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

[stevejw]

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.

It appears the BCA is waiting for just such an approach...

 

[graham]

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

I would refer you to the thread regarding Lamb Leer. About a quarter of a century ago, CSCC said "No" to what was deemed an unreasonable request. from that day to this the landowner has answered all and any access requests with a similar reply, "No." Sadly I do not see that situation changing in either the short or medium term. That is one reason I become so incensed when cavers piss off landowners who have allowed generous access, with few strings attached, for many years.

 

[Peter Burgess]

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?

They might get an inkling because you have just told them on this forum. Others however have indicated to them in the same way the value of trust and respect.

 

[ChrisB]

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

All access 'negotiations' with the people who owns the legal right to control the activity you're negotiating about run into the same issue; what have you got to bargain with? The landowner can just say 'no' - what's in it for him/her?

Sometimes, if activity is happening anyway and the landowner wants to control it but can't physically (as opposed to legally) do so, you might offer to control the activity, as your side of the bargain. If you do reach such an 'agreement' it can only bind people who are party to it - eg a club can make an agreement for its members, but not for everyone.

This has been the case with canoeists' access to rivers. The BCU stuck with 'voluntary agreements' for many years but has now backed away, and the Welsh Canoe Association has pressed strongly for changes in legislation (in Wales). In recent years, given that it's not easy to 'gate' a river, and given some genuine ambiguity about the legal position, many people just paddle anyway - this has had the effect of bringing other parties to negotiation. But most paddlers agree that open access is desirable, and as discussed in this thread, many cavers don't.

Chris

 

[graham]

But most paddlers agree that open access is desirable, and as discussed in this thread, many cavers don't.

The two situations are not comparable; for one thing paddlers have no equivalent to digging.

 

[Alex]

I have not told them anything if you notice it was a question not a statement and not something that I said I or we have done. I was asking basically why would a land owner mind what is going on 100 meters below as it could not effect him/her in any way so much so he would not even know about it. I cant see why that invoked such a strong reaction, that was not my intention sorry. It just seems rather daft to pester them everytime you want to poke your head down a new filled in passage, I would imagine they would get rather fed up of that.

I agree with surface digs you have to speak to the land. Definately as he may want you to pay/erect fences to keep the sheep safe etc.

Here is one idea I should post on the CNCC forums, is to set up a land owners forum and ask them what we can do to be allowed more open access ask them do they need to know everytime an undergound dig is started.

The more import point is asking them how can we help? Maybe we can start doing something positive like spending a few hours at some point helping maintain this land we use, I think that would be a fair compromise to get alot freeier access if we help to look after it and will give us that warm and fuzzy feeling of a real good relation. I know this does take place at places like Alum where the relations are good and the access of just knocking on the door is fine by me. Arrange some days, you can always go caving after doing the work, we could then keep things civil and not get into any of this political crap.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I do understand the point you make, Alex, but just thought it unwise to make it in the context of this topic as it might be misconstrued.

 

[AndyF]

My own view is that the Crow act was a negative when it comes to access. Giving people the right to roam anywhere over large tracts gives them the right to trample the delicate ecosystems in these places. Think of the damage done on Kinder Scout for example.

There is no obligation to stick to paths or rights of way, which invariably allowed adequate access to all upland areas anyway. I don't remember being blocked from any parts of the Lake District for example... Now we have legalised distrurbance to animals such as Grouse or Mountain Hare (and yes I know thats not allowed but can you see a Mountain Hare before tripping over it)

It was a vote winner for townies, rather than based on environmental concerns.

Having got it though, it is ambiguous and vague.  I can't see a fundamental difference between caving and climbing on Crow land either from impact, liability or safety.

The vagueness means sooner or later a court will have to rule, with whatever impact that will have

 

[Glenn]

Here is one idea I should post on the CNCC forums, is to set up a land owners forum and ask them what we can do to be allowed more open access ask them do they need to know everytime an undergound dig is started.

The more import point is asking them how can we help? Maybe we can start doing something positive like spending a few hours at some point helping maintain this land we use, I think that would be a fair compromise to get alot freeier access if we help to look after it and will give us that warm and fuzzy feeling of a real good relation. I know this does take place at places like Alum where the relations are good and the access of just knocking on the door is fine by me. Arrange some days, you can always go caving after doing the work, we could then keep things civil and not get into any of this political crap.

Hi Alex, please don't take this the wrong way, but CNCC do exactly what you are suggesting as "business as usual". Most of the stockproof entrances on managed fells are in some way down to CNCC. CNCC, through it's member clubs spend a lot of volunteer time repairing paths that "we" as cavers quite often destroy. Maybe you should really think about getting involved with CNCC - or contacting Kay of this parish to be one of her volunteer workers?

Cheers,

Glenn

 

[khakipuce]

Some people always raise digging and private land as a reason why Caving cannot be within the scope of the CRoW act. Surely it is not hard to separate entering an open passage from digging in any form. Entering open passage accessed from CRoW land should be permitted. Everything else is not part of CRoW access and is subject to alternative arrangements

 

[dunc]

My own view is that the Crow act was a negative when it comes to access. Giving people the right to roam anywhere over large tracts gives them the right to trample the delicate ecosystems in these places. Think of the damage done on Kinder Scout for example.

My view is that it does "give" people the right to walk over large tracts of land, however, a significant number of people (I would guess) would rather stick to defined paths, routes, ridges etc rather than just wander willy-nilly across a fell.

There will always be hot-spots, as in areas that are more popular, Kinder Scout for example, and these areas will suffer and a fair number probably suffered before the Crow act anyway..

 

[Alex]

I don't think letting people roam causes much more damage as it is no longer confined to one spot and therefor the land would be able to recover as the same area would not be subject to repeated damaged?

Any way going off topic again.

 

[John S]

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

I would refer you to the thread regarding Lamb Leer. About a quarter of a century ago, CSCC said "No" to what was deemed an unreasonable request. from that day to this the landowner has answered all and any access requests with a similar reply, "No." Sadly I do not see that situation changing in either the short or medium term. That is one reason I become so incensed when cavers piss off landowners who have allowed generous access, with few strings attached, for many years.

But other access bodies have said no, and with a change of tack, access has been resumed with a better outcome for cavers?

From 'A Century of British Caving'
There was a breakdown of the access agreement for Casterton Fell after the owners requested that CNCC collect ?2 per head when issuing permits.

A new access agreement for Casterton Fell was made between the landowners and RRCPC not CNCC.

With what restrictions I wonder 

 

[kay]

Hi Alex, please don't take this the wrong way, but CNCC do exactly what you are suggesting as "business as usual". Most of the stockproof entrances on managed fells are in some way down to CNCC. CNCC, through it's member clubs spend a lot of volunteer time repairing paths that "we" as cavers quite often destroy. Maybe you should really think about getting involved with CNCC - or contacting Kay of this parish to be one of her volunteer workers?

He already is. He was one of the people who moved 3 tons of rubbish from Gunnerfleet 

 

[Alex]

Anything more planned Kay, I know theres that Barbon Dale pot  that is full of rubbish that needs clearing out, it is the one thing that I know needs doing.

 

[kay]

PM sent, Alex

 

[graham]

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

I would refer you to the thread regarding Lamb Leer. About a quarter of a century ago, CSCC said "No" to what was deemed an unreasonable request. from that day to this the landowner has answered all and any access requests with a similar reply, "No." Sadly I do not see that situation changing in either the short or medium term. That is one reason I become so incensed when cavers piss off landowners who have allowed generous access, with few strings attached, for many years.

But other access bodies have said no, and with a change of tack, access has been resumed with a better outcome for cavers?

From 'A Century of British Caving'
There was a breakdown of the access agreement for Casterton Fell after the owners requested that CNCC collect ?2 per head when issuing permits.

A new access agreement for Casterton Fell was made between the landowners and RRCPC not CNCC.

With what restrictions I wonder 

You are welcome to negotiate with Mr & Mrs Burge. I wish you well.

 

[Bob Smith]

I was asking basically why would a land owner mind what is going on 100 metres below as it could not effect him/her in any way so much so he would not even know about it.

Not quite so. IIRC there were restrictions placed on diggers At St. Cuthberts swallet by the papermill at Wookey Hole to prevent muddying of the waters (the land that St. Cuthberts Swallet sits on is leased from the papermill owners.) I know this is a special case and not the norm.

 

[Duncan Price]

I was asking basically why would a land owner mind what is going on 100 metres below as it could not effect him/her in any way so much so he would not even know about it.

Not quite so. IIRC there were restrictions placed on diggers At St. Cuthberts swallet by the papermill at Wookey Hole to prevent muddying of the waters (the land that St. Cuthberts Swallet sits on is leased from the papermill owners.) I know this is a special case and not the norm.

That is not entirely accurate.  A court injunction was granted to William Hodgkinson (owner of Wookey Hole Paper Mill) against Nicholas Ennor (owner and director of lead washing at the Priddy Minery) in 1863  to guarantee the right of the paper mills at Wookey Hole to ?a flow of water in a pure state? from the cave.    This was following water-tracing experiments during October 1860 which proved the connection from St Cuthbert's Swallet and Wookey Hole Caves.  The order still stands although paper is no longer manufacturerd at Wookey Hole.

In theory landowners have the right control access to any cave passage beneath their property.  Graham Mullen informs me that these rights have been applied in Eire to restrict the development of show caves.  A cave such as Swildon's Hole which passes underneath a number of residences beneath Priddy could require the permission of a number of landowners depending on where you planned to go in the cave.  Purely recreational use without permission would probably be construed as civil trespass and difficult for the landowner to persue.  Digging, on the other hand, might result in a case of criminal damage...

 

[RobinGriffiths]

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/04/10/oil-leak-threat-to-drinking-water-in-anglesey-s-cefni-reservoir-55578-26212864/

Of course landowners may not necessarily be whiter than white.