CROW Setion 26 - Which Caves Need Protection?

[Ed W]

Apologies for the double post, but I meant to adds something else in the last post with regard to another of Peter's comments;

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

If the gate is there for a valid reason, then it should never be removed as those reasons would be put forward for a Section 26 restriction.  If the gate is removed, and something previously unrecognised is subsequently damaged then this is also not relevant, as if it were not recognised prior to gate removal, the feature was probably already under threat as it was not being actively protected (the access restrictions will only protect those features identified within the cave, by for instance taping them off).  If we are to argue that the gate should be kept just in case anything sensitive is subsequently identified, then to my eyes this is a dangerous position indeed.  Firstly there is the argument above that a gate does nothing to protect features not yet identified, but secondly using this precautionary principal we would gate and control every cave just in case something special is found at a later date.  I think this would be disastrous for UK caving.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I manage, along with others, access to a number of old mines. All the sites in question are gated in some way. I was involved to a lesser or greater degree in the decision to do this, in conjunction with fellow cavers, owners and other authorities. If I was challenged as to why these sites are protected this way, I would expect the person questioning our actions to provide a good reason why the sites should be left open and accessible, not have to repeatedly justify to all comers why we have done what we have done. There is no control freakery involved. I have seen all these sites through times when there were no gates on them to the present situation. I and my fellows can see for ourselves the effect this has had on the opportunities to visit the sites (few sites are now indefinitely unavailable) to no longer having to spend time and effort cleaning and tidying up after those whose only interest is to mess about and despoil. Another spin off from the present arrangements is that cavers are trusted far more to look after and visit these places as we have demonstrated a desire to comply with owners' wishes and keep the sites safe, reducing the concerns of owners in that respect. There is more to protecting access than simple conservation or safety. There is the perception it creates with third parties who in the past were regularly urged to seal up permanently dangerous holes after incidents involving lost children etc.
So when I am challenged to identify which caves on CRoW land should remain gated, I view it using my own experience of gated sites, which although not on CRoW land, and not caves, have been protected in exactly the same way as many natural caves, both on and off access land.
I will not be drawn into the situation where I have to justify on another person or club's behalf why a site should keep its gate. I believe those who want gates removed purely for freedom of access, regardless of the legal position regarding access, need to put some effort of their own into demonstrating on a case by case basis what the rationale is for doing so.
Neither will I be drawn into a position where I am expected to regard with suspicion all my fellow cavers and clubs who manage access. Of course there are control freaks out there, just as there are freedom freaks with their warped agendas. There are many reasons why sites are protected - control freakery is likely to be involved in a very small number of cases (despite the vocal rhetoric to the contrary put out by some), so I stand by my indignation that anyone should be expected to justify restricted access on sites with established controls except as a counter to a well-argued and sound case for removing the restrictions.

 

[jasonbirder]

freedom freaks with their warped agendas

Is that how we refer to people who wish to secure access to sites for ALL their fellow cavers...

And to ensure Cavers have the same freedoms as walkers and climbers...nothing more, nothing less

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Mines are not natural features, are covered by the Mines and Quarries act and are in my view excluded from CRoW since that act overrides CRoW and most* cannot be accessed without entering surface workings.





*obvious exception being old mine workings entered through natural cave passage but AFAIK the Mines and Quarries act(s) would still take precedence

 

[Peter Burgess]

No, of course not, Jason.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I was at pains to point out that the sites themselves are not relevant, but also to mention the obvious parallels. Managing access to any site regardless of caves, mines, access land or non access land, will be done for much the same reasons, which is why I use my own experience as a foundation for my comments and observations. You can't dismiss my view on this simply because the places I am involved with are not directly relevant. The process of managing them is very much relevant. Like I said, no control freakery involved, and done for much the same reasons as caves elsewhere.

 

[NewStuff]

Thankfully, assuming we have read the law correctly, you don't get a choice in the matter. You can apply for an exception, but otherwise, off it comes. Now, for most caves, this is just fine, they do not need to be gated. I think pretty much everyone will agree the gates need to stay on a select few places, and will not object if they stay on while the paperwork is completed.

You do a lot of handwaving, and "those in the know, know why!" type statements, but never put us in the know. Is it any wonder people don't believe you, and accuse you of just locking places up to control them, and yes, I am among those accusing you. From this side of the fence, your whole attitude comes over as "it's mine, get out". That may not be an accurate reflection, but it's what it looks like.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Never make accusations without evidence. It will only come back and bite you on the bum.

 

[NewStuff]

Never make accusations without evidence. It will only come back and bite you on the bum.

Can we leave this thread for it's intended purpose eh? What caves need gating, and more importantly, why? they need gating. "Those in the know, know why" is not an acceptable answer, but a bloody stupid one.

If you want to have a go/discuss/whatever, PM me.

 

[bograt]

Could I refer you to my comments on other threads please? research needs to be carried out on why there are access restrictions on systems, some restrictions may be found to be valid, others may be found to be obsolete.
A historic study of why the restrictions are there will enlighten us all and guide further progress.
I'm pretty sure I can get all the information needed for this research in the Peak District, how about other areas?

 

[NewStuff]

I'm pretty sure I can get all the information needed for this research in the Peak District, how about other areas?

In this necl of the woods, I'll suspect you run into a lot of stalling and bullshit. I doubt the club(s) in question want to be "outed" for the restrictive policies put in place for no valid conservation reasoning.

 

[bograt]

I'm pretty sure I can get all the information needed for this research in the Peak District, how about other areas?

In this necl of the woods, I'll suspect you run into a lot of stalling and bullshit. I doubt the club(s) in question want to be "outed" for the restrictive policies put in place for no valid conservation reasoning.

Conservation is not the only reason for access control.

I suspect (from previous posts) that we are considering North Wales here, do you think this comes within the remit of the CCC, or is there a case to set up another regional council?

 

[Peter Burgess]

I would be more than happy to provide the rationale for management in place for the various sites WCMS look after. They are not on access land. They are not caves. So if anybody really needs to know contact me personally please.

 

[NewStuff]

I'm pretty sure I can get all the information needed for this research in the Peak District, how about other areas?

In this necl of the woods, I'll suspect you run into a lot of stalling and bullshit. I doubt the club(s) in question want to be "outed" for the restrictive policies put in place for no valid conservation reasoning.

Conservation is not the only reason for access control.

I suspect (from previous posts) that we are considering North Wales here, do you think this comes within the remit of the CCC, or is there a case to set up another regional council?

N.Wales is indeed correct, and not just a small part of it, this is widespread and endemic. I'm not sure if the CCC has the either ability (in terms of being told to f*** off like everyone else has been) or remit, to "enforce" fair play, but I have heard it's being looked into.

I don't think we need yet another council, but I do think some stern words, at a minimum, need to be had, before the current level of lock-chopping gets worse. Before anyone blows a gasket, I'm not advocating the chopping of locks, but it is happening because of a "our hole, join the club or f*** off" attitude in a number of places, to people with plenty of experience and suitable insurance, who are in a club. Diplomacy has been tried a number of times in the past, and has been met with a brick wall. I don't think a few of the places will ever open up without a bitter and intensive lock removal campaign to be honest, but hey, it's worth a try, and I sincerely hop I am proven wrong.

I will decline to name the systems in question, as the incumbents will be all over them like shit on a blanket looking for "new" ways in we may have. If this ever get's sorted out and people play nice, I'll happily show people where things are located. Yes, this cloak and dagger, ninja style bullshit really is required here. It's pathetic, and shows just how broken the current system is.

 

[bograt]

I can appreciate everything you say, and I suspect most folks 'in the know' will be aware of the systems you allude to.
Are you sure that the access controlling body would not co-operate with BCA on giving reasons for their control?, failure to do this would put them in a very bad light.

Interfering with local access arrangements is not within the BCA's remit, but with the advent of CRoW, maybe this is due for review??

 

[NewStuff]

I can appreciate everything you say, and I suspect most folks 'in the know' will be aware of the systems you allude to.
Are you sure that the access controlling body would not co-operate with BCA on giving reasons for their control?, failure to do this would put them in a very bad light.

Interfering with local access arrangements is not within the BCA's remit, but with the advent of CRoW, maybe this is due for review??

I did doubt the current bodies would be allowed, and in some cases, inclined to, "interfere" with access (or lack of) arrangements. I do think it's daft that a national body cannot bring sanction with actual teeth to them if a club is blatabtly out of line. I'm not one for "more rules", or indeed, anything other than a minimum of them in any case, but this one seems like a no-brainer, after all, there's always going to be one* isn't there?

*one caver/club/body/marsupial/extra-terrestrial/unidentified gelatinous mass, acting like a prick

 

[bograt]

I can appreciate everything you say, and I suspect most folks 'in the know' will be aware of the systems you allude to.
Are you sure that the access controlling body would not co-operate with BCA on giving reasons for their control?, failure to do this would put them in a very bad light.

Interfering with local access arrangements is not within the BCA's remit, but with the advent of CRoW, maybe this is due for review??

I did doubt the current bodies would be allowed, and in some cases, inclined to, "interfere" with access (or lack of) arrangements. I do think it's daft that a national body cannot bring sanction with actual teeth to them if a club is blatabtly out of line. I'm not one for "more rules", or indeed, anything other than a minimum of them in any case, but this one seems like a no-brainer, after all, there's always going to be one* isn't there?

*one caver/club/body/marsupial/extra-terrestrial/unidentified gelatinous mass, acting like a prick

Unfortunately the national body doe's not have the 'teeth', but CCC, if you accept their authority, doe's have the ability to influence access issues (dependant, of course upon the inclination of their access officer).

P.S. Didn't realise there were marsupials in Wales? :-\

 

[NewStuff]

P.S. Didn't realise there were marsupials in Wales? :-\

You see weird things underground... though that could be the funny tasting mushrooms I found growing at an entrance that one time...  :halo:   :yucky:

 

[bograt]

, Though I do recall a 4 foot high rabbit which surprised me whilst climbing at the Roaches in the Peak District

  OFF TOPIC