Guardian article

[Peter Burgess]

What is the BCA exit strategy for the campaign? To simply say "when we've won" is not good enough, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of not winning, however remote some might think that possibility is.

Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

For me that means the BCA should be campaigning for the CRoW Act to apply to going underground until such time as it does.

I note your comment about having been drinking. Maybe in the cold light of day you might think about considering the possibility that the campaign won't ever succeed. It might, but it might not. Ever.

 

[Gollum]

If we win then great but if we don't we stay as we are. Why the big concern about if we don't win. We don't actually have anything to lose as I can see. Canoeist have been battling for access for years with nothing to lose. Guess what they have never lost anything but they sometimes gain. My daughter is a kick boxer and she was taught when you go into a fight you have to be prepared to keep fighting until it's over and do whatever it takes or you have already lost before you enter the ring.

 

[Pitlamp]

If we win then great but if we don't we stay as we are. Why the big concern about if we don't win. We don't actually have anything to lose as I can see. Canoeist have been battling for access for years with nothing to lose. Guess what they have never lost anything but they sometimes gain. My daughter is a kick boxer and she was taught when you go into a fight you have to be prepared to keep fighting until it's over and do whatever it takes or you have already lost before you enter the ring.

Your choice of analogy is unnecessarily confrontational; as members of the caving community we've a great deal in common, even if there is disagreement about the best way to achieve objectives. We should all remember we're a bunch of mates.

You asked the question "Why the big concern if "we" (my added inverted commas) don't win". One answer is the damage caused to caver / landowner relations. This is already considerable. It was flagged up by many cavers before the vote but it failed to persuade those who want to pursue this campaign. So that's the situation we're now in. I don't know if you're a digger Gollum but if you are you might be at least slightly uneasy about this. The CRoW campaign, if successful, would not give you any right to do surface excavations. Although many people choose not to refer to this any further on this particular forum, concern hasn't gone away.

The suggestion of an exit strategy is worth considering and doesn't necessarily need to take the wind out of the sails of those who feel that pursuing the campaign is the right thing to do. It's not "defeatism" it's just common sense. (As I've said previously, I greatly respect the effort you have all put into what you believe in, even though I have some personal concerns.)

Whenever the CRoW topic crops up on this forum there's strong opinion expressed from all directions. I hope the volunteers on BCA Council (whom we're all grateful to - and whom I don't envy at the moment) will make balanced decisions reflecting the fact that this campaign isn't universally supported.

The above are just my opinions - please don't think any the worse of me for expressing them here (moderators). I've tried very hard not to break any forum rules, honest . . . . 

 

[Simon Wilson]

... the damage caused to caver / landowner relations. This is already considerable. 

Can you justify that statement?

 

[Madness]

'Exit strategy'?

'Not winning'?

Surely the point of any campaign is to continue until you achieve what you're campaigning for.

You may suffe set backs along the way, but that doesn't mean you should stop campaigning.

We all owe thanks to people who in the past have campaigned for certain rights/freedoms. How can anyone criticise a campaign that is aimed at improving freedom? If you have worries that a campaign may have negative effects in some way, then rather than opposing the campaign, why not become part of it and use your energies in reducing possible negative effects?

 

[Pitlamp]

Simon, Madness; yours are perfectly reasonable questions.

Simon - I could justify that but I prefer not to say any more than I have already. It comes from conversations with various people who can decide who does what and where on their land. (That's not a very satisfactory answer, I know. Sorry but I don't really want to enter a proper debate because I have so many things going on I'd struggle to find the time to do it properly at the moment. Maybe in future.)

Madness - I see your point. What we need to watch for is that a "campaign" doesn't turn into a "war of attrition". Putting this another way, it all depends on how serious the "setbacks" are which you refer to above. Yes - fully agree we all owe thanks to people who have campaigned for things in the past (otherwise we might still have a slave trade for example, or far worse inequality for women than at present). I chose not to join the campaign because I never really agreed with it. As with many other cavers, that's not changed. Then again I'm always willing to change my mind in the light of compelling evidence. And I meant what I said above about respecting the efforts made by others who believe this campaign is the better option.

An exit strategy is a prudent precaution because none of us knows how this will pan out and what unforeseen problems may crop up along the way.

I apologise but I'm going to have to leave this discussion as several other pressing things need attention. Best wishes all.

 

[alastairgott]

I think Perhaps Pitlamp is perhaps seeking a distinction in the CROW campaign between all of the activities that cavers may do on the landowners property.

ie. Caving (CROW), Diving (exploratory and sport), and Digging (exploratory).

Putting words in his mouth I think Pitlamp might have reservations in the situations where Exploratory Diving and Digging are taking place.
There are probably a number of places where landowners in the Dales (Yorkshire or otherwise) are adamant that access is denied (either for Caving, Diving or Digging). but if these locations are within CROW land then they may be forced to rethink the fact that they have an open cave on their land. and perhaps take precautionary action by filling it in, if this happens then we would not be allowed to dig it back open.

Perhaps some clarification should be sought as to the extent of the CROW access, maybe with some small rollout of test locations and see how it goes (much like the mines in north wales). rather than going for a blanket open access for all Caves.

 

[Cookie]

The BCA poll stated,

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

In the event of a majority of members saying "yes", BCA will ...

There then listed a number of bullet points including;

"lobby MPs and other persons of influence to push for CRoW to apply to going underground"

Another bullet point stated;

"seek to change section 4.6 of our constitution at the June 2015 AGM"

Neither was conditional on the other - or on any of the other bullet points.  Nowhere does the BCA constitution state that it cannot campaign for a legal right to apply to caving.  The same section referred to above also states that access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers.  The constitution is not specific enough for it to be used to prevent the will of the majority of members over this particular issue.  The BCA has been clear on what action it is taking on behalf of members, it has justified those actions and reported them fully.

Should any organisation choose to ignore the majority of its members it would risk stepping into very dangerous territory indeed.

Nowhere does the BCA constitution state that it cannot campaign for a legal right to apply to caving.

BCA can not campaign for a right that the Constitution specifically prevents until you have changed the Constitution. If you are right about the will of the membership then that should not be a problem.

By conducting this public campaign, BCA is not following its own Constitution or resolutions passed at the 2015 AGM.

Should any organisation choose not to follow its own rules and regulations it would risk stepping into very dangerous territory indeed.
 

 

[Brains]

Then change the rules at the earliest opportunity to reflect the wishes of the whole membership that voted, rather than just those that love the politics of half a weekend wasted in a stuffy room

 

[Gollum]

Your choice of analogy is unnecessarily confrontational;
[/quote]

Confrontational?
Not at all  :hug: :kiss2:.
Have seen the Australian comedian who does a sketch about being offended? I really recommend
! No longer available

 

[Pitlamp]

Lovely that Gollum. Nowt like a bit of humour to keep things in perspective.

Nice one!

 

[Peter Burgess]

The reason I raised the matter of exit strategy is simply that at some point someone may have to decide whether to use BCA's limited resource (of volunteers' time, and perhaps money) on something more pressing, if the "campaign" doesn't get anywhere after a long period of banging heads on walls.

 

[droid]

It is the feeling that at least some of them do not that is the source of dissatisfaction and possibly resentment.

It needs more balanced mature attitudes like that espoused by Pitlamp if this 'debate' is to proceed in a civilised manner.

 

[badger]

bca crow liason officer is I believe a cave digger, and I am sure he must have before starting this action spoke to many people including landowners,

 

[Peter Burgess]

"must have" is an unfortunate pair of words, and always sets alarm bells ringing for me when I read them. You may well be right, but I would never assume so. I am sure he would be happy to confirm that you are correct, however.

 

[Wayland Smith]

It rather sounds like half the people think that the BCA has gone too far and that the committee should resign.

The other half think that the BCA have not done what was asked and that the committee should resign.

Very interesting. 

 

[bograt]

It rather sounds like half the people think that the BCA has gone too far and that the committee should resign.

The other half think that the BCA have not done what was asked and that the committee should resign.

Very interesting. 

Democracy in action  : :

 

[Badlad]

A couple of points to answer some posts above.

I'd hope we can all agree that a legal right given by act of parliament overrides the BCA constitution however members wish to interpret that constitution.  Whether that legal right applies to caving is what this is all about.

I have indeed spoken to a number of landowners.

The CRoW Act is about recreational caving not digging.  There will be no right to dig without landowner/SSSI permission CRoW or no CRoW.

... the damage caused to caver / landowner relations. This is already considerable. 

Can you justify that statement?

Sadly in my recent experience it is diggers who have been of greater concern to landowners NOT recreational cavers.  Pitlamp will know of the problems on Ingleborough.  Volunteers have had to clear up and make safe old surface digs.  Some digs without permission have been left in such a mess they have been subject to complaints to the authorities.  Even those with permission have been left an eyesore and there have been complaints.  The landowner and local business people are not happy and this reflects badly on all cavers.

In the Brecon Beacons landowners have complained to the BBNP about old digs being in an unsafe conditions with concerns voiced over their safety for the public.  It looks like the NP Authority may have to clear these up and make them safe.  A dig into the back of Dan Yr Ogof, with landowner permission but without SSSI consent, led to threats of legal action from the authority and a very unhappy show cave owner.

Perhaps it is diggers who need to get there house in order and stop trying to pass the blame onto those who support CRoW.

At Draenen, the original entrance was dug without landowner consent, in fact the diggers were told they would not be granted permission, but they continued anyway.  The landowner changed and permission was granted for access, but when another team dug a second and third entrance without permission we have ended up with the sorry state of affairs we have today.  If the landowner changes again who knows what the access situation will be.  That is exactly why a legal right of access for recreational caving is so important for the future of our sport.

Many landowners allow unfettered access to the caves on their land.  Others have concerns over their legal liabilities and duty of care to those they invite onto their land.  They require cavers to be insured to protect them against any liability.  A big advantage of the CRoW Act for landowners is that it reduces that liability to the lowest possible in law and landowners are generally happy with that.

Some cavers support voluntary agreements with landowners as the best way forward rather than the broad sweep of the right to roam.  These voluntary agreements have at their heart insurance cover and this is not guaranteed to stay cheap or as easy to source and maintain.  There may be trouble brewing in the insurance market where the due diligence of those controlling access is not up to the standard expected.  If this becomes onerous to maintain how attractive then is a legal right of access which does away with the need for insurance cover.

Of course a large number of caves remain on non CRoW land so we will always need voluntary arrangements and insurance for those but the fewer they are the better in my opinion.

 

[bograt]

Many thanks for that clarification Badlad, maybe BCA should be looking into advice and 'best practice' for diggers ?. (I can just imagine what response this will get from Mendip !!!)

Landowners and cavers should be strongly made aware that CRoW does NOT apply to surface diggers and landowners rights and existing arrangements remain in force in that respect.

 

[Cookie]

Ah so it is all the diggers fault. Silly me 

Of course a large number of caves remain on non CRoW land so we will always need voluntary arrangements and insurance for those but the fewer they are the better in my opinion.

Surely this blows your carrot and stick insurance argument out of the water.