CROW Setion 26 - Which Caves Need Protection?

[Ed W]

slightly off topic again, its just who decided what and why, on what basis....is it logical.

Menacer, I think this is precisely my point!  In that just because a cave has certain access restrictions today, I don't think it naturally follows that they are needed.  I also agree with George North that 50 caves requiring leader schemes nationally is over the top. The number was extrapolated from very limited data, and was intended to draw out the point that a lot of the bluster about conservation is limited to relatively few sites which need active protection - probably just a handful in each region.

I have no doubt that there are some caves which require special measures to protect them, but my personal view is that they are relatively few.  What CROW will make us do (I hope) is consider which caves merit special protection on something like a consistent basis, rather than what has occurred in the past which seems to me to be a case of access restrictions being dreamed up largely dependant on the philosophy or whims of the first people to explore them.  My feeling is that many of the access controls currently in place have their origins in rationale other than conserving the cave.

As to leaders, I do worry about cavers being nannied through caves and would hate to see led trips become the norm.  As to considering that the party is more capable than the leader, I suffer from that problem almost every time I take a party on a trip to a cave where I am a warden.  I think it is less to do with the relative ability of the cavers, and more to do with someone who knows the cave well.  From experience of being a warden for various caves for over 15 years I can quite honestly say that some of the most capable parties I have taken down have been some of the worst from a conservation point of view.

I would also suggest that the "Public Protection" issue is also thought through in the same way.

So the point of the thread was to try and get people to put down some evidence to show why certain caves need active protection.  I think it is quite significant that this thread has not been swamped with examples of caves on CROW Access Land that require special measures to conserve them, beyond the three that I have pointed out.  I would therefore submit that the conservation argument may have been overplayed in significance on some of the other threads - unless anyone wants to prove me wrong by adding a few more caves on this thread!

 

[graham]

Someone has mentioned one other (St Cuthbert's) in passing, but not really amplified why.

Probably because nobody (who knows) wishes to tread on the toes of those who administer access to the place.

 

[braveduck]

Just remember Graham,when one reaches the end of one's allotted span,
caves are like money ,you can't them with you ! 

 

[JasonC]

... Certainly in the Dales I don't think there's any sites where it would be considered acceptable to have Mendip style access restrictions. ....

The default Dales position seems to be that once a discovery is made safe and conservation tape installed where appropriate, then it is open access (subject to permits).  On the whole, I think this is a Good Thing, and reflects well on public-spiritedness of the discoverers, who may have laboured long and hard to achieve this result.

In one or two cases (Dogger Bank springs to mind), this has had a downside, in that careless caving has done irreparable damage.

Even so, as George says, I think few would accept gating any caves at this juncture.  However, if CroW leads to the death of the permit system in the Dales (and I'm not saying it has yet!), then there might be an argument for future discoveries - if of sufficient merit - having access arrangements imposed.  Personally, I wouldn't find it onerous having to apply for a key to a new cave (entrance) if it had special formations, which were protected by the restrictions.

 

[Aubrey]

Just remember Graham,when one reaches the end of one's allotted span,
caves are like money ,you can't them with you !

Yes, but I would like to leave this world witth the caves in the condition they were in when I first found or visited them.

 

[martinm]

SO, back to  the  OP, (Original Post), can we try and build up a list of sites that we think, 'Need Protection' please. (Without all  the other 'stuff in this thread'.) Then we can discuss these items at the BCA C&A meeting in  August and include these in our discussions. Ta muchly.

 

[graham]

Just remember Graham,when one reaches the end of one's allotted span,
caves are like money ,you can't them with you !

Son, I am rather too infirm to visit quite a number of them now. I do not take this stance from any desire for personal benefit. my view is rather more like Aubrey's.

 

[Ouan]

Aveline's Hole appears to be on CROW access land, the end of which is gated for archaeological reasons.
From reading these endless and circular threads I assume that those responsible for the gate are going to have to justify it and make an application under Section 26.

 

[graham]

Aveline's Hole appears to be on CROW access land, the end of which is gated for archaeological reasons.
From reading these endless and circular threads I assume that those responsible for the gate are going to have to justify it and make an application under Section 26.

No

Although Burrington Combe is access land, the act is superseded by the existing Commons act from 1911. In that act, at that time, the landowner reserved the rights to the caves to himself. That still holds under CRoW. So wherever this act may (or may not) apply to caves elsewhere, it does not apply to Burrington Combe.

It wouldn't be difficult to justify, anyway. The site is a scheduled Ancient Monument, the 'stuff' that the gate is there to protect cannot be removed and the example, already given in these threads, from the similarly vandalised cave in South Wales, would make it an open and shut case.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

... Certainly in the Dales I don't think there's any sites where it would be considered acceptable to have Mendip style access restrictions. ....

The default Dales position seems to be that once a discovery is made safe and conservation tape installed where appropriate, then it is open access (subject to permits).  On the whole, I think this is a Good Thing, and reflects well on public-spiritedness of the discoverers, who may have laboured long and hard to achieve this result.

In one or two cases (Dogger Bank springs to mind), this has had a downside, in that careless caving has done irreparable damage.

Even so, as George says, I think few would accept gating any caves at this juncture.  However, if CroW leads to the death of the permit system in the Dales (and I'm not saying it has yet!), then there might be an argument for future discoveries - if of sufficient merit - having access arrangements imposed.  Personally, I wouldn't find it onerous having to apply for a key to a new cave (entrance) if it had special formations, which were protected by the restrictions.

As I am sure you know, permits really don't do anything for conservation, dogger bank being an example. A while ago on one of these threads, lost in amongst all the hysteria, an alternative Dales solution to this was pointed out; that being to publish the discovery but in a low key way. There are that many scrotty little digs going on it just gets lost in the noise and only the dedicated visitor to obscure places bothers to search it out.

 

[Ed W]

Graham,  not sure I can see the logic for your statement with regards Cuthberts:-

Probably because nobody (who knows) wishes to tread on the toes of those who administer access to the place.

I really can't see how someone stating why they think St Cuthbert's Swallet merits protection under Section 26 of the CROW act steps on the toes of those who administer the place.  Surely it is far preferable to get the reasons why access should be restricted out in public in order to aid as widespread support as possible for any application should it become necessary.  I don't wish this to be taken the wrong way, as though we have differing views on this subject I think it is good that such an important subject is being debated, but I do think this statement does imply a somewhat condescending attitude to this debate.

I still think that it would be really useful if others would put forward cases of caves that they feel would need special protection if CROW is found to apply to caving.  So far this thread is confirming my prejudice that there are in fact very few caves in this category.  Unfortunately I think replies such as the one about Cuthberts above do little to advance the case for those against open access, and to my mind simply attempt to stifle useful debate.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Why the big discussion? Brains more or less had it right as far as I can see, except that I would include all leader sites AND all gated sites by default, on the presumption that they were gated for a right and proper reason in line with keeping the caves in good nick. Then argue for their removal from the list if there is a justification, not the other way around.

 

[Ed W]

Peter,

I don't necessarily disagree with that approach, but for each Section 26 application there will have to be some form of justification supplied.  To that end the relevance of this thread is still important (at least to my mind) in that some form of justification for existing gates/access controls will have to be made if they are to be retained.  Hence why I think it would be a good thing to start compiling a list of those caves that people think require Section 26 applications and why.

Ed

 

[graham]

Ed

I meant that as that cave is under the administration of the BEC, Mendip cavers who have posted on this thread have had the good manners not to intervene on their behalf, as they have not spoken themselves.

I do not doubt for an instant that they are aware of what has been going on and have been taking appropriate steps.

 

[NigR]

50 sites across the country is likely to be a significant overestimate I'd say. Certainly in the Dales I don't think there's any sites where it would be considered acceptable to have Mendip style access restrictions. I'm guessing that the same holds true in Derbyshire.

So far as South Wales goes, I can only think of two instances where there are leader/warden systems in place (Dan yr Ogof and Ogof Capel). Neither of these caves are on open access land, so there should not be any problems on that score. This would suggest, however, that the figure of 50 potentially affected sites countrywide is indeed far too high an estimate and should be revised downwards.

 

[NewStuff]

Why the big discussion? Brains more or less had it right as far as I can see, except that I would include all leader sites AND all gated sites by default, on the presumption that they were gated for a right and proper reason in line with keeping the caves in good nick. Then argue for their removal from the list if there is a justification, not the other way around.

And there lies the problem. I suspect a large number of people will disagree with your statement that all gates are there for a right and proper reason. I certainly think it's bullshit. Some gates should be there, the OP highlights that situation perfectly, but *all* gates to stay as default? You are desperate to keep the status quo, rather than contribute meaningfully to this discussion.

As it is, I'm not aware of any near me, on open access land, that require a gate to conserve them.

 

[Peter Burgess]

No, I just want you or anyone else to justify with valid reasons why the gates should go. Nothing unreasonable about that if you have valid reasons then there won't be a problem, will there? The reasons are justified and proven - no gates. Just a hunch? Or a bit of personal bitchiness towards the club involved? Gate stays. That way the caves that need protection are guaranteed to keep them as is only right.

 

[NewStuff]

Some caves should be gated, we've established that, I think everybody is in agreement about it, and it's the point of this thread to establish *which* caves need that protection. Normal, everyday caves that do not have extraordinary features that need protecting should be open. End of.

Taking a "guilty until proven innocent" type approach? If you really cannot see the problem with that, then you are more dense and close-minded than I thought. This thread is about establishing which caves need protecting, so they can have gates put on or have them stay on. It is not for you to start on about your views about every cave should be gated. People are trying to meet you half way, how about you work with them, rather than against them eh?

 

[Peter Burgess]

It's more effort to remove a gate then put it back when it's shown it shouldn't have been removed in the first place. No innocence or guilt here. Simply that it's only natural that those that wish to see change should put in a bit of effort towards achieving what they want changed instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them. So start thinking - which of the numerous gated caves don't need a gate. Go on. Give us a list. See if you have the brain power to think for yourself instead of expecting everyone else to wipe your bottom for you.

 

[Ed W]

It's more effort to remove a gate then put it back when it's shown it shouldn't have been removed in the first place. No innocence or guilt here. Simply that it's only natural that those that wish to see change should put in a bit of effort towards achieving what they want changed instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them. So start thinking - which of the numerous gated caves don't need a gate. Go on. Give us a list. See if you have the brain power to think for yourself instead of expecting everyone else to wipe your bottom for you.

Peter, I think the problem with this approach is that if caves are indeed covered by CROW then the emphasis is the other way round, i.e. it will be necessary to justify any access control under Section 26 for cave conservation or Section 25 for public protection.  This was the rationale for the original post.  Given all of the discussion about the importance of conservation on the various CROW threads, I find it somewhat surprising that none of those who profess to oppose CROW for this reason have offered up ant further sites with justification than the original three I mentioned.  St Cuthberts has been mentioned, but with no justification, just a bizarre and somewhat condescending suggestion that only those in the know need to know the reasons.

So some on, if conservation is the major problem, come on and tell us how many sensitive sites really are under threat from CROW?  To date I think this thread indicates that there are likely to be very few, which in turn means that the effort required to get Section 26 restrictions should not be that great.