A
andymorgan
Guest
They may be; but the landowners aren't asking for permits anymore, so it the way the landowners are interpreting the act.
Lancaster Easegill
- Thread starter martinr
- Start date
Ship-badger
Member
andymorgan said:
I have quite a few friends in the north. as far as I understand it, they have used the CROW act in this way.
1. Cavers have no right to visit a cave under CROW.
2. The landowners never really cared about cavers while they were underground, they just didn't want them traipsing around on the surface disturbing all the little nesting grouse.
3. Cavers can now use the CROW act to traipse around on the surface as much as they like.
4. Landowner admits he is finally defeated. "f*** ya" he says. "Go caving if you want".
So while the CROW act has not given us any better access to caves in law, it has removed one of the landowner's principle reasons for denying us access in the past.
Of course as we have seen only too clearly in Mid-Wales, while it is virtually impossible to physically block access to something the size of Gavel Pot, it is all too easy to grill an entrance to a small cave or mine adit, so we do need to be very careful.
With regard to the original topic, was the question tongue-in-cheek? Are there really cavers out there who get a permit for Lancs/Easegill; other than for Pippikin maybe? If there are, then I have most certainly never knowingly met one. I'm not saying that this is either right or wrong, but it is my experience.
nickwilliams
Well-known member
andymorgan said:
I don't want to pick a fight over this, since we all have basically the same interests at heart, but I do think it's quite important for people to be properly informed about this.
CROW section 2 (1) chapter states that
Schedule II contains a fairly long list of things which are definitely not permitted, as of right, on open access land. You can read it here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/00037--t.htm#sch2
Caving is not mentioned in Schedule 2, so it's not specifically outlawed, but instead the argument turns on the definition of 'open-air recreation". It's an interesting debate as to whether or not caving is 'open-air recreation' but ultimately that can only be decided in a court.
It seems to me that the caving community as a whole probably has more to loose than to gain by pushing the point and that any confusion on the part of landowners probably works in our favour, so I'd advise against picking a fight with any landowner on these grounds.
Nick.
nickwilliams said:
The CROW actually says:
"Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation"
and that is all it says about what people are allowed to do on open access land. Schedule 2 of the Act lists banned activities, and this list does not include caving.
The Countryside Agency say that "many activities on foot will be permitted there - such as bird watching, climbing, running or simply picnicking or sightseeing". but I have a letter on file in which they acknowledge that this list is arbitrary. In the same letter they also agree that it is only the High Court that can arbitrate whether caving is or is not a permitted activity.
P.S. Sorry, nick, I didn't see your last message!
D
digscaves
Guest
Does anyone know if CNCC publish any figures on how many permits/day are issued on Casterton and Leck Fells?
The meets secs do a good job, but I can't help thinking that a web based permit system might be easier for them generally and us as cavers organising trips at short notice.
The usage of Leck Fell may have changed recently, the fell was not stocked with Grouse this year. Traps have dissapeared and so has the shooting hut.
Maybe this is the time to press for the end of the closed season for permits? (no closed season for walkers of course).
The meets secs do a good job, but I can't help thinking that a web based permit system might be easier for them generally and us as cavers organising trips at short notice.
The usage of Leck Fell may have changed recently, the fell was not stocked with Grouse this year. Traps have dissapeared and so has the shooting hut.
Maybe this is the time to press for the end of the closed season for permits? (no closed season for walkers of course).
Stu
Active member
First off, I don't want to cause a fight :-[!
Second, if the OP or anyone else feels we should link to a new thread, so be it.
Now, some thoughts.
In the dim and distant when land was "owned" (let's leave aside that potato!!) by the great and the good, we, the hoi polloi were kept at bay for fear of disturbing what ever pastime the GATG partook. As the years went by social and political pressure took hold and the GATG were either told to or voluntarily let the HP use the land for reasonable usage. This usually amounted to footpaths etc. We didn't apart from some exceptional circumstances, have freedom to roam.
As far as I'm aware and am concerned this affected cavers more often than other recreational users because cave entrances had a very nasty habit of turning up away from footpaths! Bad caves :spank:. But we wanted to go into these damp dark chambers of the underground. So what did we do? We went to the GATG and asked for various permissions to allow a very basic right to traipse across the land. This the GATG did confer onto us... and we were happy.
Until it came to a point where in the 21st century, cavers with transport, time and the equipment felt the urge to at a whim visit a particular cave system. Where once we would have all hopped onto the Chara' to visit which ever hole in the ground had been booked by the meets secretary for that particular day however many moons gone by, we now expect things somewhat differently.
So, it seems to me we find ourselves in a some what anachronistic situation! Walkers, climbers, dog walkers etc etc. can enjoy a freedom to roam on certain land without sticking to the footpaths. They can walk without obstruction to some of the very holes in the ground, we had to queue up for three months to have the same right conferred to us as cavers! And as far as the BCA/CNCC is concerned, this should remain so.
Why?
Well, what does CRoW actually say and more importantly, what doesn't it say? What it doesn't say is that any individual can walk wherever and whenever they like. There are still some restrictions. Some land below a certain height is not open access. Some land is Excepted land, which means during the consultation period for CRoW, the landowner legally placed restrictions on when open access occurred. We can't ride bikes either pedal or motor; or horse (unless arrangements are already in place), we can't camp or disturb the land in an undue way.
Basically this is what CRoW is about
* a new right of public access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land;
* provision of effective safeguards to take account of the needs of landowners and managers and of other
interests, including wildlife;
* the right will not apply to developed land, gardens or to cultivated land;
* the right will be subject to sensible restrictions to avoid activities which might cause harm or damage;
* the right will not extend to cycling, horseriding or driving a vehicle;
* landowners' liability as occupiers will be reduced to a minimum;
* provision for landowners to close access land or otherwise restrict access without needing permission for up to 28 days each year;
* provision for further closures or restrictions to take account of the needs of conservation, land management, defence and national security, and safety;
* provision for possible extension of the right of access to coastal land, but only after public consultation;
* a power for landowners voluntarily to dedicate their land for access.
During the period of consultation some national governing bodies and pressure groups were very vocal. The British Mountaineering Council, The Ramblers Association etc were quick off the mark in stating their own cases. This I feel is where the major success of the Act have been won.
Caving seems to have lagged behind and relied on the time tested method of permit allocation run via the various regional bodies. Why is it that on, for e.g. the Allotment area of Ingleborough, open access land, closed seasons between March and October (six months - not 28 days, six months!) still exist under the terms? Now I'm no fool and neither I guess are the estate owners who must know caving goes on in this area during this closed season. How do I know this? The half dozen trip reports littering the web giving names and dates and from my various observations whilst walking in this area (on legitimate footpaths).
From doing some fairly random research on the web and some quick reading, various arguments for keeping the status quo are put forward. They range from caves being owned by the landowners in much the same way as the land is owned; that caving isn't by definition perhaps, an open air recreation; that if we push too hard landowners may not allow access to land to dig or to bolt or to explore. This would seem on the face of it reasonable and responsible. We don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot do we?
But why would pushing for what many feel is a legitimate right, be shooting ourselves in the foot? Looking at some points individually it can be argued that we shouldn't have anything to fear. As for ownership, it is indeed law that ownership extends to the very core of the Earth (think this snippet is in Judson's legal booklet). But then if access to overground use has been legitimised then surely access underground could be seen as coming under the same legitimacy. And what of caving not perhaps, being an open air recreation? I would dearly love to see a strident BCA stand firm in court and argue the case. It seems to me our history and involvement with other outdoor recreations would have too much weight behind it not to be classed as such. Access already exists to roam the land so why would a landowner fear for such a thing to happen by allowing another hole in the ground to be dug? Digging the hole doesn't mean a threat to access, CRoW states in many cases it exists legally already!
I think it's time the BCA and regional bodies responsibly and reasonably took the law to the landowners and re-negotiate new terms that fit in with what technically and legally is our right. We have for many years abided to the conditions placed upon us by the landowners. We have shown much responsibility and respect under the terms. I believe it is only right and proper that this past "good behaviour" be rewarded with some clearer and within the legal framework, better terms.
Where access is still granted to us, where rights do not exist, then we should indeed abide by the conditions. Where open access is granted to open air recreational users' we should be allowed free access. This current fudge can only lead to confusion and possible friction where a misreading of the law leads to trouble. Why should I as a caver stay away from the Allotment when walkers etc can wander freely? What if I were to go for a "walk" onto this moor clad in caving gear in mid July? Would this act be seen to the landowner as illegal? What then? The land is open access. Will they be bent on trying to close the moors to all (an unlikely winnable situation) or just policing for cavers? This present situation helps no one.
By not taking the lead, are the BCA not guilty of doing as the old BSA and only allowing access to certain permitted cave clubs at certain permitted time - is this any better than a secret handshake society? Read up about the Lancaster Hole saga. On the other hand do we want open access to the caves? Isn't a permit system a potential conservationists dream?
I'm not BCA or any other "body", bashing. What I don't want and what I seem to be reading elsewhere is the BCA etc putting forward a view that hasn't been established by wider consultation of it's members or landowners.
For my part I'll wander across open access land to embark on caving trips. I don't want to do this under some complicit nod and a wink terms where by the landowner isn't bothered or confused (yet?) and the BCA hasn't pushed for clarification. There are many questions that haven't been asked and the answers only being guessed at. :thumbsdown:
I'm going for a lie down now!!
Second, if the OP or anyone else feels we should link to a new thread, so be it.
Now, some thoughts.
In the dim and distant when land was "owned" (let's leave aside that potato!!) by the great and the good, we, the hoi polloi were kept at bay for fear of disturbing what ever pastime the GATG partook. As the years went by social and political pressure took hold and the GATG were either told to or voluntarily let the HP use the land for reasonable usage. This usually amounted to footpaths etc. We didn't apart from some exceptional circumstances, have freedom to roam.
As far as I'm aware and am concerned this affected cavers more often than other recreational users because cave entrances had a very nasty habit of turning up away from footpaths! Bad caves :spank:. But we wanted to go into these damp dark chambers of the underground. So what did we do? We went to the GATG and asked for various permissions to allow a very basic right to traipse across the land. This the GATG did confer onto us... and we were happy.
Until it came to a point where in the 21st century, cavers with transport, time and the equipment felt the urge to at a whim visit a particular cave system. Where once we would have all hopped onto the Chara' to visit which ever hole in the ground had been booked by the meets secretary for that particular day however many moons gone by, we now expect things somewhat differently.
So, it seems to me we find ourselves in a some what anachronistic situation! Walkers, climbers, dog walkers etc etc. can enjoy a freedom to roam on certain land without sticking to the footpaths. They can walk without obstruction to some of the very holes in the ground, we had to queue up for three months to have the same right conferred to us as cavers! And as far as the BCA/CNCC is concerned, this should remain so.
Why?
Well, what does CRoW actually say and more importantly, what doesn't it say? What it doesn't say is that any individual can walk wherever and whenever they like. There are still some restrictions. Some land below a certain height is not open access. Some land is Excepted land, which means during the consultation period for CRoW, the landowner legally placed restrictions on when open access occurred. We can't ride bikes either pedal or motor; or horse (unless arrangements are already in place), we can't camp or disturb the land in an undue way.
Basically this is what CRoW is about
* a new right of public access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land;
* provision of effective safeguards to take account of the needs of landowners and managers and of other
interests, including wildlife;
* the right will not apply to developed land, gardens or to cultivated land;
* the right will be subject to sensible restrictions to avoid activities which might cause harm or damage;
* the right will not extend to cycling, horseriding or driving a vehicle;
* landowners' liability as occupiers will be reduced to a minimum;
* provision for landowners to close access land or otherwise restrict access without needing permission for up to 28 days each year;
* provision for further closures or restrictions to take account of the needs of conservation, land management, defence and national security, and safety;
* provision for possible extension of the right of access to coastal land, but only after public consultation;
* a power for landowners voluntarily to dedicate their land for access.
During the period of consultation some national governing bodies and pressure groups were very vocal. The British Mountaineering Council, The Ramblers Association etc were quick off the mark in stating their own cases. This I feel is where the major success of the Act have been won.
Caving seems to have lagged behind and relied on the time tested method of permit allocation run via the various regional bodies. Why is it that on, for e.g. the Allotment area of Ingleborough, open access land, closed seasons between March and October (six months - not 28 days, six months!) still exist under the terms? Now I'm no fool and neither I guess are the estate owners who must know caving goes on in this area during this closed season. How do I know this? The half dozen trip reports littering the web giving names and dates and from my various observations whilst walking in this area (on legitimate footpaths).
From doing some fairly random research on the web and some quick reading, various arguments for keeping the status quo are put forward. They range from caves being owned by the landowners in much the same way as the land is owned; that caving isn't by definition perhaps, an open air recreation; that if we push too hard landowners may not allow access to land to dig or to bolt or to explore. This would seem on the face of it reasonable and responsible. We don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot do we?
But why would pushing for what many feel is a legitimate right, be shooting ourselves in the foot? Looking at some points individually it can be argued that we shouldn't have anything to fear. As for ownership, it is indeed law that ownership extends to the very core of the Earth (think this snippet is in Judson's legal booklet). But then if access to overground use has been legitimised then surely access underground could be seen as coming under the same legitimacy. And what of caving not perhaps, being an open air recreation? I would dearly love to see a strident BCA stand firm in court and argue the case. It seems to me our history and involvement with other outdoor recreations would have too much weight behind it not to be classed as such. Access already exists to roam the land so why would a landowner fear for such a thing to happen by allowing another hole in the ground to be dug? Digging the hole doesn't mean a threat to access, CRoW states in many cases it exists legally already!
I think it's time the BCA and regional bodies responsibly and reasonably took the law to the landowners and re-negotiate new terms that fit in with what technically and legally is our right. We have for many years abided to the conditions placed upon us by the landowners. We have shown much responsibility and respect under the terms. I believe it is only right and proper that this past "good behaviour" be rewarded with some clearer and within the legal framework, better terms.
Where access is still granted to us, where rights do not exist, then we should indeed abide by the conditions. Where open access is granted to open air recreational users' we should be allowed free access. This current fudge can only lead to confusion and possible friction where a misreading of the law leads to trouble. Why should I as a caver stay away from the Allotment when walkers etc can wander freely? What if I were to go for a "walk" onto this moor clad in caving gear in mid July? Would this act be seen to the landowner as illegal? What then? The land is open access. Will they be bent on trying to close the moors to all (an unlikely winnable situation) or just policing for cavers? This present situation helps no one.
By not taking the lead, are the BCA not guilty of doing as the old BSA and only allowing access to certain permitted cave clubs at certain permitted time - is this any better than a secret handshake society? Read up about the Lancaster Hole saga. On the other hand do we want open access to the caves? Isn't a permit system a potential conservationists dream?
I'm not BCA or any other "body", bashing. What I don't want and what I seem to be reading elsewhere is the BCA etc putting forward a view that hasn't been established by wider consultation of it's members or landowners.
For my part I'll wander across open access land to embark on caving trips. I don't want to do this under some complicit nod and a wink terms where by the landowner isn't bothered or confused (yet?) and the BCA hasn't pushed for clarification. There are many questions that haven't been asked and the answers only being guessed at. :thumbsdown:
I'm going for a lie down now!!
nickwilliams
Well-known member
Stu,
Thank you for an excellent post. It must have taken an age for you to write it and I for one am grateful that you took the time.
I don't disagree with a single thing you have said but let me put my position on record, since I think it will reflect the personal opinons of most of my colleagues who work on behalf of BCA.
Open access for caving would be a lovely thing to have but we might still need to have some way of controlling who goes where and when so as to avoid congestion and reduce damage to the caves. Furthermore, as others have said, it may not provide any help to large parts of the caving community, either because their access involves activities such as digging which would not be condoned by the Act, or because the caves they want to visit are not on open access land.
More significantly, doing as you suggest will require a great deal of work by someone in preparing the arguments and making the case. No-one in BCA at present has the time to do this. We are short of volunteer resources as it is. I am prepared to be proved wrong but _I_ don't think any one will seriously argue that this is so important to us that we need to abandon other activities in order to make time for it. Maybe that situation will change in the future - I don't know.
Let me put it another way, perhaps more bluntly. The situation as it is at present does not wind me up enough that I am prepared to stop doing other things in order to put the time into trying to change it. Can you understand this?
Nick.
Thank you for an excellent post. It must have taken an age for you to write it and I for one am grateful that you took the time.
I don't disagree with a single thing you have said but let me put my position on record, since I think it will reflect the personal opinons of most of my colleagues who work on behalf of BCA.
Open access for caving would be a lovely thing to have but we might still need to have some way of controlling who goes where and when so as to avoid congestion and reduce damage to the caves. Furthermore, as others have said, it may not provide any help to large parts of the caving community, either because their access involves activities such as digging which would not be condoned by the Act, or because the caves they want to visit are not on open access land.
More significantly, doing as you suggest will require a great deal of work by someone in preparing the arguments and making the case. No-one in BCA at present has the time to do this. We are short of volunteer resources as it is. I am prepared to be proved wrong but _I_ don't think any one will seriously argue that this is so important to us that we need to abandon other activities in order to make time for it. Maybe that situation will change in the future - I don't know.
Let me put it another way, perhaps more bluntly. The situation as it is at present does not wind me up enough that I am prepared to stop doing other things in order to put the time into trying to change it. Can you understand this?
Nick.
Ship-badger said:
If you are who I think you are, then you probably know already that I always get a permit for Easegill, Gaping Gill, The Allotment, Newby Moss, Leck Fell, Washfold Pot, Pen-y-Ghent Pot, Little Hull and Hunt Pots, Fountains Fell. I also know that quite a lot of other people do too, including the Red Rose for EaseGill.
However, you do NOT need a permit for Pippikin, as it's on the other side of Ease Gill and has a different landowner (I think). You just go to Leck Fell House.
Stu
Active member
Nick
I do understand yours' and the BCA's position. I applaud all your efforts. I repeat, I'm not trying to get on anyone's case.
Where I would take issue is that it's not important enough to be put on any agenda. It's certainly important for those cavers who may seek to exercise what is probably a legitimate right not to wait three months for a permit or to stay off the Allotment for six months of the year.
Anyway, you're probably right and it's not that much of a problem... and indeed there are more important things to do!
I do understand yours' and the BCA's position. I applaud all your efforts. I repeat, I'm not trying to get on anyone's case.
Where I would take issue is that it's not important enough to be put on any agenda. It's certainly important for those cavers who may seek to exercise what is probably a legitimate right not to wait three months for a permit or to stay off the Allotment for six months of the year.
Anyway, you're probably right and it's not that much of a problem... and indeed there are more important things to do!
Glenn
Member
"Does anyone know if CNCC publish any figures on how many permits/day are issued on Casterton and Leck Fells?"
These figures are always reported at CNCC meetings.
"The meets secs do a good job, but I can't help thinking that a web based permit system might be easier for them generally and us as cavers organising trips at short notice."
Jim used to maintain an online booking system for Leck Fell (for several years) but stopped as it was rarely used.
Glenn
These figures are always reported at CNCC meetings.
"The meets secs do a good job, but I can't help thinking that a web based permit system might be easier for them generally and us as cavers organising trips at short notice."
Jim used to maintain an online booking system for Leck Fell (for several years) but stopped as it was rarely used.
Glenn
Glenn
Member
Stu wrote:
"They can walk without obstruction to some of the very holes in the ground, we had to queue up for three months to have the same right conferred to us as cavers! And as far as the BCA/CNCC is concerned, this should remain so."
Not true, and I would like you to explain why you think that. The CNCC is constantly trying to improve access (just think how many new caves/entrances have been discovered over the last 40 or more years which have been included within the permit system or other land owner agreement). But we can only work within the legal framework, which, as has been described elsewhere, tends to work for the land owner, and against the caver.
Glenn
"They can walk without obstruction to some of the very holes in the ground, we had to queue up for three months to have the same right conferred to us as cavers! And as far as the BCA/CNCC is concerned, this should remain so."
Not true, and I would like you to explain why you think that. The CNCC is constantly trying to improve access (just think how many new caves/entrances have been discovered over the last 40 or more years which have been included within the permit system or other land owner agreement). But we can only work within the legal framework, which, as has been described elsewhere, tends to work for the land owner, and against the caver.
Glenn
Ship-badger
Member
If you are who I think you are, then you probably know already that I always get a permit for Easegill, Gaping Gill, The Allotment, Newby Moss, Leck Fell, Washfold Pot, Pen-y-Ghent Pot, Little Hull and Hunt Pots, Fountains Fell. I also know that quite a lot of other people do too, including the Red Rose for EaseGill.
However, you do NOT need a permit for Pippikin, as it's on the other side of Ease Gill and has a different landowner (I think). You just go to Leck Fell House.[/quote]
I didn't know that you always get a permit, but now I do.
Stu
Active member
Glenn said:
Sorry Glenn, that should read "have to queue up for" which is still the case now. We have to stay off the Allotment for six months of the year and wait three months for permits, perhaps longer for weekend visits (loose quote from CNCC handbook). This is open access to other valid users of "open air recreation" and actually may not exclude cavers.
As to why I think this is so, well Nick suggests it's not a viable task to take on (is my understanding of his last post). Also from looking at the other cave based forums (BCA) it seems many of the officials favour the status quo.
Cookie
New member
stu said:
You make it sound as though we have decided to do nothing because we don't have the resources. This is not the case. If there was a worthwhile prize, the effort would be made. It has been discussed and considered and it is far from clear that we would be better of if every man, woman and child in the country had the right roam down any cave on open access land.
See here for more http://www.british-caving.org.uk/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=26
If open access is not seen as good then perhaps we should at the very least aim for removal of the largely pointless 'closed seasons'?
As for every man woman and child going down any cave, I doubt very much this would happen - when people have asked me about caving (say for instance workmates) they seem confused and puzzled as to why we need permits in the first place, they asume we can go down whichever we choose whenever we please...
As for caver numbers increasing - there are only so many of us, true certain caves may have a few groups in on certain ocassions but on the whole I doubt there would be that much difference to what we have now.
Stu
Active member
Cookie said:
I didn't, Nick did.
I'm not after a complete overhaul of the system. The permit system as I understand had nothing to do with access into the cave per se, but rather more to do with the access to said cave entrance i.e. across normally out of bound land. If the access is now open, why the need for permits to those fell?
Stu
Active member
Cookie
Have read the BCA topic before, so just re-acquainted myself.
What caves are at risk because of CRoW?
David Judson's point...
That's exactly why it should be made clear. I might go to one of these off the beaten tracks, get found out and blow the gaff for everyone.
As for the free for all - we know it won't happen. Even if it got to anywhere near that point a self governing quota limit isn't beyond the realms of possibility. That should be our choice, not some imposed limit.
Have read the BCA topic before, so just re-acquainted myself.
What caves are at risk because of CRoW?
David Judson's point...
That's exactly why it should be made clear. I might go to one of these off the beaten tracks, get found out and blow the gaff for everyone.
As for the free for all - we know it won't happen. Even if it got to anywhere near that point a self governing quota limit isn't beyond the realms of possibility. That should be our choice, not some imposed limit.
Qoute....
The Kinder-Scout Mass Trespass
On 24th April 1932 an organised mass trespass took place on Kinder-Scout, the highest hill in the Derbyshire Peak District. The event involved violent confrontation between gamekeepers and trespassers and resulted in the imprisonment of 4 of its leaders. It is widely regarded as the most important single action in securing public access rights to open spaces and is a model of effective civil disobedience.
During the 70th anniversary celebrations at Kinder Quarry, Hayward (the starting point for the trespass) Michael Meacher MP, the then environment minister, gave a public address on behalf of the government. He praised the actions of those involved in securing "far-reaching changes to unjust and oppressive law".
This a good example of a serving minister of the crown praising illegal activity in a cause regarded as 'politically correct' - though of course with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight!
Unquote
Draw your own conclusions.....
The Kinder-Scout Mass Trespass
On 24th April 1932 an organised mass trespass took place on Kinder-Scout, the highest hill in the Derbyshire Peak District. The event involved violent confrontation between gamekeepers and trespassers and resulted in the imprisonment of 4 of its leaders. It is widely regarded as the most important single action in securing public access rights to open spaces and is a model of effective civil disobedience.
During the 70th anniversary celebrations at Kinder Quarry, Hayward (the starting point for the trespass) Michael Meacher MP, the then environment minister, gave a public address on behalf of the government. He praised the actions of those involved in securing "far-reaching changes to unjust and oppressive law".
This a good example of a serving minister of the crown praising illegal activity in a cause regarded as 'politically correct' - though of course with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight!
Unquote
Draw your own conclusions.....
