Bob Mehew said:I am sorry but I cannot resist giving a longer answer than needed. Any activity which come within the definition of open air recreation is permitted unless it has been specifically prohibited. I did write one document which included dancing as an example of such an open air recreation. But playing loud music may be considered to disturb others which is prohibited. (There are other Acts which prohibit holding raves etc however.) So yes you can dance and possibly even to quite music.cavermark said:Is dancing allowed under CROW?
Peter Burgess said:Why would they propose doing anything against the interests of the cavers they represent?
Space Kadet said:Many will not agree with my views but we all have to think of the big picture. We all have to think what is best for caving all over the country - not just in the north - a vote yes will damage caving.
tony from suffolk said:Space Kadet said:Many will not agree with my views but we all have to think of the big picture. We all have to think what is best for caving all over the country - not just in the north - a vote yes will damage caving.
So what is "The Big Picture" here? It's surely safeguarding access to as many caves as possible for as long as possible for all cavers, not clinging on to the hope that landowners will continue to bestow access for a period but that a change in circumstances could deny that access at any time.
I'm dismayed by the short-sighted attitude exhibited by some folks. Of course there are risks to this, but then what in life hasn't a fair few? I know what's a more risky strategy here, and it sure ain't seeking greater freedom of access to caves.
from someone who should know what he is talking about.It was CROW that precipitated the sealing of Cwmystwyth and probably other places, I also wonder about the new and often pointless fences that sprouted up everywhere like mushrooms.
If we were living in a time where access to caves was getting harder, and we were being barred from more and more areas, I'd agree with you.
In fact the opposite is happening, access is improving slowly year on year. Campaigning for CRoW could even reverse that improvement - especially if the campaign fails which it may well do.
If we keep the status quo and in a few years time find that we are increasingly losing access then that would be the time to think about CRoW.
Why take the risk now when we don't need to?
Peter Burgess said:Comment on AditNow:
from someone who should know what he is talking about.It was CROW that precipitated the sealing of Cwmystwyth and probably other places, I also wonder about the new and often pointless fences that sprouted up everywhere like mushrooms.
One wonders what effect simply raising the profile of CRoW again might have with landowners who have mines under their Open Access property, looking at what happened when the legislation first appeared. Never mind whether what happened was legally necessary or not, it happened, and it caused grief.
Badlad said:If we were living in a time where access to caves was getting harder, and we were being barred from more and more areas, I'd agree with you.
In fact the opposite is happening, access is improving slowly year on year. Campaigning for CRoW could even reverse that improvement - especially if the campaign fails which it may well do.
If we keep the status quo and in a few years time find that we are increasingly losing access then that would be the time to think about CRoW.
Why take the risk now when we don't need to?
I wonder how the improved access you mention has come about. Landowners just woke up one morning and thought they'd be a bit more generous to caving? The truth is that it has come about on the backs of other peoples campaigning. The Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council, the Open Spaces Society and most other sports representative bodies are continually campaigning for better access for their members. These hard fought campaigns have resulted in legislation such as the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and more recently CRoW. Access for all recreational users has improved immeasurably over the years because of it and caving has benefited too. Documented history has shown that at every stage landowners have opposed change and improvements to access for the general public, but in end landowners have always accepted the outcomes.
The 'big picture' is surely to campaign for a legal right of access to those caves where we can. Secure access for our sport into the long term future. Not wait until we loose access (or BCA are unable to renew insurance policies) and start campaigning then.
Why not? The OP who we agree knows what he is talking about goes on to say:Jackalpup said:Peter Burgess said:Comment on AditNow:
from someone who should know what he is talking about.It was CROW that precipitated the sealing of Cwmystwyth and probably other places, I also wonder about the new and often pointless fences that sprouted up everywhere like mushrooms.
One wonders what effect simply raising the profile of CRoW again might have with landowners who have mines under their Open Access property, looking at what happened when the legislation first appeared. Never mind whether what happened was legally necessary or not, it happened, and it caused grief.
That all happened a number of years before the CRoW debates which have led to the BCA Ballot.
The actions (in relation to CRoW) of cavers and mine-explorers had no bearing on the decision made by the landowners at Cwmystwyth.
Yes, the OP does know what he is talking about but I don't think it is reasonable for you to extract from his credibility to present a "quote" to argue a current issue where the OP was relating to a historical issue that was not affected by the current BCA ballot.
Ian
It seems to me that start meddling and all you do is stir the pot.
Lead mine. Not entirely unrelated to "caving"
Bottlebank said:tony from suffolk said:Space Kadet said:Many will not agree with my views but we all have to think of the big picture. We all have to think what is best for caving all over the country - not just in the north - a vote yes will damage caving.
So what is "The Big Picture" here? It's surely safeguarding access to as many caves as possible for as long as possible for all cavers, not clinging on to the hope that landowners will continue to bestow access for a period but that a change in circumstances could deny that access at any time.
I'm dismayed by the short-sighted attitude exhibited by some folks. Of course there are risks to this, but then what in life hasn't a fair few? I know what's a more risky strategy here, and it sure ain't seeking greater freedom of access to caves.
Tony,
If we were living in a time where access to caves was getting harder, and we were being barred from more and more areas, I'd agree with you.
In fact the opposite is happening, access is improving slowly year on year. Campaigning for CRoW could even reverse that improvement - especially if the campaign fails which it may well do.
If we keep the status quo and in a few years time find that we are increasingly losing access then that would be the time to think about CRoW.
Why take the risk now when we don't need to?
Cheers,
Tony
It hardly matters why the increase in footfall. The result was a denial of access! Obviously something that doesn't bother you.jasonbirder said:Lead mine. Not entirely unrelated to "caving"
The increased footfall was because of CRoW bringing increased numbers (or concerns of increased numbers) of walkers onto the Moor...nothing to do with the Lead Mine