Do cavers come first in the British Caving Association? NO!

[graham]

I tried suggesting we should have the same rights as walkers and ramblers and I did a poll it seemed however more then half  are against it, so I gave up.

If you think that this forum is the place to make any sort of change or improvement to anything,  you are sadly mistaken. You will only make things happen by getting involved. I offered you the chance to do just by attending the CNCC AGM - you probably had something better to do.

 

[John S]

I started this thread to highlight two main areas, the CRoW and the BCA demand we always abide by landowners wishes without debate etc.

The CRoW is almost another thread, but I see that a landowner who gave permission for a shaft to be lined with rings etc  now, I think the Crow would not stop them allowing it in the future. Especially as liability is also reduce for them on CRoW land, might actually encourage project to take place as liability is lifted.
But none CRoW land is more interesting with the possible demands landowner can make. Do we always have to agree or at some point have say, that is just to much. Our member will not go along with that and we are not going to help manage the cave against our members interests. This is where we have proper negotiation rather than us doing as we are told.

 

[AndyF]

Rather than moan I'm going to put forward my own ideas how generally access could be made easier/better...

1) Any organisation holding access should provide a web based "booking" system and calender
2) Mendip Permits should last a year not two weeks
3) No caving organisation should charge for access arrangements (mmmmm..... Mendips again, sorry)
4) Letter heads should never be a requirement for access. Small clubs just don't have them its a stoopid obstacle

 

[John S]

Or walkers, ramblers and cavers to all have the same extended rights...... would an owner be able to insist on certain conditions such as no novices, and so on. Imagine the fun CRO would have helping out all those ramblers exercising their rights.

In most area, we don't have gates so anybody can go down a hole in the ground. OK in some places they should have a permit or such thing but if they don't know that it would not stop them .  So how many CRO callouts are there to walkers in caves? very  few.  I have yet to hear any convincing points to why caves should not be part of CRoW which don't have management issues at its heart.

 

[Rhys]

Rather than moan I'm going to put forward my own ideas how generally access could be made easier/better...

1) Any organisation holding access should provide a web based "booking" system and calender
2) Mendip Permits should last a year not two weeks
3) No caving organisation should charge for access arrangements (mmmmm..... Mendips again, sorry)
4) Letter heads should never be a requirement for access. Small clubs just don't have them its a stoopid obstacle

That's a good, constructive post.

I think no. 4 is not a big deal though. These days, anyone can knock up a convincing letterhead in Microssoft Word in a few minutes; not really an obstacle at all.

Rhys

 

[graham]

3) No caving organisation should charge for access arrangements (mmmmm..... Mendips again, sorry)

We don't make a profit from them, you know.

 

[AndyF]

Rather than moan I'm going to put forward my own ideas how generally access could be made easier/better...

1) Any organisation holding access should provide a web based "booking" system and calender
2) Mendip Permits should last a year not two weeks
3) No caving organisation should charge for access arrangements (mmmmm..... Mendips again, sorry)
4) Letter heads should never be a requirement for access. Small clubs just don't have them its a stoopid obstacle

That's a good, constructive post.

I think no. 4 is not a big deal though. These days, anyone can knock up a convincing letterhead in Microssoft Word in a few minutes; not really an obstacle at all.

Rhys

Precisely....so whats the point of insisting on it!! 

 

[shortscotsman]

I think CROW will, eventually, have a major impact upon caving. 

I think the act is important  because it introduces the principle that landowners(or landholders) rights are limited.  My reading of the principles behind the act, is that it recognises that landholders have the right to the economic use of land but the public have recreational rights provide they don't get in the way of the landholders economic use. 

If you accept these principles...then I think it's a question of when rather than if caving will be included.  I suspect that if the BCA really wanted to push the issue it could get caving included in `open air recreation' now.


Of course, caves are very delicate, so access may still be disallowed for conservation reasons but this might neither be the call of the landowner or the caving organisations.

 

[AndyF]

3) No caving organisation should charge for access arrangements (mmmmm..... Mendips again, sorry)

We don't make a profit from them, you know.

The money goes somewhere                A5 paper is not very expensive.... 

Such an arrangement only exists in the Mendips AFAIK. No other clubs in the country I'm aware of charges anything at all for access, (except where leaders are provided)

 

[Alex]

Surely you have exactly the same "rights" as walkers and ramblers?

Err no we don't take Leck Fell for example, its closed season for cavers at the moment but walkers can walk up and down the land as much as they want. Which on the face of it does not make any sense hence my original post months ago.

Or is this a pointless semantics argument again?

 

[dunc]

Unfortunately it IS pointless, why?

Landowners generally don't want cavers on their land so they WILL insist on permits and other (IMO) pointless paper exercises, if truth be told they would rather that walkers didn't have 'right to roam' on certain land of theirs too.

Walkers FAR outnumber cavers and we are a minority group and minority groups don't have a voice like the RA for instance. I'm sure 4x4ers are a minority group and they feel marginalised by TROs and other such restrictions on their 'sport'.

And before anyone suggests it, no I'm not saying we should lie down and take whatever shit gets thrown at us, far from it, we should always try to push for better access (questioning policies like those of a certain Welsh cave is a very recent example). Whether or not we get it is another matter entirely!

 

[Peter Burgess]

If you want to be listened to, why not use the BCA forum http://www.british-caving.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

 

[damian]

If you want to be listened to, why not use the BCA forum http://www.british-caving.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

... or even, horror of horrors, e-mail the secretary with a request for something to be discussed at the next Council Meeting. While I'm not promising Council will agree to whatever it's asked, I can promise it will consider it and give feedback. To date, in the last 18+ months as Secretary I have received a grand total of no such requests from a BCA member, yet there have been several moans on here about policy.

 

[Alex]

Maybe avertisment is problem then Damian.
I did not know there was an e-mail address we could use with our concerns with policy until you posted Damian, nor did I know of the existance of a BCA forum, that we as none council members could post on. (Despite the web address being printed on the green card, I just did not realise there was a public forum).

With blissful ignorance

Alex 

P.S. Having clicked on it, I dont think anyone else knew of it either as the last post in the Northern CC management section was in 2008!.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Maybe it is a sensible place to discuss some things. At the moment the BCA forum seems to be a noticeboard for BCA council members and little else. UKCaving is fine for the Caving Club Common Room chatter, and more serious stuff. Perhaps the BCA forum just needs a critical mass of members to start to be something more useful at a national level.

 

[SamT]

Perhaps the BCA forum just needs a critical mass of members to start to be something more useful at a national level.

Or, dare I say it, a sub forum on UKcaving - perhaps moderated by folk chosen by the BCA i.e. those that currently moderate their own site.

It would probably reach a much wider audience, and some of the serious debates held on here are probably well within the remit of the BCA.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Perhaps the BCA forum just needs a critical mass of members to start to be something more useful at a national level.

Or, dare I say it, a sub forum on UKcaving - perhaps moderated by folk chosen by the BCA i.e. those that currently moderate their own site.

It would probably reach a much wider audience, and some of the serious debates held on here are probably well within the remit of the BCA.

You could post that suggestion on the BCA forum maybe.

 

[SamT]

 

[Peter Burgess]

No, I am serious but I can see the humour too.... 

 

[JAM]

I think CROW will, eventually, have a major impact upon caving. 

I think the act is important  because it introduces the principle that landowners(or landholders) rights are limited.  My reading of the principles behind the act, is that it recognises that landholders have the right to the economic use of land but the public have recreational rights provide they don't get in the way of the landholders economic use. 

If you accept these principles...then I think it's a question of when rather than if caving will be included.  I suspect that if the BCA really wanted to push the issue it could get caving included in `open air recreation' now.

This has to be the right way to get unobstructed access to caves / mines on private land. However I believe that cavers should be respectful of landowner privacy and property and work with them to agree the best most unintrusive route to an entrance site. It would also be very foolish to pi55 off the landowners as this could jeopardise access to potential new dig sites that aren't already open cave entrances. I'm guessing these areas wouldn't be covered by the "open air recreation" bit and would infringe on the "obstruction of economic use" rule.

Currently access is going to always be a two edged sword. What one caver sees as good access another will not and the same goes for landowners. Only when access is placed into legislation will the argument have solid guidelines to which both parties have to adhere.

Rich