BCA Newsletter 31 is now out and online
- Thread starter David Rose
- Start date
Wayland Smith
Active member
BradW said:
What Badlad said is not "rubbishing" the efforts of ACBs! (That is just using language as emotional blackmail!)
He pointed out a very valid fact that whatever the intent of these bodies they do not have the resources to "Police" seldom visited areas.
If anything, Badlad has been kind to the PDCMG. If these truly are their best efforts, they might as well throw in the towel right now because they really are pathetic.
These are solid facts:
Twll Du has been open for well over a year and has been in regular use throughout that time. The PDCMG were totally unaware of this (other than for a few deliberately leaked rumours) and this would still be the case if it had not been decided to make its existence public.
The PDCMG do not know how many other open entrances into Ogof Draenen currently exist.
The PDCMG have no idea of the true length of the system and have no knowledge of any of the recent extensions that have been made.
Bearing all of this in mind, it absolutely amazes me that they can still claim to be in control of anything. As Badlad says, they need to finally be honest with themselves and admit this to the landowner. Sadly, this does not appear to be the case.
These are solid facts:
Twll Du has been open for well over a year and has been in regular use throughout that time. The PDCMG were totally unaware of this (other than for a few deliberately leaked rumours) and this would still be the case if it had not been decided to make its existence public.
The PDCMG do not know how many other open entrances into Ogof Draenen currently exist.
The PDCMG have no idea of the true length of the system and have no knowledge of any of the recent extensions that have been made.
Bearing all of this in mind, it absolutely amazes me that they can still claim to be in control of anything. As Badlad says, they need to finally be honest with themselves and admit this to the landowner. Sadly, this does not appear to be the case.
alastairgott
Well-known member
BradW said:
A little example may clear up confusion.
Peak Cavern's access is controlled. however it doesn't stop Individuals going in via JH or Titan.
They could even, if (a diver and) they so wished, enter through Titan, through far sump, through Treasury Sump, up the Bung hole streamway and eventually find their way to the bottom of JH and Up.
Effectively taking in Arguably some of the Best parts of Peak Cavern without even getting access from the ACB. That is the point being made on the one hand.
On the other hand, Brad, you talk about specific examples of ACB's who have been in conflict in the past. I believe what could be argued now is that some (not all) are trying to mend bonds and move forward away from controversy.
Martin Laverty
Member
Jopo - It may be rather how-many-angels-on-a-pinhead territory, but I was thinking of: "...Cambrian Caving Council... constitution...still respects a landowner?s right to grant or withhold access. A similar clause in the BCA?s constitution has now been removed following the recent ballot."
The CCC constitution was amended nearly 3 years ago to respect "...any rights held by the owners and tenants of property or mineral rights to grant or withhold access..." rather than the previous landowner-trumps-law version which matched the one now completely dropped by BCA.
Some will argue over the owner's rights in this case: better to put past differences aside and seek a new consensus both between cavers, owners, and authorities...
The CCC constitution was amended nearly 3 years ago to respect "...any rights held by the owners and tenants of property or mineral rights to grant or withhold access..." rather than the previous landowner-trumps-law version which matched the one now completely dropped by BCA.
Some will argue over the owner's rights in this case: better to put past differences aside and seek a new consensus both between cavers, owners, and authorities...
Sorry you think that BradW, I was trying to offer constructive comment. If it helps I have a key role within the country's largest ACB, so I must have been rubbishing my own efforts too.BradW said:
As far as PDCMG are concerned, there will be reasons why they have come in for criticism. Pretending that they are doing a great job and that there aren't problems is not going to help move forward to a better place.
You may well have been trying to offer constructive comment, but to me, and some others I have heard from, it doesn't come over like that, I'm afraid. Take some constructive comment from me if you like. Try to be a little more diplomatic and perhaps your dream of consensus might become close to reality. There's nothing I would like more than to see everyone agreeing on some common ground. The same could be said of other influential individuals, not necessarily current members here. Consensus requires a loosening of obstinacy - we all have this fault - you included. Changing habits is difficult but well-worth trying to achieve.
BradW said:
Thankfully Draenen's not my territory (but several other long cave systems are). It's up to those more closely involved to sort out the mess. However, I do think it is a mistake if you don't listen to the comments of others, but good luck to all those involved from me.
Here in the Dales we have been successful in fostering good relations and consensus, not just between cavers but also outside authorities and landowners. We have a number of great conservation initiatives on the go too. My diplomatic skills (or lack of them) don't seem to have been a hindrance. CNCC are on the up and very positive about the future.
My observations were not specific to Draenen. I suspect you don't accept my perception of the way you come across sometimes. Others have commented to me along the same lines - but if we are striving for consensus, that doesn't mean "you must agree with me but I am not going to change my ways". we ALL have to change. You, me, everyone. And in my experience the best results occur when those with the upper hand take the initiative and show genuine willingness to accommodate and change attitude.
droid
Active member
Brad.
I'd say (as a recipient of the attitude you allude to) that Badlad has indeed moderated his 'I'm right you're wrong' stance.
I would concur though with the thought that it's left a fair bit of bitterness in certain circles.
The initial CRoW debates were very 'intense'. It is encouraging that some of the more exciteable contributors have wound their necks in a bit, probably including yours truly.....
I'd say (as a recipient of the attitude you allude to) that Badlad has indeed moderated his 'I'm right you're wrong' stance.
I would concur though with the thought that it's left a fair bit of bitterness in certain circles.
The initial CRoW debates were very 'intense'. It is encouraging that some of the more exciteable contributors have wound their necks in a bit, probably including yours truly.....
cap n chris
Well-known member
Can anyone provide any historical reference windows when consensus existed in the politics of British caving?
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
I would say consensus is not the best way of solving our problem - it is the _only_ way we can solve our problems.
Personally I think even the idea of an 'access controlling body' is anathema BUT I am entirely behind a group of local volunteers who work to negotiate the best access possible for cavers (noting carefully that sometimes the best access for cavers doesn't mean the most open access due to conservation concerns etc). You might ask what the difference is?
One derives its authority from legal agreements it has negotiated and historical precedent. Cavers must comply with its demands to be given access.
One derives its authority from consensus, from the fair and reasonable compromises agreed between all cavers. It serves the caving community, and all cavers should attempt to follow its strongly-worded guidelines or face the wrath of the wider caving community.
Personally I would prefer that all access bodies were eventually (but as a last resort) subject to the authority of the BCA, the only representative body in the UK for _all_ cavers (including non-BCA members). Part of the problem with certain debates, in my opinion, is a lack of accountability to the larger caving community. I would make the CNCC, CSCC, CCC etc basically devolved administrations of the BCA. Now that's controversial
Final controversial point: I can see that a group of cavers, or even at a push a club, should be able to make an agreement with a landowner to dig or similar. But any agreement larger than this should start from the assumption that all cavers (even the non-BCA ones unless justified) should have equal access. In such a view, the only competent body for such an access agreement to be vested in (should it be necessary to do so) is the BCA, albeit delegated to the devolved administrations of course. This isn't to say that anything really would change, just that no club or access body would hold the keys to anything without deriving that authority from the BCA and thus ultimately all cavers.
Personally I think even the idea of an 'access controlling body' is anathema BUT I am entirely behind a group of local volunteers who work to negotiate the best access possible for cavers (noting carefully that sometimes the best access for cavers doesn't mean the most open access due to conservation concerns etc). You might ask what the difference is?
One derives its authority from legal agreements it has negotiated and historical precedent. Cavers must comply with its demands to be given access.
One derives its authority from consensus, from the fair and reasonable compromises agreed between all cavers. It serves the caving community, and all cavers should attempt to follow its strongly-worded guidelines or face the wrath of the wider caving community.
Personally I would prefer that all access bodies were eventually (but as a last resort) subject to the authority of the BCA, the only representative body in the UK for _all_ cavers (including non-BCA members). Part of the problem with certain debates, in my opinion, is a lack of accountability to the larger caving community. I would make the CNCC, CSCC, CCC etc basically devolved administrations of the BCA. Now that's controversial
Final controversial point: I can see that a group of cavers, or even at a push a club, should be able to make an agreement with a landowner to dig or similar. But any agreement larger than this should start from the assumption that all cavers (even the non-BCA ones unless justified) should have equal access. In such a view, the only competent body for such an access agreement to be vested in (should it be necessary to do so) is the BCA, albeit delegated to the devolved administrations of course. This isn't to say that anything really would change, just that no club or access body would hold the keys to anything without deriving that authority from the BCA and thus ultimately all cavers.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Personally I would prefer that all access bodies were eventually (but as a last resort) subject to the authority of the BCA, the only representative body in the UK for _all_ cavers (including non-BCA members). Part of the problem with certain debates, in my opinion, is a lack of accountability to the larger caving community. I would make the CNCC, CSCC, CCC etc basically devolved administrations of the BCA. Now that's controversial
The "larger caving community" is everyone that caves in this country that is nothing whatsoever to do with amateur caving namely professional/commercial/industrial. By a significant multiplier.
ACBs being subject to "the authority of BCA"? Pretty sure the power-holder in British Caving is the insurance industry. They call the shots.
On behalf of an ACB I can categorically state that the BCA has no authority, nor will it ever.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Cap'n Chris said:
I think, but I'm not sure, that I know what you mean by that sentence?
But absolutely, professional cavers and even those one-trip-only cavers should be heard and respected; in reality people who only go down caves once are unlikely to get involved so the BCA has a duty to make sure that for their very brief time in the caving community they are represented.
Well OK, but best to fight the battles we can win. Negotiations generally work best when everyone is singing off the same hymnsheet, even if they don't all agree - see the shambles of Brexit negotiations...
And how well is that working out at building a national consensus, or solving thorny issues like Draenen, instead of the vitriolic and frankly embarrassing politics of caving?
Why is it that the national body has no authority, when it exists to serve caving? How can it gain the best access for cavers when ACBs are free to work against it and against any national consenus?
And you can't predict the future, so I wouldn't say the BCA will never have authority... Power to the people!
Compared to a lot of other sports and activities we really don't have our house in order and consequently struggle to achieve things on a national level where other outdoor activities succeed. For example, climbing fought for, and won, explicit guarantee that CROW applied to climbing. I'm sure not everyone agreed with that, but they got consensus and got stuff done. The empire-building in caving works against the future of caving.
PS to be clear, my issue is with the system and not with the volunteers and people who work within it.
droid
Active member
Cavers do it because they enjoy it.
That enjoyment might be the process, exploration in all it's forms or academic interest, but enjoyment is the basis.
Occasionally that enjoyment might involve following or breaking rules.
Lets not overthink it.
I would suggest that save for a small number of zealots, the BCA is irrelevant apart from the insurance.
That enjoyment might be the process, exploration in all it's forms or academic interest, but enjoyment is the basis.
Occasionally that enjoyment might involve following or breaking rules.
Lets not overthink it.
I would suggest that save for a small number of zealots, the BCA is irrelevant apart from the insurance.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
I really don't understand some of the sentiments given in above posts. I'm just a normal caver, an ordinary member of several good clubs, actively involved in exploration and other caving related projects. I can certainly vouch for BCA's usefulness to me. I could give a great many examples but here's one from today. I just had a reply from BCA's most efficient librarian, to my request for scans of an article in a caving journal (relating to a current exploration project). All the material was with me within 48 hours - brilliant! As I said, I could give many other examples of BCA's great value to British cavers.
There seems to be a number of members of the caving community who just aren't willing to recognise the good in our national body, preferring to denigrate it and just pick holes in various aspects. OK, it may not be absolutely perfect - I don't agree with absolutely every aspect of how it operates. But please give credit where it's due. Many officers are volunteers, just doing their best. Give them a break. They put a lot of time in for the benefit of all members of the caving community. That's people like you and me.
I strongly disagree that the "BCA is irrelevant".
There seems to be a number of members of the caving community who just aren't willing to recognise the good in our national body, preferring to denigrate it and just pick holes in various aspects. OK, it may not be absolutely perfect - I don't agree with absolutely every aspect of how it operates. But please give credit where it's due. Many officers are volunteers, just doing their best. Give them a break. They put a lot of time in for the benefit of all members of the caving community. That's people like you and me.
I strongly disagree that the "BCA is irrelevant".
