Discussion on the post "The effect of changes in liability for Landowners under"

[Peter Burgess]

Yes Ash these things can and do happen. All of which are things that are best for local cavers to resolve as they know the caves and know the owners. That's the status quo - with all its imperfections, but it has served us pretty well for a long time. If it isn't working, then look to the local set up for a solution, not the national set up. Step back a moment and ask whether striving for access, and perversely also for controlled limited access, has resulted in MORE or FEWER caves we can visit over the past 20 or 30 years? I suggest that there are more caves I can choose to visit now than at any time in my life of caving and mine exploration.

 

[ah147]

Yes Ash these things can and do happen. All of which are things that are best for local cavers to resolve as they know the caves and know the owners. That's the status quo - with all its imperfections, but it has served us pretty well for a long time. If it isn't working, then look to the local set up for a solution, not the national set up. Step back a moment and ask whether striving for access, and perversely also for controlled limited access, has resulted in MORE or FEWER caves we can visit over the past 20 or 30 years? I suggest that there are more caves I can choose to visit now than at any time in my life of caving and mine exploration.

If caving is recognised under CRoW they'll be more caves you can visit.

I'll use a specific example to prove a point, as its one I know reasonably well:
Lathkill is a cave on CRoW land with four entrances. The resurgence, top entrance, Critchlow cave and Garden Path. Its a reasonably long, very restricted cave with a few large chambers with pretties in.

From the resurgence upstream there is then top entrance, Critchlow then Garden Path. 

Top entrance leads immediately to the waiting room (large chamber).
Garden Path leads immediately to dream time (large chamber).
Between the two is the emporium (large chamber).

Now dream time isn't very pretty with a fair few straws about, a little flowstone and a few deposits.
The waiting room is quite pretty, with lots of flowstone, a few deposits, and a fair few straws, stal and curtains.
The emporium is beautiful, tons of fuzzy looking flowstone, bright white pretties everywhere. Honestly one of the most brilliant sights I've seen in caving.

Critchlow and the resurgence you need BCA insurance.
Top Entrance needs BCA insurance and the filling in of a logbook.
Garden Path needs BCA insurance and a key. This key is incredibly hard to get, despite the protestations of others, it simply is. Recreational trips are not allowed at all.

Even the cave monitoring forms list nothing on them specifically relating to Garden Path as opposed to the waiting room.



Getting rid of this arbitrary restriction, and others situations I'm sure are similar in all areas, would allow people to focus on protecting bits that actually need protecting. In this example, the emporium. Where there isn't even any tape!

 

[Peter Burgess]

It sounds lovely. I wonder whether local differences will provide different results however. If, let's say, Somerset ends up with problems, as is suggested by some, they may end up the poorer while other places may "benefit". As I rarely venture north these days, I feel I am entitled to fight for what affects me more i.e. access to places where things are fine at present but could be put at risk in the future. I repeat my assertion that local bodies know best and the means to resolve issues should remain firmly with them.

 

[ah147]

As I rarely venture north these days, I feel I am entitled to fight for what affects me more

And this is the crux of the issue I believe. Everybody wants the best outcome for themselves. Even those purporting one want what is best for the caves, only wants what is best for the caves because they have an interest in the caves. So what's best for the caves is best for them.

Ultimately, this is why the referendum is necessary. To figure out whether more people believe they shall benefit, or believe that they shall lose out. In this manner the BCA can continue with its constitution in acting in the interest of cavers, as a majority.

 

[Stu]

Ed - the world is not centred on Easegill and surrounding lands. This whole sorry debate is a national one, allow me to remind everyone.

 

To add my two penn'orth. Many Mendip landowners whose land is not access land have trouble with people going where they do not have permission "because right to roam innit!".

Straw man. Has nothing to do with CRoW. Stupid people are stupid.

I can image those who are also cave owners getting mighty pissed off if that trend gets added to. I can also see it happening, as the inability to use agreed access routes has already been a problem in some places.

If the caves are on CRoW they already quite probably have people wandering, quite legally, where they please. If the caves aren't on CRoW then see above.

Graham, this type of argument to my mind is neither relevant to the debate about CRoW and isn't all that persuasive. I find much more to agree with you about when you stick to the conservation of caves and consequences of CRoW applying to caves. It's not likely I'll change my mind or how I vote but it's not beyond the wit of BCA and cavers to implement additional safeguards should CRoW apply. 

 

[graham]

Straw man. Has nothing to do with CRoW. Stupid people are stupid.

But it has everything to do with CRoW as these people are justifying their actions by reference to it, even though it does not apply in those places.

Graham, this type of argument to my mind is neither relevant to the debate about CRoW and isn't all that persuasive. I find much more to agree with you about when you stick to the conservation of caves and consequences of CRoW applying to caves.

When people cite the act to justify their actions, how can it not be about CRoW? Now, you may not find it persuasive, but you are not an affected landowner.

It's not likely I'll change my mind or how I vote but it's not beyond the wit of BCA and cavers to implement additional safeguards should CRoW apply. 

BCA and cavers do not have the power to implement safeguards. That's the point. They may, perhaps, have the ability to request that safeguards are implemented but that is all, if it is even the case. So, what this move is doing is removing responsibility for conservation from cavers and handing it elsewhere. Is that what you want to see?

 

[Peter Burgess]

To be fair to Graham, you are missing a point here. The point being that legitimising access on CRoW land through what is being promoted here, it encourages people to make a nuisance of themselves in places they shouldn't i.e. non-CRoW land. It's not a difficult concept to appreciate, even if you don't agree that it will happen. Which it will, I wager.

 

[Stu]

Straw man. Has nothing to do with CRoW. Stupid people are stupid.

But it has everything to do with CRoW as these people are justifying their actions by reference to it, even though it does not apply in those places.

Who are these people? Anyone claiming a right to roam where none exists is an idiot.

Graham, this type of argument to my mind is neither relevant to the debate about CRoW and isn't all that persuasive. I find much more to agree with you about when you stick to the conservation of caves and consequences of CRoW applying to caves.

When people cite the act to justify their actions, how can it not be about CRoW? Now, you may not find it persuasive, but you are not an affected landowner.

If CRoW applies in whatever instance they are engaged in then they are justified in doing so. I'm not sure we're understanding each other here. If a landowner has land that isn't CRoW I have sympathy.

It's not likely I'll change my mind or how I vote but it's not beyond the wit of BCA and cavers to implement additional safeguards should CRoW apply.

BCA and cavers do not have the power to implement safeguards. That's the point. They may, perhaps, have the ability to request that safeguards are implemented but that is all, if it is even the case. So, what this move is doing is removing responsibility for conservation from cavers and handing it elsewhere. Is that what you want to see?

My counter would be it's up to every person engaged in caving activity to be responsible about conservation. Some humans destroy nice things. That happens. We either live with that, try to do something about it, or lock up every cave. First one doesn't sit easily with me. Things have been tried (permits, gates, education, leader systems) and none are completely successful. Arguably leader led is probably the most effective but I don't want a tour guided trip every time I go caving. Lock up every cave? HArdly necessary in the majority of cases.

 

[Stu]

To be fair to Graham, you are missing a point here. The point being that legitimising access on CRoW land through what is being promoted here, it encourages people to make a nuisance of themselves in places they shouldn't i.e. non-CRoW land. It's not a difficult concept to appreciate, even if you don't agree that it will happen. Which it will, I wager.

No I'm not missing the point. People citing CRoW and being a nuisance boils down to the bigger question of should CRoW have been made an Act of Parliament. I believe it should have been.

Are there consequences? Probably but then a landowner has the right to send said people packing (be they climbers, walkers or cavers).

If we really want to go mad with bigger picture stuff why not start bringing the Enclosures Acts into it, argue the toss about that for a bit and reclaim all that common land that was taken from us peasants!

 

[Peter Burgess]

Giving people a false sense of entitlement to act beyond the freedom they do have is an unintended consequence. It should not be ignored. Effort should be made to ensure cavers consciously check that land they are interested in is Access Land, and not simply assume that it is.

 

[graham]

Stuart:

Who are these people? Anyone claiming a right to roam where none exists is an idiot.

Yes they are, however this particular idiocy is inspired by their poor reading of the act. I don't doubt some cavers will also have a poor understanding of their rights under CRoW should they be shown to have any.

If CRoW applies in whatever instance they are engaged in then they are justified in doing so. I'm not sure we're understanding each other here. If a landowner has land that isn't CRoW I have sympathy.

Yes, I am talking about non-CRoW land.

My counter would be it's up to every person engaged in caving activity to be responsible about conservation. Some humans destroy nice things. That happens. We either live with that, try to do something about it, or lock up every cave. First one doesn't sit easily with me. Things have been tried (permits, gates, education, leader systems) and none are completely successful. Arguably leader led is probably the most effective but I don't want a tour guided trip every time I go caving. Lock up every cave? Hardly necessary in the majority of cases.

Yes, I agree, but that was not my point. I was arguing that at present cave conservation schemes are generally devised and applied by cavers. Should this move be successful, then in those areas cavers will cease to to have primary responsibility for that & will only be able to do so on the authority of non-cavers, if at all. That is what I was asking whether you wanted to see it.

As to your point about tour guides, a good conservation warden, a term possibly first used at DYO (not sure) but certainly more widely adopted since, would not act as a guide, but as a watcher, warning people when they needed to careful etc. I recall one long-standing 'leader' for one cave recounting how some trips got only a short distance into the cave as the visitors hadn't bothered doing their research on route finding (lots needed there) and had presumed he'd do that job. That was about 25 years or more ago.

 

[graham]

If we really want to go mad with bigger picture stuff why not start bringing the Enclosures Acts into it, argue the toss about that for a bit and reclaim all that common land that was taken from us peasants!

If we were in the pub, not on a keyboard, I'd start talking about some interesting issues in archaeology to do with 'reclaiming' material and, especially, the amazingly bonkers notion of racial copyright. I could go on for hours about that sort of stuff, I have lots of ammunition.

 

[Stu]

Giving people a false sense of entitlement to act beyond the freedom they do have is an unintended consequence. It should not be ignored. Effort should be made to ensure cavers consciously check that land they are interested in is Access Land, and not simply assume that it is.

That lid got opened in 2000 and doesn't solely apply to caving - it's a fact that there is a world outside of caving  . That's why I see it as irrelevant to this discussion (though I'm not in any way saying it doesn't have an unwanted effects).

It could be argued that with BCA taking it to the membership then those very same members may in fact turn out to be better informed of their "rights" and further more their obligations.

 

[droid]

In my experience a lot of people are far more concerned with their rights than their obligations. You said above that Leader guided trips were probably best for conservation but that you didn't want every trip to be a guided tour.

People are naturally rather selfish.
Cavers can't be excluded from that.

 

[Stu]

[quote author=graham]

Who are these people? Anyone claiming a right to roam where none exists is an idiot.

Yes they are, however this particular idiocy is inspired by their poor reading of the act. I don't doubt some cavers will also have a poor understanding of their rights under CRoW should they be shown to have any.[/quote]

Isn't it just as viable that once BCA have put the motion to the BCA membership then that very same membership might not just become some of the most informed outdoor users? That presumes they aren't already might. Many of them climb and mountaineer already.

[quote author=graham]

If CRoW applies in whatever instance they are engaged in then they are justified in doing so. I'm not sure we're understanding each other here. If a landowner has land that isn't CRoW I have sympathy.

Yes, I am talking about non-CRoW land.[/quote]

Then my sympathy still stands. However for me it's not particularly illuminating. Stupid people are stupid 


[quote author=graham]

My counter would be it's up to every person engaged in caving activity to be responsible about conservation. Some humans destroy nice things. That happens. We either live with that, try to do something about it, or lock up every cave. First one doesn't sit easily with me. Things have been tried (permits, gates, education, leader systems) and none are completely successful. Arguably leader led is probably the most effective but I don't want a tour guided trip every time I go caving. Lock up every cave? Hardly necessary in the majority of cases.

Yes, I agree, but that was not my point. I was arguing that at present cave conservation schemes are generally devised and applied by cavers. Should this move be successful, then in those areas cavers will cease to to have primary responsibility for that & will only be able to do so on the authority of non-cavers, if at all. That is what I was asking whether you wanted to see it.[/quote]

If such authority was granted to an outside agency isn't it just possible that they'll then seek the advice from BCA and/or the regions? Yes, it's a guess but there's form on this sort of thing isn't there - I'm thinking cave monitoring?

[quote author=graham]As to your point about tour guides, a good conservation warden, a term possibly first used at DYO (not sure) but certainly more widely adopted since, would not act as a guide, but as a watcher, warning people when they needed to careful etc. I recall one long-standing 'leader' for one cave recounting how some trips got only a short distance into the cave as the visitors hadn't bothered doing their research on route finding (lots needed there) and had presumed he'd do that job. That was about 25 years or more ago.
[/quote]

My hunch (yes one of those leaps of faith again) is that, from what I understand from trying to get my head round the literature and seeing evidence elsewhere (voluntary bird restrictions by climbers comes to mind), leader systems for those caves which are in situ now needn't be stopped. I realise that it's complicated this particular issue but I'm not convinced as yet, especially since nobody seems to be coming up with how many caves this could affect.

 

[Stu]

In my experience a lot of people are far more concerned with their rights than their obligations. You said above that Leader guided trips were probably best for conservation but that you didn't want every trip to be a guided tour.

People are naturally rather selfish.
Cavers can't be excluded from that.

Was that aimed at me or a general point?

 

[estelle]

There seems to be an assumption that if the vote is yes and the BCA campaign for change that they will succeed. There's been very little discussion as to what happens if they don't succeed. It's something we need to think about.

that i think is a very good point...

 

[graham]

If such authority was granted to an outside agency isn't it just possible that they'll then seek the advice from BCA and/or the regions? Yes, it's a guess but there's form on this sort of thing isn't there - I'm thinking cave monitoring?

Possible, yes. Likely, who knows? Maybe they'd call upon bat groups.  :-\

My hunch (yes one of those leaps of faith again) is that, from what I understand from trying to get my head round the literature and seeing evidence elsewhere (voluntary bird restrictions by climbers comes to mind), leader systems for those caves which are in situ now needn't be stopped. I realise that it's complicated this particular issue but I'm not convinced as yet, especially since nobody seems to be coming up with how many caves this could affect.

It would be nice to have some firm information about actual effects wouldn't it. Instead we seem to be getting about as much of that as the Scots got about what currency would have been used post-independence.

And now I'll get told off for mentioning that referendum, again. Yet the parallels are clear, current knowledge against a leap of faith.

Given how little there actually to be gained - especially if CNCC does modernise its permit systems - the risks seem, to me, to outweigh any possible and uncertain advantage.

 

[droid]

In my experience a lot of people are far more concerned with their rights than their obligations. You said above that Leader guided trips were probably best for conservation but that you didn't want every trip to be a guided tour.

People are naturally rather selfish.
Cavers can't be excluded from that.

Was that aimed at me or a general point?

Both. Unless you are unique.

I'd probably include myself in that too.

 

[Jenny P]

On the subject of grants for caving work, there are three which I am aware of but two are only applicable in the Peak District.

The national one is the UK Cave Conservation Emergency Fund, a charity which is administered by BCRA.  UKCCEF is exactly what it says, in that it is for "emergencies" which affect conservation and/or access.  The money is usually given in the form of a loan - in the nature of a bridging loan - to cover immediate expenditure while funds are being raised with a view to paying back the loan.  Details are on the BCRA website at ukccef.org.uk.

DCA has a Cave Discovery Fund, which grant aids cavers retrospectively for the expenses involved in work leading to discovery of substantial new cave passage in the region.  It works by reimbursing not more than 50% of the expenditure on materials, hire of equipment, etc. but does not fund caving gear.  It is easier for the Fund Panel to see what has been spent if receipts can be supplied but they are not absolutely necessary.  Details are on the DCA website at theDCA.org.uk and there are published guidelines for applicants which explain things in greater detail.  Applications, if any, are considered at 6-monthly intervals on 1st. March and 1st. September.

I understand Hitch 'n' Hike also give a prize for the greatest length of cave passage discovered in the Peak District each year.  Details will be on their website hitchnhike.co.uk.

Jenny Potts,
DCA Hon. Secretary