CROW make my mind up time bca ballot papers are here
- Thread starter hrock
- Start date
- Status
Simon Wilson
New member
I think we're all in agreement then. :hug:
hrock
New member
thanks for some great points it has raised one or two things for me (and wasted very little of my time, sorry to be snappy mark. plus what is ukcaving for if not wasting all of our time)
one think to point our yes i think the bca reps do a good job for us all but they as reps do not have an opinion on this that is any greater any other caves so witch ever way the vote goes they will then do there best to make the best of the situation. the bca dose not indorse a vote in any direction.
i do under stand that it is unlikly to have much effect on me in the peaks but if we all just take the dont shit on my door step approach then caving would be a worse sport for shore.
there is always another voting option for the divided opinion and that it to save the bca the return postage cost and destroy your ballot paper. just a suggestion if it all get too much.
one think to point our yes i think the bca reps do a good job for us all but they as reps do not have an opinion on this that is any greater any other caves so witch ever way the vote goes they will then do there best to make the best of the situation. the bca dose not indorse a vote in any direction.
i do under stand that it is unlikly to have much effect on me in the peaks but if we all just take the dont shit on my door step approach then caving would be a worse sport for shore.
there is always another voting option for the divided opinion and that it to save the bca the return postage cost and destroy your ballot paper. just a suggestion if it all get too much.
martinm
New member
droid said:
Hi Droid. The Garden Path entrance to Lathkill Head Cave is an artificially created shaft, not a natural shaft that was there already. It was mined. Actually Lathkill Head upper entrance is also mined, but that is not on access land, but has free access! It's quite complicated! And what do you classify as mineral extraction? The extraction of limestone could be classified as that. (Calcium Carbonate, maybe for use in a lime kiln or wall.) It is a grey area, but one which DCA are very aware of.
Judi Durber
Member
This has been pointed out to me:
"There is also the practical argument that many volunteers are going to spend many, many hours trying to change something that in truth is unlikely to be changed. Many hundreds of hours and thousands of pounds have already been spent. Time and money that could be spent better elsewhere in caving. A yes vote will only continue that."
The volunteers who run the BCA & Regional Councils do a sterling job (even if they do stuff people don't like) All this extra work could stop people from volunteering and if the coffers run low then it is our subs that will have to go up.
So if you vote YES are you also willing to put in some hours to help get the process running along?
(Now this argument has thrown a spanner in the works for me as I have no more time I can give to caving
so undecided :-\ )
"There is also the practical argument that many volunteers are going to spend many, many hours trying to change something that in truth is unlikely to be changed. Many hundreds of hours and thousands of pounds have already been spent. Time and money that could be spent better elsewhere in caving. A yes vote will only continue that."
The volunteers who run the BCA & Regional Councils do a sterling job (even if they do stuff people don't like) All this extra work could stop people from volunteering and if the coffers run low then it is our subs that will have to go up.
So if you vote YES are you also willing to put in some hours to help get the process running along?
(Now this argument has thrown a spanner in the works for me as I have no more time I can give to caving
so undecided :-\ )Peter Burgess
New member
We have already been told how much just the postage and ballot has cost us. And, yes, I agree - there is only so much money to go round and only so many people to work with it. If the vote is Yes, let's hope something else that really matters doesn't come along to put a spanner in the works. And of course the BCA membership fee isn't going to go up is it?
Peter Burgess
New member
Some people are getting more than one ballot paper. That cannot be right.
http://www.aditnow.co.uk/Community/viewtopic.aspx?p=147145#msg147145
http://www.aditnow.co.uk/Community/viewtopic.aspx?p=147145#msg147145
Peter Burgess
New member
The issue of some people getting two ballot papers is far more serious than any unsolicited emails advising a No vote.
Pete K
Well-known member
Can't see anything untoward on Adit now.
I have 2 papers, one for me and one for the club I chair. One was my vote, the other was balloted on by the club. 2 perfectly uncorrupted ballots on my table right now.
Unless you have evidence of someone receiving 2 identical (that's same ballot paper number) ballots then this is just more BCA bashing and is a waste of time.
I have 2 papers, one for me and one for the club I chair. One was my vote, the other was balloted on by the club. 2 perfectly uncorrupted ballots on my table right now.
Unless you have evidence of someone receiving 2 identical (that's same ballot paper number) ballots then this is just more BCA bashing and is a waste of time.
menacer
Active member
Further considerations on voting for CROW
What IFs
I may sustain a paper cut on opening my ballot paper.
That may result in a visit to the Doctors should it get infected, thus costing the NHS valuable time and resources.
The postman delivering the ballot papers may slip or trip with the extra weight in the bag, especially at christmas , thus causing added expense and inconvenience to others.
The people sorting the extra ballot papers may suffer a repetitive strain injury.
How many trees were destroyed in making up the ballot papers and envelopes?
I may slip or trip or get run over when posting back the ballot paper in the mail box.
If I vote yes and a stal falls down in a cave will it have happened, because no one was there to hear it.
Will it be my fault?
What if i open my ballot paper and find Shrodingers cat in there alive!
Is it more environmentally friendly to use a biro or crayon when applying my tick in a box.
This list is not exhaustive, i hope it goes someway to helping the undecided.
What IFs
I may sustain a paper cut on opening my ballot paper.
That may result in a visit to the Doctors should it get infected, thus costing the NHS valuable time and resources.
The postman delivering the ballot papers may slip or trip with the extra weight in the bag, especially at christmas , thus causing added expense and inconvenience to others.
The people sorting the extra ballot papers may suffer a repetitive strain injury.
How many trees were destroyed in making up the ballot papers and envelopes?
I may slip or trip or get run over when posting back the ballot paper in the mail box.
If I vote yes and a stal falls down in a cave will it have happened, because no one was there to hear it.
Will it be my fault?
What if i open my ballot paper and find Shrodingers cat in there alive!
Is it more environmentally friendly to use a biro or crayon when applying my tick in a box.
This list is not exhaustive, i hope it goes someway to helping the undecided.
cavermark
New member
Judi Durber said:This has been pointed out to me:
"There is also the practical argument that many volunteers are going to spend many, many hours trying to change something that in truth is unlikely to be changed. Many hundreds of hours and thousands of pounds have already been spent. Time and money that could be spent better elsewhere in caving. A yes vote will only continue that."
The volunteers who run the BCA & Regional Councils do a sterling job (even if they do stuff people don't like) All this extra work could stop people from volunteering and if the coffers run low then it is our subs that will have to go up.
So if you vote YES are you also willing to put in some hours to help get the process running along?
(Now this argument has thrown a spanner in the works for me as I have no more time I can give to caving
There is a counter argument that the status quo (via a "no" vote) would require individuals in the regional councils continuing to put in many many hours and pounds in the coming years and decades to maintain the current permit/access systems.
If CROW is changed, things could get a lot simpler, freeing people up to go caving again in the long term.
I think it will all balance out in the long run and this should not be a reason for voting yes or no.
Bottlebank
New member
Some points to ponder.
Mark Wright makes the point that many of the Dales most prolific diggers are not concerned and are voting "Yes". It's true that some are, and that they are claiming many others support them. I can confirm that many are not at all happy with this and are voting "No".
Simon Wilson admits he's made up a figure re surface/underground digs. It's most certainly not true that most digs in the dales are underground - digging up there weekly and chatting regularly to quite a lot of diggers my best guess would be around 50/50.
Ten to twenty years ago we didn't bother getting permission from Natural England for surface digs. That's changed. Today many don't bother getting permission for underground digs. It's possible that may also change in the future.
The reduced liability offered to farmers and landowners with CRoW may make it much harder in future to gain permission to dig because they will be accepting back the level of liability they have now. If nothing else their insurers/legal advisers may not allow digging.
Both sides agree that there are likely to be problems in some areas. This has been confirmed time and again. They disagree on the scale and the risk. People need to weigh up if the benefits outweigh the risks, given that access is rapidly becoming easier in the Dales.
What became very clear at the weekend after people started receiving ballot papers is that many had no idea this was happening, and no idea which way to vote. By all means lets keep discussing it, and hopefully the replies posted will help some people make their mind up, but let's keep it constructive. Making up figures or simply saying Vote Yes or No doesn't help.
Mark Wright makes the point that many of the Dales most prolific diggers are not concerned and are voting "Yes". It's true that some are, and that they are claiming many others support them. I can confirm that many are not at all happy with this and are voting "No".
Simon Wilson admits he's made up a figure re surface/underground digs. It's most certainly not true that most digs in the dales are underground - digging up there weekly and chatting regularly to quite a lot of diggers my best guess would be around 50/50.
Ten to twenty years ago we didn't bother getting permission from Natural England for surface digs. That's changed. Today many don't bother getting permission for underground digs. It's possible that may also change in the future.
The reduced liability offered to farmers and landowners with CRoW may make it much harder in future to gain permission to dig because they will be accepting back the level of liability they have now. If nothing else their insurers/legal advisers may not allow digging.
Both sides agree that there are likely to be problems in some areas. This has been confirmed time and again. They disagree on the scale and the risk. People need to weigh up if the benefits outweigh the risks, given that access is rapidly becoming easier in the Dales.
What became very clear at the weekend after people started receiving ballot papers is that many had no idea this was happening, and no idea which way to vote. By all means lets keep discussing it, and hopefully the replies posted will help some people make their mind up, but let's keep it constructive. Making up figures or simply saying Vote Yes or No doesn't help.
Peter Burgess
New member
Ridiculing those with uncertainties isn't helpful either, Carmen.
Judi Durber
Member
A little bit of light entertainment to keep us smiling is good surely Peter & Carmen :kiss2:
And I like this counter balance to what I said:
I still don't have any more time to help though
And I like this counter balance to what I said:
I still don't have any more time to help though
Bottlebank
New member
There is one other point worth raising.
The vote is to decide whether BCA should campaign for CRoW to apply to caving. A "Yes" result will not mean that CRoW does apply to caving. The status quo will remain in place unless the campaign is successful.
There is no indication that Defra will change their view, that CRoW does not apply.
There are no guarantees the campaign will not be opposed.
By voting "yes" we could be committing the BCA to waste a huge amount of time and money (relative to the time and money they have available) on a campaign that quite likely will fail. In the process we could end up antagonising landowners, we could end losing access to caves, and finding it far harder to gain permission to dig. Even if we succeed all we'll gain is slightly easier access to many caves, and access perhaps to a handful that we don't have at the moment.
We could easily achieve easier access to most of the affected caves simply by reforming the CNCC and access procedures, and that process has already started.
Badgers point that access is a problem in the Dales for some clubs not based there is a fair one, but he knows his club has good contacts in the North, including with us, and we could and would easily sort access for them if asked to do so.
The vote is to decide whether BCA should campaign for CRoW to apply to caving. A "Yes" result will not mean that CRoW does apply to caving. The status quo will remain in place unless the campaign is successful.
There is no indication that Defra will change their view, that CRoW does not apply.
There are no guarantees the campaign will not be opposed.
By voting "yes" we could be committing the BCA to waste a huge amount of time and money (relative to the time and money they have available) on a campaign that quite likely will fail. In the process we could end up antagonising landowners, we could end losing access to caves, and finding it far harder to gain permission to dig. Even if we succeed all we'll gain is slightly easier access to many caves, and access perhaps to a handful that we don't have at the moment.
We could easily achieve easier access to most of the affected caves simply by reforming the CNCC and access procedures, and that process has already started.
Badgers point that access is a problem in the Dales for some clubs not based there is a fair one, but he knows his club has good contacts in the North, including with us, and we could and would easily sort access for them if asked to do so.
Bottlebank
New member
True, but much of that time could be saved by implementing a simply, automated online permit booking system, either nationally or region by region where needed.Judi Durber said:A little bit of light entertainment to keep us smiling is good surely Peter & Carmen :kiss2:
And I like this counter balance to what I said:
I still don't have any more time to help though
Those that are still undecided may care to consider this.
Generally speaking relationships between all recreational users and landowners has improved over the last decade. This is partly due to a generational changes in attitude and the realisation that the rural economy depends as much on tourism and recreational users as it does on traditional income from farming etc. For many landowners, especially the large estates, it is the liability of allowing cavers onto their land that concerns them most. Including caving under CRoW would reduce this liability to levels of common trespass - a situation which is very appealing to landowners.
One case study is that of the Ingleborough Estate. Last Christmas, the landowner, Dr Farrar sadly passed away. Under his ownership, the Ingleborough Estate controlled their own access to the caves on their land and he was very generous with it. Any caver could apply for permission through the Clapham Estate office. The land agents have now moved to Clitheroe and no longer wish to control their own access. They do still have concerns over their liability and therefore are in the process of passing access control onto the CNCC. However, the CNCC have repeatedly stated, including as recently as the last meeting, that they will only control access on behalf of their member clubs through their traditional club permit systems. Whatever the eventual outcome of this case, whether it forces CNCC to change or not, it demonstrates that any change of landowner can have an uncertain or more restrictive effect on cave access.
A lot of scaremongering about the reaction of landowners to CRoW has been made without any evidence to support it. On the contrary, in the Yorkshire Dales NP at least, there is ample evidence that the conflicts and animosity between landowners and recreational users that were predicted never arose. As evidence I offer two quotes from the Chairman of the Yorkshire Dales Local Access Forum (a statutory body set up under CRoW), In 2006;
?..indications are that many of the problems and pressures envisaged by some have not materialised and that, in the main, users have been responsible and understanding of the needs of those that farm, own and manage land over which the new rights can now be exercised.?
And again in 2009;
?Indeed, it may be that the landowning/farming interest is now confident that public access does not threaten its own interests.?
Why should it be so different for caving?
Generally speaking relationships between all recreational users and landowners has improved over the last decade. This is partly due to a generational changes in attitude and the realisation that the rural economy depends as much on tourism and recreational users as it does on traditional income from farming etc. For many landowners, especially the large estates, it is the liability of allowing cavers onto their land that concerns them most. Including caving under CRoW would reduce this liability to levels of common trespass - a situation which is very appealing to landowners.
One case study is that of the Ingleborough Estate. Last Christmas, the landowner, Dr Farrar sadly passed away. Under his ownership, the Ingleborough Estate controlled their own access to the caves on their land and he was very generous with it. Any caver could apply for permission through the Clapham Estate office. The land agents have now moved to Clitheroe and no longer wish to control their own access. They do still have concerns over their liability and therefore are in the process of passing access control onto the CNCC. However, the CNCC have repeatedly stated, including as recently as the last meeting, that they will only control access on behalf of their member clubs through their traditional club permit systems. Whatever the eventual outcome of this case, whether it forces CNCC to change or not, it demonstrates that any change of landowner can have an uncertain or more restrictive effect on cave access.
A lot of scaremongering about the reaction of landowners to CRoW has been made without any evidence to support it. On the contrary, in the Yorkshire Dales NP at least, there is ample evidence that the conflicts and animosity between landowners and recreational users that were predicted never arose. As evidence I offer two quotes from the Chairman of the Yorkshire Dales Local Access Forum (a statutory body set up under CRoW), In 2006;
?..indications are that many of the problems and pressures envisaged by some have not materialised and that, in the main, users have been responsible and understanding of the needs of those that farm, own and manage land over which the new rights can now be exercised.?
And again in 2009;
?Indeed, it may be that the landowning/farming interest is now confident that public access does not threaten its own interests.?
Why should it be so different for caving?
- Status
