CNCC in September
- Thread starter Bottlebank
- Start date
jasonbirder
Member
Didn't mean they developed or refined techniques...just that lots of clubs training officers etc seem to be CIC's....not ours tho' Orpheus is proudly amateur!
It was really to illustrate there is no big divide between CICs and club cavers...most CICs are cavers first and foremost who have the qual so they can carry out their job...and most of them will be in clubs and get involved...
Sent from my SK17i using Tapatalk 2
It was really to illustrate there is no big divide between CICs and club cavers...most CICs are cavers first and foremost who have the qual so they can carry out their job...and most of them will be in clubs and get involved...
Sent from my SK17i using Tapatalk 2
Blakethwaite
New member
Jon said:
Why dat?
exsumper
New member
Chris J said:
Chris :
The landowner hasn't asked for money. If you read the proposal, You'll see that the CNCC have suggested that he do so.
The line has not been crossed yet. The proposal is still yet a proposal!
This line will only be crossed if those members of the CNCC and BCA council with commercial interests prevail.
They will only prevail if the other members let them.
This proposal must've stopped! It is definitely not in the interests of normal cavers!!
As others have suggested previously. If ordinary caverns and clubs wish to stop this, They should write to both the CNCC and the BCA .
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Jon said:
CIC skills should be based on cavers' best practice. No more, no less. With the CIC holders I know, that is actually the case. So I agree, much synergy exists.
The forcing ground for caving endeavour is all the normal cavers who do it competently, as a pastime, all the time. Whatever CIC holders teach should reflect that. As I'm sure it does.
FYI
The CNCC minutes for September include a statement from Graham Mollard and Nigel Ball (I don't know what their relationship is with this issue but there must be one);
Quote, "I have talked with extensively with BCA training officer re access to Leck and Casterton....
We also feel that landowners/land agents should impose a fee payable upon booking a permit, so much per head. We will not suggest a figure but it should be substantial." Unquote.
Why would you want to encourage fee paying?
The CNCC minutes for September include a statement from Graham Mollard and Nigel Ball (I don't know what their relationship is with this issue but there must be one);
Quote, "I have talked with extensively with BCA training officer re access to Leck and Casterton....
We also feel that landowners/land agents should impose a fee payable upon booking a permit, so much per head. We will not suggest a figure but it should be substantial." Unquote.
Why would you want to encourage fee paying?
Chris J
Active member
I think the landowner has instigated this...Reading previous posts by Glenn
"This came about because one of the landowners came across a website advertising "adventure days" in Easegill and the supporting picture was of a woman being lowered down Lancaster hole. The landowner 'phoned the company and asked how much such a trip would cost, and the landowner then realised how much money was being made out of his land (the company would not have had a permit). The landowners, then arranged a meeting with various commercial groups and CNCC to come up with an arrangement that was equitable to all parties, and would enable the commercial groups to have access via the permit system."
"The proposal that you are all talking about, was instigated by the landowners, who (quite correctly in my opinion) were extremely miffed that commercial cavers (not interested in semantics) were making money out of the landowners land."
Glen doesnt spell out the fact the landowner wants money but that is how I read the above. I would think it a fair assumption that if the commercial groups had been left to arrange a permit system directly with the landowner then money would have been changing hands (given how miffed the land owner was about money being made off the land).
If the land owner isnt insisting on any money from these commerical groups then the best solution would be for these groups to get free access to the fells in my view.
"This came about because one of the landowners came across a website advertising "adventure days" in Easegill and the supporting picture was of a woman being lowered down Lancaster hole. The landowner 'phoned the company and asked how much such a trip would cost, and the landowner then realised how much money was being made out of his land (the company would not have had a permit). The landowners, then arranged a meeting with various commercial groups and CNCC to come up with an arrangement that was equitable to all parties, and would enable the commercial groups to have access via the permit system."
"The proposal that you are all talking about, was instigated by the landowners, who (quite correctly in my opinion) were extremely miffed that commercial cavers (not interested in semantics) were making money out of the landowners land."
Glen doesnt spell out the fact the landowner wants money but that is how I read the above. I would think it a fair assumption that if the commercial groups had been left to arrange a permit system directly with the landowner then money would have been changing hands (given how miffed the land owner was about money being made off the land).
If the land owner isnt insisting on any money from these commerical groups then the best solution would be for these groups to get free access to the fells in my view.
It would be good to get to the truth as to who is behind pushing for this fee.
Glen wasn't at the meeting with the landowner as far as I know, so his comments are about as second hand as mine. It is my information that the landowner didn't 'come across' this advertising, they had it pointed out to them by cavers (CNCC). Some may think that is good for caving, some will have an alternative view. It is also not true to say that the landowner was "extremely miffed", it is my information that he was purely curious to find out what was going on. It is true that he was surprised to get a letter from his MP, Julian Smith, asking that the estate contact the local CIC instructor so that their case could be made, which he did.
Glen and the CNCC are obviously in support of their own proposal. Cavers should be very wary of the tone with which this issue is reported by them, in political terms I think it is called 'spin'.
So actually it was the CIC instructor who instigated the present focus on this issue. 'Free access to the fells', I agree with you. I just don't believe much emphasis is being placed on maintaining it.
Glen wasn't at the meeting with the landowner as far as I know, so his comments are about as second hand as mine. It is my information that the landowner didn't 'come across' this advertising, they had it pointed out to them by cavers (CNCC). Some may think that is good for caving, some will have an alternative view. It is also not true to say that the landowner was "extremely miffed", it is my information that he was purely curious to find out what was going on. It is true that he was surprised to get a letter from his MP, Julian Smith, asking that the estate contact the local CIC instructor so that their case could be made, which he did.
Glen and the CNCC are obviously in support of their own proposal. Cavers should be very wary of the tone with which this issue is reported by them, in political terms I think it is called 'spin'.
So actually it was the CIC instructor who instigated the present focus on this issue. 'Free access to the fells', I agree with you. I just don't believe much emphasis is being placed on maintaining it.
