to being an enthusiastic caver I am also an active climber/hillwalker and canoeist.

When looking at both the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) and the British Canoe Union (BCU) websites, I notice that they are both actively involved in campaigns for unhindered rights of access to rivers, coastline and crags, in order to allow us all to enjoy our natural heritage in a responsible manner.

I was wondering why the BCA has no campaigns for unhindered rights of access to caves? Can anybody shed any light on the matter?

http://www.riversaccess.org/pages/pv.asp?p=rac2  BCU

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Pages.aspx?page=94  BMC

http://british-caving.org.uk/?page=23  BCA

 

[martinr]

Hmm....

Would you want "unhindered right of access" to something as good as this:

(photo: Mark Shinwell)

And if so, how would you protect the formations?

 

[nickwilliams]

The principal answer to the OP's question is the simple and obvious one. BCA is staffed by volunteers and we all have plenty of other things to do with our time. In the absence of significant pressure from our membership we have not seen the need to divert resources from other issues in order to orchestrate a campaign of this nature.

Also relevant is the fact that BCA's history and structure is such that access is a regional Council competence, and not something that BCA itself gets involved in except on very rare occasions. It's unusual for access issues to be discussed at national level at all, and when they are it's always in the context of a discussion about what the relevant Regional Council is doing and whether there is anything BCA can do to help them rather than from the 'top down' direction of BCA dictating what should be happening in the regions.

Going off half-cocked with any such campaign would probably do more harm than good. It would actually be quite a lot of work to do this 'properly', so even if there is a perceived need for such a campaign, I can't see it ever getting very high up our agenda unless there are some people who are prepared to get their hands dirty and make it happen.

Nick.

 

[graham]

Whilst I agree with Nick about the structural issues that surround BCA, that is not the point. The point being the one made most eloquently by Martin. Cavers have a duty to protect the environment that is far in excess of the one that affects either canoeists or mountain climbers.

 

[cap n chris]

Who do you* approach regarding "unhindered access to caves"? - the landowner, the tenant, the great nephew of the long since deceased original owner who seemed happy for cavers to visit and who doesn't even know there's a cave on the land, the club which dug it open, the club which holds the key, the clubs with ongoing digging rights, the local council, English Nature/Natural England, any number of NGOs which may have an interest in "official" doings with the cave? How do you define a "caver" - would you need to be countering approaches from outdoor pursuits organisations which may see "unhindered access" as a commercial opportunity to visit conservationally-sensitive sites etc..?

Personally I suspect that attempts to nurture unhindered access would result in considerably greater hindrances as people lock down sites out of sheer buggeration in the face of unwelcome bureaucratic approaches.

Furthermore, BCU & BMC don't find new environments, whereas cavers do (given time) by the tremendous efforts put into discovery - if that isn't enough then surely nothing else will be?


[* Presumably the regional volunteer: it is perhaps worth pointing out that RVs have been trying for years to get access - of any type! - to well-known off-limits caves but commonly get nowhere. There's no point in reviewing access to sites where it is already possible, whether via permits, keys or simply walk-in: regional RVs will have an idea of what's required to reopen some sites - mostly things over which cavers have little or no control, such as change of ownership. It is arguable that an organisation such as BCA could be spurred into providing a paid position to someone to engage in such work only to find that for half the cost, per year, of the wage bill they could purchase land containing cave entrances! - that would be ironic - it would also generate problems re who owned the land (i.e. would BCA subscribers be "shareholders" or would it belong to a board of trustees etc.), who was allowed access, how would it be allocated, who would administer it, etc..; circles within circles....].

 

[Pitlamp]

It's not every posting from Captain Chris that I agree with but his comments above are extremely important.

The only reason there is access to a large number of UK cave and dig sites is co-operation at LOCAL level. By this I mean anything from the regional council right down to the quiet chat with the boke in the field by a couple of diggers who just want to have a poke about. Officialdom is more than likely to be counter productive, especially at the moment when the agricultural industry is swamped by beaurocracy.

Besides, part of the fun of being a caver is succesfully negociating the access minefield. And at the end of the day, there aren't actually that many caves we can't go in.

Let's keep it local.

 

[Ship-badger]

I agree with almost everything that has been said here, including the spirit of the original post.

A question that nobody seems to have asked is "how much unhindered access have the BCU or BMC suceeded in obtaining?" I think the answer in both cases is "very little". So vast ammounts of time and money spent, for little in return.

On the River Wye (Welsh/English Wye) we have canoeing access issues now where none existed at all until recently. These problems have been caused by "unhindered access" (there is a "Right of Navigation on the Wye downstream of Hay-On-Wye). If only the word "unhindered" could be replaced by "responsible" it might be worth fighting and campaigning for. Unfortunately, in my experience, a lot of cavers, climbers and canoeists are anything but responsible.

How many days out have we had ruined by other people doing the same thing as us?

I too am a caver, climber and canoeists; and I also do these things in return for money; so you might think that I would prefer "unhindered access", but I think I prefer controlled, regulated access; and I definitely think it's better for our caves and mines.

 

[damian]

Agree with everything so far and would add that if a landowner thought that any new caves found on their land would mean an outright right to everyone to wander all over it, they would be much less happy to allow digging.

In my view the fact that CRoW does not specifically include caves is a good thing ... but that may be straying from the point of this thread.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Many caves and mines are dug out and explored by cavers that an owner has met personally and has come to trust. If they thought that their trust would ultimately lead to unrestricted access, then far fewer owners would allow digs and exploration to take place. It's great when easy access does result, but I'd rather have 50 caves where 40 have some kind of easy access procedure, than just 10 with a free for all approach. (adjust figures to suit your own regional situation).

 

[darkplaces]

Of course I am going to say Hammy has a point. However Its very much a regional thing so the problem isn't the BCA maybe its with the way the regional councils and indeed 'some' clubs work.

Take for example the Mendips, fairly easy, you do need an insider in the caving clubs (me) to get keys and arrange access for 'outsiders' non club members to visit caves. Its easy but not easy to an outsider.

Derbyshire, fairly open, pritty good the few caves I have done. I am told Yorkshire is even better! Further up north into Cumbria a locked gate remains so for less time then it takes to type this sentence.

Now for the bad boys! The Forest of Dean - Yes I will bash them till they change and get into line with the rest of the country! In my view the forest of dean clubs have failed in reasonable access for all interested people. One thing I have always hated is the elite-est attitude 'some' clubs have, making the assumption if your not insured or not in a club your not worth bothering with, catering for and your actively barred from access.

So maybe Hammys point should be; Should the BCA recommend and lead reasonable access with good examples of how it works best. Or should it be left to the regions to make this up for themselves. The BCA could not enforce anything but it could show good examples. 

 

[graham]

Darkplaces needs to check out what BCA policy on access actually is.

 

[darkplaces]

Darkplaces needs to check out what BCA policy on access actually is.

No Graham, I think Clubs should re-read the access policy as they clearly dont all understand it.

 

[Hammy]

Darkplaces needs to check out what BCA policy on access actually is.

Perhaps you could help the free-flow of the debate by detailing what this is graham....??

 

[damian]

Darkplaces needs to check out what BCA policy on access actually is.

Perhaps you could help the free-flow of the debate by detailing what this is graham....??

From the BCA Handbook (Pp. 48-9)

Cave Access Policy
It is the stated primary aim of BCA (enshrined in its Constitution at 3.1), ?to support members of the Association in obtaining, ensuring, maintaining and encouraging the development of access arrangements at a national, regional and club level in accordance with national, regional or club practice?. But it must be borne in mind that caves are situated under land. Both this land, and the land that most commonly has to be crossed to get from the public highway to the cave in question is owned by somebody. Whether in any particular case the land in question in either of these two categories becomes ?Access Land? (under the CRoW Act 2000), is really neither here nor there, because the law in England and Wales, (where CRoW operates), is quite clear. The owner of land is deemed to own everything down to the centre of the earth, so that he/she also owns the cave itself, and the CRoW Act does not alter this. It merely allows people to have access to certain land that they did not hitherto have, strictly ?for the purposes of open-air recreation?. In some respects this might at first appear to be unfortunate. On further thought it most probably is not so. Both cavers and landowners are most likely better served through the well-established cave access arrangements that are currently in place than would be the case under a free-for-all.

The CRoW Act
The CRoW Act has placed a statutory duty on every local highway authority, or national park authority, to establish a Local Access Forum. These are advisory bodies that must fairly represent all parties interested in Access Land and access to open country. They should be constituted and maintained with a fair balance between land owners and occupiers and appropriate recreational users, e.g. cavers where there are caves.
The CRoW Act should, however, help us in other respects. Where land becomes ?Access Land?, either through the mapping process, or through voluntary ?dedication? then there is a clear removal of ALL legal responsibility from the landowner/occupier towards people ?interacting? with ?natural features of the landscape?, e.g. caves. When this legal fact is fully assimilated by landowners, then it cannot but help the cause of access to caves. It will though not assist us when it comes to access to disused mines!
The CRoW Act may also help, in the fullness of time, with access to some caving sites. Part II of the CRoW Act is intended to ?rationalise? our complicated public rights-of-way network and includes a requirement for Highway Authorities to produce Rights of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIPs), and implement these. This is a complex area of the law, still in the course of development, but contact with the most appropriate member of your Local Access Forum could be a key to this process.

 

[cap n chris]

cavers ... are most likely better served through the well-established cave access arrangements that are currently in place than would be the case under a free-for-all.

Seems to sum it up well.

Thanks, Damian, for posting this. 

 

[graham]

The bit that Darkplaces needs to read is the bit that says that access bodies need to make access available "for all interested people".

'cos it doesn't.

 

[darkplaces]

Good, so the 'problem' is the regional councils or the clubs or individuals.

Well done to the BCA, Hammys point answered?

 

[graham]

Except that it isn't actually a problem. 

 

[darkplaces]

Yes the FOD has a problem.

 

[cap n chris]

Move there and sort it out for them if you're so certain of how things should be.