Landowners - what did they ever do for us?

[bograt]

In reply to the peak district land owner. Whos taxes make available a great deal of the monies available so the eu can provide the subsidies that filter back to the dear whooly maggot farmers and heather growers of this country

The whole of the member countries taxpayers pay into a central fund which is then redistributed. 

 

[Cave_Troll]

just because my taxes pay for hill farmers subsidy does not get me rights to start digging in their fields any more than their taxes paying for my street lights give them the right to sump 5 tonnes of waste slurry in my front garden


"landowners visit these forums" should probably be more accurately described as "owners of land containing caves visit these forums".
The problem being if the discussion is along the lines of "That ****ker farmer that owns Fairy hole said i couldn't visit last night because he's got 500 lambs in that field, so i'm going back to night to open the gate onto the main road, go caving and then let the tires down on hist tractors... that'll teach him"

 

[The Old Ruminator]

its how land owners are approached. if cavers barge in stating a right in the first place things may well go rapidly down hill. i spent 25 years getting access to dig up private property where there were old rubbish tips. on occasion we even used a digger. we never got an access refusal because we went about it in the right way with photos and testimonials from previous landowners. now i cant believe the places we got into. getting the landowner interested in our projects helped a lot also. what worries me about the whole thing is if the landowner feels threatened by crow he just might fill the cave entrance in anyway. one landowner with a cave on his property expressed great concern that nobody had visited his cave for years. thats the sort of attitude you need to foster.i have not voted on the issue as i cannot decide what is right. regions vary too much to have a blanket approach.
so in defence of land owners i say treat them with the respect and you are half way there. my other caving friend is voting against the issue..

 

[David Rose]

That's a very good question, Martin. Some historical perspective may be useful here: until the mass trespass on Kinder Scout in 1932, huge tracts of upland Britain were effectively closed to walkers and everyone else. And that was only the start of the campaign that finally led, 68 years later, to the CROW Act 2000.

I have stated in these forums before that I find it depressing that so many vociferous cavers, especially on Mendip, seem to want to maintain the onerous and indefensible restrictions under which we, alone of outdoors enthusiasts, still labour.

So get this. What do landowners really think about the prospect of CROW being extended to caving? Some of them, I have heard from excellent sources, do have a major concern. It's not safety. It's not conservation. It's that they may not get a cut from commercially organised groups taking parties down holes on their land. You couldn't make this up. Landowners are worried about being deprived of a few quid they might otherwise rake in from that potential goldmine, commercial potholing. Amazing.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

thats the whole point david. mendip and the north are so different. i dont think any sort of mass trespass would help us down here. possibly the status quo is the best thing for us on mendip. it has worked pretty well through good will over the years. why upset the apple cart now.

 

[David Rose]

I'm not advocating mass trespass anywhere, OR. Just trying to answer Martin's question. I appreciate the situations in Mendip and the North are different. But I'm convinced that with a little care and tolerance, CROW access can be managed in Somerset without damaging fragile caves, and indeed, relationships. Elsewhere, the need is huge.

 

[cap n chris]

Landowners are worried about being deprived of a few quid they might otherwise rake in

It may only be a few quid to some, but with certain caves it probably makes a major contribution ... between scraping an existence and having a semblance of an OK one. I reckon there's at least a few caves in the UK that provide a four figure sum. Definitely enough to make a significant difference to an otherwise spartan life.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Let's just be clear on two points here

1) CRoW does not apply to commercial groups so no loss of income from that source

2) A lot of landowners that charge are either charging things like parking or for crossing non-CRoW land to get to CRoW land. Again this situation is not changed if CRoW applies to caving.

 

[Bottlebank]

I'm not advocating mass trespass anywhere, OR. Just trying to answer Martin's question. I appreciate the situations in Mendip and the North are different. But I'm convinced that with a little care and tolerance, CROW access can be managed in Somerset without damaging fragile caves, and indeed, relationships. Elsewhere, the need is huge.

Where? Certainly not in the Dales where overwhelmingly we have good relations and good access, albeit in some cases subject to meeting a few conditions which could be probably be eased through negotiation - access for DIM's for example?

It'd be good to see a clear list of Dales caves on access land where there is no access at all.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Can someone assure us we are not simply seeing a "nasty mill-owner won't let his plebeian mill-workers play on his land" debate here? Unless someone knows better than me, I thought the days of Victorian attitudes, or even 1930s ones, was just history nowadays.

 

[David Rose]

Known and unknown entrances to what may be potentially the greatest system in the North, that on Great Whernside, are on CROW access land, but have been closed to cavers for decades. Meanwhile, I fundamentally object to having to apply for permits to cave beneath Leck and Casterton Fells, to Penyghent, Ingleborough and elsewhere.

 

[Bottlebank]

Known and unknown entrances to what may be potentially the greatest system in the North, that on Great Whernside, are on CROW access land, but have been closed to cavers for decades. Meanwhile, I fundamentally object to having to apply for permits to cave beneath Leck and Casterton Fells, to Penyghent, Ingleborough and elsewhere.

David,

Access problems in that area are real but equally caving hasn't stopped there because of it, as I'm sure you will know.

Your fundamental objection is essentially a political one - nothing to do with what's best for caves or cavers?

Nowadays it typically takes me less than a minute to get a permit for Leck or Casterton for example, a quick email to the relevant permit secretary is all that's needed. Is that too much trouble for you? On going reform of the CNCC should make it even easier.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

you have to be careful with the hammer and nut scenario. surely the best for everyone is if things are done by agreement rather by compulsion. i think if i was a landowner feeling compelled to let anyone cross my land to enter a cave i would make sure a dead cow accidentally fell into the cave entrance to putrify away nicely . the government destroyed the savings industry by bringing in the financial services act. the nut got squashed and the baby went out with the bath water. this is why i distrust any legistratory compulsion. those on the wrong end tend to rebel. the law of unintended consequences. i sometimes wonder if those that are dead set on the crow thing are the same folk who dont like to see caves gated. i would dread to think what would happen at reservoir hole if access was not controlled and party size limited. we have good relations with longleat estates. they and cheddar caves have been helpful and understanding. ok its not a crow issue its a landowner issue so i am not off topic or getting enmeshed in the whole crow argument. like i said basically i feel neutral so thats why i wont vote.i just know how difficult i could make life for pesky cavers who thought they had a god given right to trample all over my land.
again sorry about the typing.

 

[Bottlebank]

its how land owners are approached. if cavers barge in stating a right in the first place things may well go rapidly down hill. i spent 25 years getting access to dig up private property where there were old rubbish tips. on occasion we even used a digger. we never got an access refusal because we went about it in the right way with photos and testimonials from previous landowners. now i cant believe the places we got into. getting the landowner interested in our projects helped a lot also. what worries me about the whole thing is if the landowner feels threatened by crow he just might fill the cave entrance in anyway. one landowner with a cave on his property expressed great concern that nobody had visited his cave for years. thats the sort of attitude you need to foster.i have not voted on the issue as i cannot decide what is right. regions vary too much to have a blanket approach.
so in defence of land owners i say treat them with the respect and you are half way there. my other caving friend is voting against the issue..

Old Ruminator,

I've a lot of respect for that position but one of the things that worries me a lot about the way many people (offline) are talking is that they are saying something similar. Some have and some  haven't followed the debate but they can't decide between the enticing carrot of free access for all and worries over knock effects.

Unless I've completely misunderstood the BCA's position they will only be counting the votes that are returned.

If you are concerned I think you really should consider voting no, we understand the status quo and I think you're probably suggesting you would prefer to keep it - but abstaining means your view won't count - which is a shame because you are absolutely right to be concerned by both the blanket approach and the risk to landowner relations.

Your last post crossed with this - but I think it still applies.

Cheers,

Tony

 

[The Old Ruminator]

thanks tony. i guess my situation would be if i lived near a bleak fell up north the answer is yes. if i lived on the cultivated agricultural land of mendip no. trying to do what is best for all cavers is the inescapable dilemma.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Can someone assure us we are not simply seeing a "nasty mill-owner won't let his plebeian mill-workers play on his land" debate here? Unless someone knows better than me, I thought the days of Victorian attitudes, or even 1930s ones, was just history nowadays.

You have a very parochial attitude indeed and you think wrong. Even though the Northern grouse moors are all access land it is still quite common to be accosted by a gamekeeper gun-in-hand demanding to know what you are doing on the moor after dark or asking what you have in your bag. And actually my local grouse moor is owned by a mill owner. Other moors near me are owned by the Duke of Lancaster, the Duke of Westminster and the Duchess of Devonshire all of whom have extremely zealous gamekeepers. If you go there in daylight looking like a walker you will have no problem whatsoever but anything else and you will be asked questions if they see you - I don't have a problem with that but I would prefer not to have to pretend to be a walker when I go caving.

 

[Simon Wilson]

its how land owners are approached. if cavers barge in stating a right in the first place things may well go rapidly down hill. i spent 25 years getting access to dig up private property where there were old rubbish tips. on occasion we even used a digger. we never got an access refusal because we went about it in the right way with photos and testimonials from previous landowners. now i cant believe the places we got into. getting the landowner interested in our projects helped a lot also. what worries me about the whole thing is if the landowner feels threatened by crow he just might fill the cave entrance in anyway. one landowner with a cave on his property expressed great concern that nobody had visited his cave for years. thats the sort of attitude you need to foster.i have not voted on the issue as i cannot decide what is right. regions vary too much to have a blanket approach.
so in defence of land owners i say treat them with the respect and you are half way there. my other caving friend is voting against the issue..

Old Ruminator,

I've a lot of respect for that position but one of the things that worries me a lot about the way many people (offline) are talking is that they are saying something similar. Some have and some  haven't followed the debate but they can't decide between the enticing carrot of free access for all and worries over knock effects.

Unless I've completely misunderstood the BCA's position they will only be counting the votes that are returned.

If you are concerned I think you really should consider voting no, we understand the status quo and I think you're probably suggesting you would prefer to keep it - but abstaining means your view won't count - which is a shame because you are absolutely right to be concerned by both the blanket approach and the risk to landowner relations.

Your last post crossed with this - but I think it still applies.

Cheers,

Tony

Bottlebank keeps mentioning the staus quo and I just want to remind people what the status quo is. The status quo is a state of conflict in which most cavers disagree with DEFRA and are becoming increasingly vocal about that disagreement.

 

[Bottlebank]

its how land owners are approached. if cavers barge in stating a right in the first place things may well go rapidly down hill. i spent 25 years getting access to dig up private property where there were old rubbish tips. on occasion we even used a digger. we never got an access refusal because we went about it in the right way with photos and testimonials from previous landowners. now i cant believe the places we got into. getting the landowner interested in our projects helped a lot also. what worries me about the whole thing is if the landowner feels threatened by crow he just might fill the cave entrance in anyway. one landowner with a cave on his property expressed great concern that nobody had visited his cave for years. thats the sort of attitude you need to foster.i have not voted on the issue as i cannot decide what is right. regions vary too much to have a blanket approach.
so in defence of land owners i say treat them with the respect and you are half way there. my other caving friend is voting against the issue..

Old Ruminator,

I've a lot of respect for that position but one of the things that worries me a lot about the way many people (offline) are talking is that they are saying something similar. Some have and some  haven't followed the debate but they can't decide between the enticing carrot of free access for all and worries over knock effects.

Unless I've completely misunderstood the BCA's position they will only be counting the votes that are returned.

If you are concerned I think you really should consider voting no, we understand the status quo and I think you're probably suggesting you would prefer to keep it - but abstaining means your view won't count - which is a shame because you are absolutely right to be concerned by both the blanket approach and the risk to landowner relations.

Your last post crossed with this - but I think it still applies.

Cheers,

Tony

Bottlebank keeps mentioning the staus quo and I just want to remind people what the status quo is. The status quo is a state of conflict in which most cavers disagree with DEFRA and are becoming increasingly vocal about that disagreement.

Simon,

That's a very over simplified and incomplete view.

The status quo is the present state of access.

If we knew most cavers disagreed with Defra we wouldn't need a poll, although I agree those who do have become more vocal - as have some who don't!

The impression I get is that like Old Ruminator many cavers aren't sure or don't care about this, but let's wait and see what the poll says before making firm statements about who thinks what. And lets see how many votes get returned. A low turnout would tend to confirm my impression.

The question is do we want BCA to campaign to change this status quo?

A "yes" vote does not mean it will change. What it does mean is that the BCA will be forced to spend a lot of time and money pushing for a change that may never happen, running a campaign that in itself may result in temporary or permanent damage to landowner relations, and that even if it's successful will probably make it more difficult over time to get permission to dig.

David Rose earlier mentioned Great Whernside. It's quite possible opposition to the campaign may emerge from landowners there.

I think at least so far no pro CRoW campaigner has tried to claim that landowner relations are likely to improve whilst the campaign is in progress, which is something.

No one on the "No" side of the debate is trying to pretend the status quo is perfect, of course it needs work, but we're fair better starting that work from where we are now than from the wrong end of long and unsuccessful campaign, especially if that's been contested.

 

[cavermark]

Status Quo:

"Get down, deeper and down
Down down, deeper and down
Down down, deeper and down
Get down, deeper and down"

Does that help?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Can someone assure us we are not simply seeing a "nasty mill-owner won't let his plebeian mill-workers play on his land" debate here? Unless someone knows better than me, I thought the days of Victorian attitudes, or even 1930s ones, was just history nowadays.

You have a very parochial attitude indeed and you think wrong. Even though the Northern grouse moors are all access land it is still quite common to be accosted by a gamekeeper gun-in-hand demanding to know what you are doing on the moor after dark or asking what you have in your bag. And actually my local grouse moor is owned by a mill owner. Other moors near me are owned by the Duke of Lancaster, the Duke of Westminster and the Duchess of Devonshire all of whom have extremely zealous gamekeepers. If you go there in daylight looking like a walker you will have no problem whatsoever but anything else and you will be asked questions if they see you - I don't have a problem with that but I would prefer not to have to pretend to be a walker when I go caving.

Thanks for the very enlightening observation on my thinking. I hear what you say, but if the "mill-owners" are still around, I don't see any reason for adopting the militant "mill-worker" attitude that some adopt.