I do not subscribe to the view that open access to caves on CROW land will inevitably lead to a wholesale desecration of our caves. I do however believe that there are undoubtedly grave risks associated with a completely unfettered access to all sites with entrances on CROW land. To my mind the answer is obvious, that we should push for open access to caves on CROW land in cases where the risk of significant damage is low, but that we should support appropriate access controls to preserve the minority of sites that are vulnerable enough to warrant such protection.
I am a little fed up with the insinuation that anyone who supports more straightforward access to caves on CROW land does not care about conservation of our underground heritage. Personally I am passionate about trying to preserve Britain's underground scenery. Like Chris I feel that the only really effective conservation measure for really vulnerable caves is by having some sort of leadership scheme. That is why I am a "conservation warden" for several caves and give up a noticeable proportion of my caving time to enable others to see some of the best preserved caves in this country. However like many others I would absolutely loathe the thought that such schemes should be applied to all caves, reducing our sport to nothing more than "follow my leader".
Many caves on what are now open access land have access restrictions (such as permits) that were put in place for reasons other than conservation of the cave. Many of these sites have ungated entrances and are frequently pirated. Others have locked gates with more or less easily available keys. In neither case does the current access arrangements provide any real protection for the cave, it being impossible to vet every application for a permit or key. Once the permit or key is obtained there is no way to police what the cavers get up to in the cave. Equally I can think of at least one cave on open access land that is currently open for which a good case could be made for introducing some form of protection.
As such, and along with some of the other arguments made above, I cannot see how caving becoming a permitted activity under CROW will be any worse for cave conservation for those sites which presently have no gate, or where a gate/leader scheme is in place for reasons other than cave conservation. So long as robust access controls can be retained for that relatively small subset of caves which presently benefit from gates and/or warden control to preserve them the conservation impact of open cave access under CROW should be minimised. I would also add that to my mind such leader schemes must be open and transparent, and not simply enable the local clique to visit the local gems whilst keeping everybody else out. To my mind it is too often the case that conservation is used as an excuse to keep special sites to an elite few. I have been on the receiving end of such ultra-conservationism that can descend into a selfish and arrogant case of "I've seen it but it's too vulnerable for anyone else to do so".
Finally I would hope that freer access under CROW might just encourage a few more people into the sport of caving. If we are to protect our caves in the long run, then we need a vocal, and I would suggest numerous, body of people interested in our caves. To my mind the only people who are going to do this are cavers. Placing unnecessary hurdles in the way of accessing fine caves could be a factor that puts people off caving and leads them to other (lesser) past times, losing us a potential future advocate of cave conservation.
So rather than rail against the evils of open cave access on CROW land, why not debate how best to manage conservation issues in such a case?