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

[Hughie]

Bear in mind that"crow" only applies to open access land.

I suspect that if the BCA were to act as an access enforcer on non crow land, it wouldn't get very far. In fact it could even be a backward step.

I don't see anything wrong with BCA's current stance.

http://www.british-caving.org.uk/membership/landownership+caves_240310.pdf

 

[shortscotsman]

Bear in mind that"crow" only applies to open access land.

I suspect that if the BCA were to act as an access enforcer on non crow land, it wouldn't get very far. In fact it could even be a backward step.

http://www.british-caving.org.uk/membership/landownership+caves_240310.pdf

Perhaps the inside of a cave would be classified as CRoW land!  I think most major caves in South Wales could be accessed without interfering with the, economic needs or privacy of landowners : these could classed as open access. There are obvious counterexamples such as Dan-yr-Ogof where the economic interests of the landowner would be compromised- these would require specific agreements exactly as happens now.

 

[nickwilliams]

In the context of this thread, and other recent ones on UK caving, I think it's worth drawing to people's attention that even if we accept the (currently indeterminate) point that CROW may give a right of access to go caving, it most certainly does not and never will give a right of access to go digging.

Furthermore, I don't think there is a cat in hell's chance of any legislation ever coming along which would establish such a right.

Nick.

 

[ChrisB]

First I'd like to make it clear that my natural inclination is for freedom of access. I'm canoeist, and a I support access campaigns for access to natural assets like rivers - the situation in Scotland gives free access provided you're reasonable about other users, which is brilliant.

The BCA can't have a formal article in its Constitution that supports illegal behaviour, so they can't say their policy is to ignore the rights of landowners. The best they could do is to take out the statement supporting them.

The problem as I've understood it is that uncontrolled access to all caves is likely to result in damage to the caves. While it might be argued that walkers, mountain bikers, canoeists, etc may also cause damage, it would be less severe and easier to reverse. Therefore there is a body of opinion that cave access needs to be controlled by somebody.

I can't see how anybody who is not the landowner, or authorised by the landowner, could control access - unless there was specific legislation in favour of, say, a National Park or (horrible thought) the EA. So we have two possibilities; landowner control (which has the advantage of being consistent with the current law) or no control.

Chris

 

[khakipuce]

...
The BCA can't have a formal article in its Constitution that supports illegal behaviour, so they can't say their policy is to ignore the rights of landowners. The best they could do is to take out the statement supporting them.
somebody.
...

But it can have an objective of changing current legislation and/or seeking clarity on current legislation. It could also take a position on what form of access control it would prefer and press for that to become the accepted standard - e.g. regional councils (CNCC, CSCC, etc) as the permit issuing bodies.

 

[graham]

...
The BCA can't have a formal article in its Constitution that supports illegal behaviour, so they can't say their policy is to ignore the rights of landowners. The best they could do is to take out the statement supporting them.
somebody.
...

But it can have an objective of changing current legislation and/or seeking clarity on current legislation. It could also take a position on what form of access control it would prefer and press for that to become the accepted standard - e.g. regional councils (CNCC, CSCC, etc) as the permit issuing bodies.

My word that gave me a jolly good laugh. pity I cannot explain exactly why on an open forum.

 

[Hammy]

I have observed and contributed to these caving access discussions on UK Caving on several occasions

My conclusion on it is.....


Cave wherever and whenever you like

If challenged by a landowner be courteous and apologise for any misunderstanding

If challenged by fellow cavers ignore

Enjoy your caving!

 

[caving_fox]

it most certainly does not and never will give a right of access to go digging.

Surface digging - no certainly not, that will always be only after negotiation.
But once you're in an existing cave then I can't see why not.

 

[graham]

it most certainly does not and never will give a right of access to go digging.

Surface digging - no certainly not, that will always be only after negotiation.
But once you're in an existing cave then I can't see why not.

Can't you? It's still not your property.

 

[Alex]

Provided it dont cause a collapse which effects the surface why would any land owner mind furthermore if all spoil is inside how would a land owner know?

 

[Cookie]

Provided it dont cause a collapse which effects the surface why would any land owner mind furthermore if all spoil is inside how would a land owner know?

It's a matter of respect, plain and simple.

 

[whitelackington]

Provided it dont cause a collapse which effects the surface why would any land owner mind furthermore if all spoil is inside how would a land owner know?

Exactly!

 

[caving_fox]

It's still not your property

I'm not a propert rights lawyer, and quite happy to be corrected. But as I understand it, in most cases the cave isn't owned by the surface rights owner. Most land ownership is specifically restricted to just the surface. Hence it isn't their property either. It might be the Queen's.

However this is all very hypothetical based on the premise that CROW will one day allow access to cave entrances.

 

[Glenn]

Provided it dont cause a collapse which effects the surface why would any land owner mind furthermore if all spoil is inside how would a land owner know?

Exactly!

The point that is being made here (admittedly a technical, and possibly pedantic legal point - although still very much the actual situation) is that the landowner owns the cave you intend to dig in, and therefore, you/we, have no right in law to just dig where the hell we want in the cave.

What happens in real life is what happens. But we should still be aware of the law and the rights of the landowner.

 

[nickwilliams]

But as I understand it, in most cases the cave isn't owned by the surface rights owner. Most land ownership is specifically restricted to just the surface.

Your understanding is a long way short of being correct.

Nick.

 

[caving_fox]

Reference?

As anecdote I know I don't own the ground underneath the surface of where my house/garden are.

 

[Hughie]

I suspect common sense, common courtesy, and a little respect would have far greater implications than a redefinition of Crow.

You never know, it could even work on non crow land. Ie most of it.

 

[zippy]

So what is it about cavers and access then!?!  This "debate" resurfaces on a regular basis, each time with equal amounts of "I can go anywhere I damed well like" and "respect the landowner".

IMHO, BCA is correct in that it cannot advocate potentially illegal activities, and Dave's statement is predominantly a clarification of the legal position.  And on the whole (yes, I know there are exceptions), access is arranged for caves in a sensible and open fashion.  Yes, I'm sure there is more that can be done to open up access (in some places, and where appropriate for the system), but doesn't mean BCA is not an association for cavers!

To all those cavers who think they can go anywhere they like, regardless of landowner wishes:  

I'm thinking of taking up a new sport.  I'm going to call it "housing".  "Housing", quite simply, involves going and crawling around houses.  But as a "houser", I don't need the house owners' permission.  Instead, I'm just going to go.  I don't care if it's on private land, 'cos I'm a "houser" now and I can go anywhere I like in pursuit of my sport.  And anyone who thinks it's OK to gate their house, well, they're just getting in the way of my new sport, and we can't have that now can we.  But as it's the new sport of "housing", I guess it's OK to just smash the locks off and go in anyway.  Never know, there might be some worthwhile artifacts to collect...  Thinking about this, there are soooo many houses to choose from, perhaps I should be a little more specialised in my sport.  I could, for instance, only visit the houses of people who think they had a god-given right to go anywhere they like.  I could smash the locks off of their gates, break into their houses, and see how they like that.  I doubt they'd mind really as it's all in the name of my new sport - and many of them wouldn't even know, so that would be OK too...... 

get me drift?

So let's just get on with enjoying our caving in a polite, respectful and legal manner



Z!

 

[John S]

I think a lot of this thread has gone off the topic of the title.

I see that the removal of the landowners statement in the BCA constitution could be one way. We have to consult with landowners even on CroW land for digging, but we are really tying our hands by insisting to go along with any old demands. In some cases it would be far better to say no. You administer your land day and night and answer any access requests.
This maybe radical and I think most people will rethink their position and come to a sensible compromise if you walk away for a while. Just like buying a new car, always get a better deal second time around

 

[Ian Adams]

Cookie, Glenn and Nick are all correct ...

It is a matter of respect and it is also a matter of a point of law in that a landowner (freehold) under UK law does own the land underneath the surface.

The mineral rights (water rights, shooting rights etc.) may well be assigned elsewhere under lease or covenant.

As much as I am supportive of diggers and exploration, we (cavers) do have to understand that we are best placed to respect landowners (whether on CROW or not) and we must respect the law when it comes to other peoples property.

The day we dis-respect these as a "group" is the day we lose our own credibility.

If we want to bring about change to these "rules", it would be best heralded by the BCA. However, as has already been pointed out; it appears none of us as members have approached the BCA regarding this issue ....

Ian