If CRoW applies to caving - some comments

[Simon Wilson]

It aint so simple, possibly. There is more than one way to secure access. The contention is over which is the best way - hard graft by working with owners on a case by case basis, or using a blanket perceived right to do so. And even then, there's a great deal more subtlety to either approach. You are right - we all want access, but there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two approaches. This is why the matter is so divisive. It is extremely unusual for people to take a totally different philosophy on board from the one we have grown up with. It may just be the way each of us is made.

There does appear to be a philosophy down south totally different to that up north. But I don't think anybody is expecting "people to take a totally different philosophy on board from the one we [you] have grown up with". I think all anybody is expecting is for the consideration of the idea that it might be possible to cope with two padlocks being replaced with two bolts or do a bit of paperwork to legally retain your padlocks.

Let's get things into proportion.

 

[Oceanrower]

Apparently, according to the CSCC, I'm against CROW access.

Though I don't remember either of the clubs I belong to asking me.........

 

[Simon Wilson]

Apparently, according to the CSCC, I'm against CROW access.

Though I don't remember either of the clubs I belong to asking me.........

Are you seriously saying that with all the hype that your CSCC Representative has not asked your club what they think and how he/she should vote? When is your CSCC Representative up for re-election?

 

[Oceanrower]

No Simon, that's not what I'm saying.

I have no doubt that the rep has asked the club's committee what they want him to do.

But, unless I've missed something, the clubs haven't canvassed the opinion of their members (me!)

 

[jasonbirder]

Which is the point I was making earlier.... Both the CSCC and the CNCCare strongly "anti-CRoW".....

Yet would anyone really suggest that amajority of active Northern AND Southern Cavers are in favour of more landowner restrictions and against better access?

 

[droid]

MORE 'landowner restrictions'? Where do you get that from?

Most of the 'anti' comment has beed with regard to conservation, of the type operated in Water Icicle....

 

[jasonbirder]

Sorry! I forgot the inflection of every word and nuance was judged rather than its intent...

I meant Access at the vagaries of landowner and/or controlling club whims and wishes...leaving them the opportunity to either continue to restrict access or have the option to further restrict access in the future as they choose...as opposed to having the right to access granted and protected...

 

[droid]

AS LONG AS the cave is on Access land.

Not criticising/nitpicking here: it's a pretty big caveat....

 

[jasonbirder]

I though that was a given in a discussion about Countryside Rights of Way and Open Access Land

 

[bograt]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, I would like the committee to look into the historic aspect of reasons for access restriction.
I suspect that the majority of restrictions in the South are there for conservation of cave features and, if so, a mechanism for their retention should be sought.
The fell permit system in the North, however, I suspect is a relic of the private land/ grouse shooting moor period and has been largely superceeded by the CRoW act, and should be treated as such.
These two examples are not mutually exclusive and can be approached and acted upon according to their respective merits.
There will be other reasons for access controls but until the research is done these remain unidentified.

Maybe the committee could look into formulating a set of guidelines of acceptable reasons for controlling access?
NOTE; I said guidelines, NOT rules

 

[Simon Wilson]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, I would like the committee to look into the historic aspect of reasons for access restriction.
I suspect that the majority of restrictions in the South are there for conservation of cave features and, if so, a mechanism for their retention should be sought.
The fell permit system in the North, however, I suspect is a relic of the private land/ grouse shooting moor period and has been largely superceeded by the CRoW act, and should be treated as such.
These two examples are not mutually exclusive and can be approached and acted upon according to their respective merits.
There will be other reasons for access controls but until the research is done these remain unidentified.

Maybe the committee could look into formulating a set of guidelines of accepable reasons for controlling access?
NOTE; I said guidelines, NOT rules

I think Bograt is right about the historical reasons for restrictions. This a useful comment and might help us understand the different approaches in the different regions and appreciate better each other points of view. Let's all please get into the spirit in which Bob started this topic and attempt to move forwards in finding a mutually acceptable stance. BCA is national and the legislation is national so the BCA has to have national policy.

 

[jasonbirder]

Whilst investigating historic Access agreements and restrictions would be a useful and interesting excercise...

I don't see it having anything to do with the BCA's stance on whether to push for clarification on whether caving is included or excluded from CRoW

In fact I don't see what peoples interpretation of the act has got to do with whether BCA pushes for clarification and indeed pushes for it be be included or not...

As a representative body the BCA should find out what the majority of its members want and ally itself with their wishes...

 

[Simon Wilson]

Which is the point I was making earlier.... Both the CSCC and the CNCCare strongly "anti-CRoW".....

Yet would anyone really suggest that amajority of active Northern AND Southern Cavers are in favour of more landowner restrictions and against better access?

The CNCC are not strongly anti-CRoW. I think it would probably be fair to say they were but you can't say that now. What you can say is that at the May committee meeting they were strongly in favour of supporting the view that clarification of the law would be a good thing. You can say that because the motion to support the motion at the BCA AGM was accepted unanimously. That is all you can say with certainty.

Simon Wilson, EPC elected CNCC Representative.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Whilst investigating historic Access agreements and restrictions would be a useful and interesting excercise...

I don't see it having anything to do with the BCA's stance on whether to push for clarification on whether caving is included or excluded from CRoW

In fact I don't see what peoples interpretation of the act has got to do with whether BCA pushes for clarification and indeed pushes for it be be included or not...

As a representative body the BCA should find out what the majority of its members want and ally itself with their wishes...

The members wishes about what? The time for the national body to represent the members wishes about whether or not they wanted CRoW to include caves was back in the 1990s. The law was passed in 2000. The problem at the moment is that there is disagreement about what the law is. It is strictly a legal question and the cavers wishes are irrelevant. Or am I mistaken and can NE be swayed one way or t'other?

 

[bograt]

Whilst investigating historic Access agreements and restrictions would be a useful and interesting excercise...

I don't see it having anything to do with the BCA's stance on whether to push for clarification on whether caving is included or excluded from CRoW

In fact I don't see what peoples interpretation of the act has got to do with whether BCA pushes for clarification and indeed pushes for it be be included or not...

As a representative body the BCA should find out what the majority of its members want and ally itself with their wishes...

Short of having an open (and expensive) referendum to all members, the BCA has to go by what is decided at open council meetings, one of these meetings decided to formulate a CRoW working party in response to caver demand for clarification.
This working party then went ahead under BCA's remit and this culminated in a QC's advice that caving should be included in the act.
At the last BCA open council meeting, the decision to pass the matter over to the BCA C&A  committee was made.
What we are now discussing is the direction we would like that committee to take in the light of these developments.

 

[jasonbirder]

Caving is in a bit of a Limbo isn't it...
Many Cavers assume CRoW applies to caving and have been caving on access land without permits etc for quite some period of time without any problems...
But as its not a specifically included or excluded activity there will always be some friction over it until the point is clarified one way or another...
Whilst there currently exists a QC's legal opinion over its inclusion (whilst persuasive) its not definitive until either it is tested in court of clarified at a legislative level...
While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...
And would give heart and support to cavers who feel their national body support them...rather than Landowners...If the BCA came in behind CRoW and ultimately it wasn't included and the status quo remained I think we could all get behind it...its the feeling that the BCA wants "to throw its members to the wolves" that's galling...
Can you imagine the outcry from their members if the BCU didn't so everything in its power to push for increased access for paddlers?
I'd like to (and I'm sure many others are the same) see the same backing from OUR body

 

[bograt]

Caving is in a bit of a Limbo isn't it...
Many Cavers assume CRoW applies to caving and have been caving on access land without permits etc for quite some period of time without any problems...
But as its not a specifically included or excluded activity there will always be some friction over it until the point is clarified one way or another...
Whilst there currently exists a QC's legal opinion over its inclusion (whilst persuasive) its not definitive until either it is tested in court of clarified at a legislative level...
While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...
And would give heart and support to cavers who feel their national body support them...rather than Landowners...If the BCA came in behind CRoW and ultimately it wasn't included and the status quo remained I think we could all get behind it...its the feeling that the BCA wants "to throw its members to the wolves" that's galling...
Can you imagine the outcry from their members if the BCU didn't so everything in its power to push for increased access for paddlers?
I'd like to (and I'm sure many others are the same) see the same backing from OUR body

So.... make some constructive suggestions about what you would like your representative to take to the meeting, I'm sure Mel would be interested, this persistent negative carping and criticism is just wasting forum space.

 

[kay]

While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...

I thought the BCA's opinion was that it currently has no stance on CRoW?

 

[bograt]

While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...

I thought the BCA's opinion was that it currently has no stance on CRoW?

You are right Kay, the only reference to CRoW recently by BCA is to refer it to the C&A committee who have not yet met on the subject.

 

[Oceanrower]

But, unless I've missed something, the clubs haven't canvassed the opinion of their members (me!)

I'm very pleased to report that one of my clubs (WCMS. Well done) has been in touch asking for feeedback.

As a complete aside, having looked at the CSCC website, I was slightly surprised to see the YSS as a member club. Bloody hell, the south is bigger than I thought!