If CRoW applies to caving - some comments

[Bottlebank]

As does (my italics):

16. Should BCA prepare a statement on caving and CRoW (subsequent to any Natural England
advice) for issue to landowners to be distributed by Regional CCs?
JL: In the North we have already tried to speak to the major land owners or their agents. The land
agents for Casterton Fell said that if BCA decides caving is covered under CRoW, the land owners
will stick to their current line that it is not. They already have seen the QC?s opinion, know about
today?s meeting and have said that they will not be employing a QC to counter the QC?s opinion.
They would not make a statement in advance of the meeting making clear that any statement from
them will be reactive, based on the outcome of today?s meeting. The other northern land agents
have not replied to requests for a conversation.

After all we've been repeatedly assured that landowners will accept CRoW in in relation to caving.

Quite ironic really given that Casterton is one the two fells where present arrangements seem to have jump started a process which is supposed to fix the shortcomings of the current system.

 

[jasonbirder]

Very pleased to see that 3 of the 4 major Caving regions (CNCC, DCA, CCC) are in favour of CRoW covering caving...and pleased to see the BCA reflecting that by agreeing to approach NE/DEFRA in light of the recently published QC's opinion

Hopefully in light of an agreed action plan by the BCA we can wave goodbye to endless circular arguments and wait for a positive outcome to these discussions.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I regret raising this matter of mine access here. It is far better discussed by mine explorers who understand this stuff and its implications much more, having wandered through the minefield of mines, abandonment, etc etc for many years and have a very good handle on it. I suggest the BCA defer all matters on mine access to those who have the experience of what it involves. All I really wanted to know was where is the authority for the idea that mine access might also be involved. So far all I can conclude is that was at the whim (pun) of one of the Open Access promoters.

 

[Lazarus]

As does (my italics):

16. Should BCA prepare a statement on caving and CRoW (subsequent to any Natural England
advice) for issue to landowners to be distributed by Regional CCs?
JL: In the North we have already tried to speak to the major land owners or their agents. The land
agents for Casterton Fell said that if BCA decides caving is covered under CRoW, the land owners
will stick to their current line that it is not. They already have seen the QC?s opinion, know about
today?s meeting and have said that they will not be employing a QC to counter the QC?s opinion.
They would not make a statement in advance of the meeting making clear that any statement from
them will be reactive, based on the outcome of today?s meeting. The other northern land agents
have not replied to requests for a conversation.

After all we've been repeatedly assured that landowners will accept CRoW in in relation to caving.

Quite ironic really given that Casterton is one the two fells where present arrangements seem to have jump started a process which is supposed to fix the shortcomings of the current system.

Have people really said that? No time to check every single little thread/post on here to find out one way or another.
Of course landowners would say exactly what the Casterton land agent has said, or just plain ignore it in the hope it all blows over, I'm pretty sure the exact same things happened when the CRoW act was being drawn up.
They wish to maintain control over something of theirs and being a minority sport it makes it that bit easier to ignore us (especially with so many bloody minded individuals in positions of 'power'). This does surprise me a little given CRoWs reduced liability, maybe they feel better off protected by caver-insurance than government-assurance.

 

[graham]

Of course landowners would say exactly what the Casterton land agent has said ...

For sure, as it is in accord with the advice that has been given by DEFRA.

Which hasn't changed.

 

[martinm]

All I really wanted to know was where is the authority for the idea that mine access might also be involved. So far all I can conclude is that was at the whim (pun) of one of the Open Access promoters.

Peter, I suggest you PM damian if you want to know who suggested that mines were covered too. (Else I can if you want, I have his proper email address, then report back.) As the quote shows, it was a 'post-meeting note'.

One of the actions of the meeting was to identify sensitive sites that needed protection, whether in the future or as a continuation of existing arrangements.

For sure, as it is in accord with the advice that has been given by DEFRA. Which hasn't changed.

Which may change. All BCA are doing is representing the majority view of the attendees of the meeting and seeking a review, clarification, etc. I shouldn't worry too much at the moment. BCA will keep everyone informed.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

 

[Bob Mehew]

I regret raising this matter of mine access here. It is far better discussed by mine explorers who understand this stuff and its implications much more, having wandered through the minefield of mines, abandonment, etc etc for many years and have a very good handle on it. I suggest the BCA defer all matters on mine access to those who have the experience of what it involves. All I really wanted to know was where is the authority for the idea that mine access might also be involved. So far all I can conclude is that was at the whim (pun) of one of the Open Access promoters.

My view is based on the following consideration which winds around (best I could do) two parts.  Whilst mines are covered by the Mines & Quarries Act (and other numerous statutes for working mines), both the Work at Height Regs  (SI 735 2005) at Reg 3(6) and the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations (SI 1309 2004) at Reg 2(1) clearly state caving includes exploration of abandoned mines.  Even though the definition was after the passage of CRoW in 2000, it now binds any legal interpretation of the word caving.  There might be a way around for those abandoned mine access points which have structures around them, other than simply for access (see para 2 & 14 in Schedule 1 of CRoW) rather like the entrance to Stump Cross Caverns is not on access land because it is in a building which is not just a means of access.  I am assuming working mines were never caught in the mapping process.  I would also refer you to para 4 in the opinion which reflected this view point.

The second part is that access land is three dimensional, see paras 7 to 9 at pages 23 & 24 of the appendix to the CRoW WG report to BCA AGM available at http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:general_meetings:agm_reports_2014.pdf and http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16816.msg221812#msg221812 for more.

I would be grateful if you could keep me directly informed if someone comes up with a killer counter argument elsewhere.

 

[exsumper]

This is the best part of the minutes!

18. Any Other Business
AH: We want to conserve a fragile environment and promote it to as many people to go caving as
possible. How do you square that? Believes we should adopt the principle of the fell runners ?
that it is great if someone chooses to go fell running but that it should not be generally publicised.
LW: Under NCA there was a concrete policy of not promoting caving. However BCA took the view
that we should be publicising it. The result is that we enjoy a much better understanding from the
public of what we do.
DW: One of the key reasons for the change in approach was that there are fewer cavers now than in
previous era. It was felt that there is a certain quantity required for the sport to be sustainable in
the future with equipment, rescue teams etc. Therefore, BCA decided it needed to attract more
cavers.
AH: There is a financial cost. Has anyone tried to measure the benefit to caving from this? Can see that
there is a benefit to the professional cavers and to caving clubs with huts to attract more to the
sport, but who else is actually going to benefit?
SF: We mustn?t become too small or we will become unviable in the future. There is a difference
between that and actually providing an advertising budget. We certainly don?t want allual-growth
targets, for example.

One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!

 

[martinm]

One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!

So that if the government decided caving was illegal, cavers would have no national body to represent them and support their case for allowing it! Then what would you do? Perhaps an exaggeration but makes a point.

Would you get rid of the BMC as well? And the BCU?

We NEED national representation for our sport just like climbers and canoeists, else we will be overlooked and ignored and possibly legislated out of 'official' existence.

There were a lot more cavers around 30 years ago, I remember on numerous occasions having to queue to get down Garlands Pot in Giants or the first pitch in P8. Or Eyam Dale shaft in Carlswark.

It is much better now, but who is going to replace the people who sort out access and negotiate access agreements for you. We are all getting older. Eventually you will be left with no-one willing to do that sort of thing. That was the point of this discussion. We need to get new people into caving, but not too many. You obviously don't appreciate the decades of work that people have previously done to enable you to actually go caving. Very sad.

Remember caves are generally on private land (access land or not) and we are indebted to the landowners and the officers of the regional councils and BCA (NCA before that) for funding and support to allow us to enjoy our chosen sporting activity. 

 

[Simon Wilson]

One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!

So that if the government decided caving was illegal, cavers would have no national body to represent them and support their case for allowing it! Then what would you do? Perhaps an exaggeration but makes a point.

Would you get rid of the BMC as well? And the BCU?

We NEED national representation for our sport just like climbers and canoeists, else we will be overlooked and ignored and possibly legislated out of 'official' existence.

There were a lot more cavers around 30 years ago, I remember on numerous occasions having to queue to get down Garlands Pot in Giants or the first pitch in P8. Or Eyam Dale shaft in Carlswark.

It is much better now, but who is going to replace the people who sort out access and negotiate access agreements for you. We are all getting older. Eventually you will be left with no-one willing to do that sort of thing. That was the point of this discussion. We need to get new people into caving, but not too many. You obviously don't appreciate the decades of work that people have previously done to enable you to actually go caving. Very sad.

Remember caves are generally on private land (access land or not) and we are indebted to the landowners and the officers of the regional councils and BCA (NCA before that) for funding and support to allow us to enjoy our chosen sporting activity. 

Mel,
I agree with almost everything you have said except that I have big reservations that I have tried to make well known on here.

The BCA have been letting us down very badly on CRoW right from the start until last Saturday. If/when caving under CRoW is accepted then it will have been done despite the BCA.

We have a resin anchor programme which has been in a state of total dysfunction for several years. I am trying to get to understand why that has come about and there is still a lot I don't know. From what I have learned over the last few months the BCA appears to be blameless and the BCA have been trying to deal with disagreeing regional officers over whom BCA have no power.

The problems in the CNCC are well known and it has become clear that at least one regional body could not be trusted to be in control of access. It now appears to me that there might also be serious problems in the CSCC.

I think one of the best ways to limit the impact of dysfunctional bodies is to limit their power and that is one of the benefits of CRoW. There are lots of things that regional bodies can be doing and conservation would probably be top of the list; training would also be there. But their function should be coordination only and they should not be allowed to wield any power over cavers.

 

[Alex]

Problem is if they don't have any powers, then who does? What we don't want in the Dales are things like the caving companies that exist in the Mendips filling the gaps.

Its like kicking out a government, there is no guarantee the next one would be any better and could in-fact be worse.

 

[martinm]

Mel, I agree with almost everything you have said except that I have big reservations that I have tried to make well known on here.

The BCA have been letting us down very badly on CRoW right from the start until last Saturday. If/when caving under CRoW is accepted then it will have been done despite the BCA.

We have a resin anchor program which has been in a state of total dysfunction for several years. I am trying to get to understand why that has come about and there is still a lot I don't know. From what I have learned over the last few months the BCA appears to be blameless and the BCA have been trying to deal with disagreeing regional officers over whom BCA have no power.

Simon, I was skeptical about the meeting beforehand, as well as a few other people, but it turned out there were a lot of good people there.

I think BCA are trying to correct the problems of the last few years now. I made it very clear that a significant numbers of cavers were dissatisfied with them and I think they are now addressing that.

The speed at which Damian has got the minutes out is to be commended.

The resin anchor program was stalled for several years because the manufacturer of the original anchors stopped making them! It has taken some time to source suitable anchors to replace the original ones. This has been stated on this forum on several occasions.

The fact that another C&A meeting has been pencilled in as soon as 22nd. November (after a number of regional meetings and the next BCA Council meeting) shows that BCA are serious about sorting stuff out now.

 

[exsumper]

One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!

So that if the government decided caving was illegal, cavers would have no national body to represent them and support their case for allowing it! Then what would you do? Perhaps an exaggeration but makes a point. Strawman, 30 years ago any politician making threats to cavers like that would have had severe cause for regret in a very short time!

Would you get rid of the BMC as well? And the BCU? An irrelevance! That's the business of climbers and canoeists

We NEED national representation for our sport just like climbers and canoeists, else we will be overlooked and ignored and possibly legislated out of 'official' existence. Another straw man argument

There were a lot more cavers around 30 years ago, I remember on numerous occasions having to queue to get down Garlands Pot in Giants or the first pitch in P8. Or Eyam Dale shaft in Carlswark.30 years ago you say  :-\ I see a pattern emerging 

It is much better now, but who is going to replace the people who sort out access and negotiate access agreements for you. We are all getting older. Eventually you will be left with no-one willing to do that sort of thing. That was the point of this discussion. We need to get new people into caving, but not too many. You obviously don't appreciate the decades of work that people have previously done to enable you to actually go caving. Very sad.Typical politician! out comes the unfounded smears and emotive bit :yucky: :yucky:

Remember caves are generally on private land (access land or not) and we are indebted to the landowners and the officers of the regional councils and BCA (NCA before that) for funding [color=yellow Its only money they've gouged out of cavers, in  the first place, and most of it's going to the commercial sector to fund their training/ certification! [/color] and support to allow us to enjoy our chosen sporting activity. 

The majority of cave access is arranged on a one to one basis with  landowners by the diggers and original explorers of a cave.  I've always made my own access arrangements for digs and that's how the original access agreements to the majority of UK caves have been arranged.  The existence of these arrangements owe absolutely nothing to the NCA/BCA or its scheming politicians!

I've always fully appreciated the work of the great caving pioneers;even supped with a few! What I have never appreciated are the self appointed, po faced, nobodies who decided that THEY needed a national body. No one I've ever caved with asked for one; or asked them to represent us.  Having set this crap up without any mandate! Its quite galling to now be told by them that it's my BCA! No it isn't!; Its like suddenly  finding out you've got a terminal illness, and upon asking why?  being told by your oncologist! it's your tumour!

As for regional councils, they used to be rather benign,talking shops!  I was the BEC rep on the CSCC for a while; until the NCA/BCA  insanity started!  If you want to know what the CSCC regional council is currently like? Ask the Windsor Hill Diggers whether they think that caving politicians should be persuading landowners to gate any open caves on their land!and poking their noses into diggers business? :spank:

Over the last year or two I think we've all seen these talents in action! I'm  embarrassed at their political antics, these clowns could give Mugabe lessons. Democracy my arse!
embarrassed at their lies and deceit; see posts on Anchors,CNCC,CROW etc; Embarrassed at their incompetence! again see posts on Anchors,CNCC,CROW etc!

But mainly embarrassed that people may think they're my chosen representatives.

 

[tony from suffolk]

So, a slghtly cautious thumbs-up for the BCA then.

 

[exsumper]

 

[bograt]

Although I empathise with exsumpers view, I do hope that his quotes will never appear in court, there is no denying that there is more cave passage available now than ever before, modern cavers and technology have achieved this.
There seems to be a greater awareness of the value of preserving new finds; long may this continue!.

 

[droid]

I too can empathise with exsumper.

In 35 years of being around caving (not always particularly actively), the CRoW debate is the first time I can remember a 'representitive body' actually asking me for an opinion.

Up to recently i've tended to regard the CNCC, CSCC, and NCA/BCA etc as rather benevolent oligarchies.

Maybe a useful effect of the sometimes roudabout discussions on here is that these bodies migh ask opinions a little more freely?

 

[martinm]

  CBA anymore, peeps who just criticise peeps for the sake of it...  I'm embarrassed at your 'lies and deceit'. I think this thread should now be locked as yet again it has gone down to personal accusations by this little boy who calls himself exsumper. Grow up why don't you... (Not reading this thread again, so don't bother replying. And don't PM me, as it'll just get deleted.)

 

[Peter Burgess]

It only takes a tiny minority of people to derail a discussion. In the real world they are called hecklers and ought to be thrown out onto the street.

 

[graham]

It only takes a tiny minority of people to derail a discussion.

Just as it takes only a tiny minority of people to trash a cave.