BCA Statement on Casterton Fell Access
- Thread starter damian
- Start date
Alex
Well-known member
Despite being a criminal offense as it would be vandalism I think it would not take long for people to break through that again in such an important system . It would be far more hassle for the landowner to do that. Plus sealing the ones down Easegill beck effectively changes the river course which would be more damaging than caving, changing the natural course of things. So I really don't think the caves would be physically sealed but it could still be sealed in a legal sense.
bograt
Active member
Alex said:
Where is the criminal offense in land management?
Vandalism implies destruction of other peoples property???
If the entrances were sealed at the surface, the cavers would be open to public view as they work to dig them out, thereby putting them in the wrong by digging up SOMEONE ELSES LAND.
As a Peak District landowner, your naivety worries me.
bograt
Active member
Joe.Bones said:
So they would be in full sight of everyone, (somewhere cavers usually don't like to be) open to prosecution. Don't forget, this is open access land so any valid walker can get on their mobile to whoever and report funny fu**ers digging.
The world has changed, it is the era of negotiation, and cavers need to realise that to rebel you need to conform with the people who work hard to keep "YOUR ??" caves open.
Reading through the original BCA statement and this thread it is easy to conclude that the Casterton Fell permit system is not fit for purpose. It seems to fulfill neither the requirements of the landowner, or of cavers and has always been doomed to failure through willful and regular abuse. I can't help but wonder what real difference there would be if there was open caver access on this fell, probably very little difference to how things are now with many cavers deciding to cave when conditions suit them anyway.
I hope that the BCA representative who was summoned to the estate office pointed out that he has no control on who or how many cars park on a public highway, or on anyone walking the footpaths and bridleways, or anyone visiting Bull Pot Farm, or any cavers visiting Aygill, Bull Pot or other non permitted caves, or cavers crossing the fell to cave on adjacent land, or cavers who are not affiliated to the BCA/CNCC agreement, or that he has no real sanctions to impose on those clubs who breech the agreement anyway other than to cast them out where they will likely just go caving anyway.
I very much doubt that the landlord can stop people caving on this easily accessable and open access land (if that is their will). Talk of filling in entrances to Britains longest cave and one of it's most popular is, frankly, ridiculous. The landowner is unlikely to have the desire to commit the necessary resources, financial or otherwise, to effectively control and police cavers on his land, and therefore that should give any caving bodies a much stronger position in any negotiations.
As has been suggested in other posts there are ways to deal with concerns of liability, conservation and congestion other than by restrictive permiting. I hope that the landlords visit to Casterton Fell on 18th August demonstrated that the permit system does not work and will never work. I hope that those representing cavers take a default position of supporting open caver access to the fell and that any restrictions can be fully justified to all cavers using the fell so that it has clear majority caver support. BCA can always walk away from any deal and have no recognised access system as has happened in the past. You will still see lots of people caving up there, clubs, groups of friends, locals, etc all carrying on as they have done for decades.
Good luck to anyone involved.
I hope that the BCA representative who was summoned to the estate office pointed out that he has no control on who or how many cars park on a public highway, or on anyone walking the footpaths and bridleways, or anyone visiting Bull Pot Farm, or any cavers visiting Aygill, Bull Pot or other non permitted caves, or cavers crossing the fell to cave on adjacent land, or cavers who are not affiliated to the BCA/CNCC agreement, or that he has no real sanctions to impose on those clubs who breech the agreement anyway other than to cast them out where they will likely just go caving anyway.
I very much doubt that the landlord can stop people caving on this easily accessable and open access land (if that is their will). Talk of filling in entrances to Britains longest cave and one of it's most popular is, frankly, ridiculous. The landowner is unlikely to have the desire to commit the necessary resources, financial or otherwise, to effectively control and police cavers on his land, and therefore that should give any caving bodies a much stronger position in any negotiations.
As has been suggested in other posts there are ways to deal with concerns of liability, conservation and congestion other than by restrictive permiting. I hope that the landlords visit to Casterton Fell on 18th August demonstrated that the permit system does not work and will never work. I hope that those representing cavers take a default position of supporting open caver access to the fell and that any restrictions can be fully justified to all cavers using the fell so that it has clear majority caver support. BCA can always walk away from any deal and have no recognised access system as has happened in the past. You will still see lots of people caving up there, clubs, groups of friends, locals, etc all carrying on as they have done for decades.
Good luck to anyone involved.
Alex
Well-known member
Yes that was what I was meaning, I know its not an offense to block the entrances I was just saying it would be more hassle than its worth as someone would no doubt most likely keep breaking/digging them open as Easegill is not just some tiny cave no one heard about.
And simplest way to control parking in reference to the post above is just ask for some money for parking (Like Alum). (Red rose exempt in their carpark of course)
Please e-mail that to CNCC
in a constructive way of course.Not if they wear reflective vests lol (As they would look official)
Did you not watch the news last year then lo, remember a bit of unrest in London, Manchester?. The world is still as violent as it ever was. Take south Africa miners etc. P.s. not saying that is a good thing but I really do not think the world has not changed. People still protest to get their points across and digging blocked entrances would be a form of protest.
bograt
Active member
I agree entirely, just revving up Alex (very easy!).
The big problem is the American idea that you can sue for everything, (good old Maggie) this means that Landowners are frightened that anyone who is hurt by anything they have overlooked can cost them, (if negligence can be proven).
Therefore they demand insurance against such a claim, (Third party liability).
The best, cheapest, (Probably the only one) insurance to cover them comes from a lot of negotiation by the BCA, I am sure that if an individual club can find a better deal they would be grateful.
P.S. If the land agents are watching this I can negotiate a deal to blow in every entrnce.
(very easy!). The big problem is the American idea that you can sue for everything, (good old Maggie) this means that Landowners are frightened that anyone who is hurt by anything they have overlooked can cost them, (if negligence can be proven).
Therefore they demand insurance against such a claim, (Third party liability).
The best, cheapest, (Probably the only one) insurance to cover them comes from a lot of negotiation by the BCA, I am sure that if an individual club can find a better deal they would be grateful.
P.S. If the land agents are watching this I can negotiate a deal to blow in every entrnce.
martinm
New member
Alex said:
I have held off joining in on this so far, but the statement "I know its not an offense to block the entrances" is incorrect. If the entrance is on a SSSI and leads to features of scientific interest that are being monitored by cavers for CNCC / NE, then any blocking of those entrances (by any means or by anybody, including landowners) is a PDO (Potentially Damaging Operation) and thus an offence.
And the person(s) doing that will be brought to account by NE. It has already happened in the Peak and they were lucky to just get a warning and not to get fined, etc...
martinm
New member
bograt said:
True. But the Casterton Fell caves are on the http://www.northerncavemonitoring.org.uk/cave-areas/casterton-fell monitoring site as are many others. Presumably Geological then.
martinm
New member
graham said:
You are quite right Graham. NE don't do monitoring or ask people to do so, they just ask cavers to look at features of interest during the course of normal caving trips and fill in a monitoring form please. Nothing to do with access. Please look at the web site and/or contact CNCC / NE. They have supported / funded many cleanup / conservation projects in the Peak and the Dales in recent years...
TheBitterEnd
Well-known member
bograt said:I agree entirely, just revving up Alex
The big problem is the American idea that you can sue for everything, (good old Maggie) this means that Landowners are frightened that anyone who is hurt by anything they have overlooked can cost them, (if negligence can be proven).
Therefore they demand insurance against such a claim, (Third party liability).
The best, cheapest, (Probably the only one) insurance to cover them comes from a lot of negotiation by the BCA, I am sure that if an individual club can find a better deal they would be grateful.
P.S. If the land agents are watching this I can negotiate a deal to blow in every entrnce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomlinson_v_Congleton_Borough_Council]This - Tomilinson vs. Congleton Borough Council[/url] - was recently brought to my attention. Add to that that the CRoW act excepts landowners from liability for natural features on Access Land and things would seem to be much more balanced than might be assumed.
Actually, the permit system may work against the Landowner because the level of occupiers liability is unchanged for people they "invite or permit" to use their land. Occupiers liability is only reduced for people who are exercising a right of access with no invitation or permission...
Roger W
Well-known member
