jasonbirder
Member
Landowner's wishes take overall precedence. Ask the landowner what they wish, and respect the answer you are given.
Except on CRoW land...where the law of the land will take precedence over Landowner objections
Landowner's wishes take overall precedence. Ask the landowner what they wish, and respect the answer you are given.
Bob Mehew said:If you read the constitution you will find BCA describes itself as a federation in Sec 2.1. It also takes some powers of governance in that Sec 11 explicitly allows it to make a judgement on its members. It also seeks to represent them as is made clear in Sec 3.
I would also add to Pete K's response that Sec 4.6 does require BCA and all members to provide where possible for the widest possible access.
But let me get back to the question I asked and Peter nor anyone else has so far not answered. The problem I put forward is about BCA taking on a new representative role, not a governing one. I also thought I made it clear that it is not a bipartisan agreement. It is about one group of cavers trying to exclude access to the cave by all cavers because of purely the preference of the land owner. And BCA is being asked to comment on the proposal because NE has given it that responsibility to represent all cavers on persons making applications for Directions. I have suggested that this group of cavers might seek to use one part of the constitution to block BCA from answering.
Peter - the question I am seeking an answer from you is what should BCA do in such a circumstance?
Jackalpup said:we risk losing the influence it holds and we risk losing our voice. Then where would we be ?
2xw said:I will personally take Stoney Middleton. It shall be renamed the Democratic Republic of Stoney Middletonistan, and access to Gin entrance will cost ?22 a head.
If anybody disagrees you can come at me. I will be at the top of the dale covered in woad.
2xw said:the caving areas split up into slices and put into the care of local cavers.
AndyStuff said:As someone fairly new to caving I can see both sides.....
Yes I think there should be a right to roam and everyone should be able to access caves however I think there is also a need for a permit system like is currently in place for CERTAIN caves.
To explain.....
I was in the cupcake the other week (a lovely cave with some really nice but delicate formations which you would easily knock off if your attention slips). If this cave can be used by anyone at any time due to being open access then bigger groups could go in at will and it could easily end up ruined which is really sad!
I take on board what people may say that in reality anyone could go in and trash it anyway and just cos you are supposed to have a permit it doesn't mean people abide by rules or get permits. Maybe that's up to us as responsible cavers to raise with the people we see (just like I am sure we would challenge an idiot who we saw vandalising a cave or littering for example).
I also think there is a practicality element here as well. Permits can restrict the numbers in a cave and I think we have all been in a situation before in a cave where we are waiting ages for other groups or someone has rigged over your ropes in such a way that it has caused problems. Some tighter caves could be very problematic if another group was in and they both met coming from different ends at a squeeze etc.
Bob Mehew said:But let me get back to the question I asked and Peter nor anyone else has so far not answered. The problem I put forward is about BCA taking on a new representative role, not a governing one. I also thought I made it clear that it is not a bipartisan agreement. It is about one group of cavers trying to exclude access to the cave by all cavers because of purely the preference of the land owner. And BCA is being asked to comment on the proposal because NE has given it that responsibility to represent all cavers on persons making applications for Directions. I have suggested that this group of cavers might seek to use one part of the constitution to block BCA from answering.