Loss of cave access, CROW and other things

[NigR]

Bloody hell, Rhys - I'm not even sure which thread to post on now!

Tell you what, I'll post on this one but if you want to move it to the other one then feel free to do so. Fair enough? (But please don't ban me if I've done it wrong.)

I have never met Ian and know very little about him other than that he is based in North Wales. Judging from his posts, he talks a lot of common sense and it is clear that he has direct experience of the vagaries of the access system in the area where he has chosen to live. As such, I think his views are relevant when applied to a different area, particularly when parallels do exist.

I am not questioning your decision to moderate this thread by splitting it and beginning another (although, as I have already said, I do find it somewhat confusing) so you cannot ban me on those grounds. I do, however, take exception to your description of Ian's views as "wild rantings". You attempt to justify this by quoting (completely out of context) one particular comment he has made. By doing so you have most decidedly knocked him out of his stride, at the same time taking attention away from any validity his arguments might hold. The other thread has already been taken over by people whose only intention is to bring scorn upon someone whose views do not match their own. I dare say one of their number is at this very moment wading through forgotten caving journals from days gone by trying to unearth something else with which to discredit him.

Sorry, Rhys but I am very disappointed that you have felt the need to resort to tactics such as these. (Will I get banned now for saying this?)

 

[Rhys]

Nig

Given that your last post does not relate to Carno, I've moved it to the new thread.

I've been in correspondence with Ian/Jackalpup. Though not particularly happy, he is prepared to put this issue in the past and move on.

I was just trying to keep the general access debate separate from the Carno issue. Drifting of topic is natural and expected on forums. Ian certainly wasn't the first to stray off topic but his lengthy postings were going to far. Perhaps I should've split it sooner.

I'm not adopting any sort of "tactic" here, just trying to keep the two debates separate. There's no desire to silence or censor anyone. Even Ian's comments comparing access controllers to the Nazis have not been deleted or moved!

Rhys 

 

[NigR]

No problem with moving the post, Rhys - thought you might want to!

Glad to hear that Ian has not been put off because I genuinely do think his contributions add to the value of the debate.

Yes, I do accept that it is difficult to decide how far to allow a post to drift off topic. Taking this to the extreme, if you look at the OP's first (and only!) post in the other thread he actually mentions three distinct things - the Carno situation, other recent events regarding loss of access in South Wales, Cambrian Caving Council's involvement (or lack of). Perhaps you should have split these into three separate threads from the very start?!

On a general note, the major problem (in my opinion) with deliberately moving any thread to this section (i.e UK Caving) is that it tends to quickly get subsumed and lost amongst the multifarious other topics. This has certainly happened with threads concerning access in the past. Perhaps a better option would be to create a separate section entitled "Access"? Failing that, how about changing the title of the Conservation section to  "Conservation and Access"? I would be grateful if you could give these proposals serious consideration.

 

[notdavidgilmour]

Having read the original thread as well as this one.  Well done to David for raising the issue.  I fully agree with posts made earlier in the thread that the CCC should be doing more.  It's a shame this topic has been split but hey, that's in the past.  Jackalpup & NigR have some very valid points and talk a lot of sense.

 

[cap n chris]

[gmod]Keep it civil - recent reported inflammatory posts removed. Access is/has been a heated topic within caving ever since caves were invented but don't let your emotions run through your fingertips and keyboard onto this forum; that's what pubs are for.[/gmod]

 

[NigR]

Even Ian's comments comparing access controllers to the Nazis have not been deleted or moved!

Perhaps it is time for moderators to start moderating other moderators?

Not complaining or arguing with the decision to edit my previous post (to do so in public would be to risk a ban), just pointing out that the the major part of the offending sentence was taken verbatim from the above-quoted comment by Rhys! It was a throwaway remark on my part, intended to lighten the mood rather than inflame it.

As a result, I was subjected to a nasty and vicious personal attack from another forum
member. This used foul and abusive language which upset my wife when she read it. Rather than reply in kind, I posted a perfectly reasonable response which clearly exposed the mindset of the person responsible. Both posts, along with a further observation from somebody else, have since been taken down.

The forum guidelines, as pointed out by Rhys to Ian the other day, clearly state that personal insults/attacks are a bannable offence. So, having been the victim of such myself, I would like to know if this ultimate sanction will now be invoked?

 

[Rhys]

Nig

Your questions and comments on moderation will not be addressed on a public board any further. Please send me and/or Chris a personal message.

Feel free to continue using this thread for discussing "Loss of cave access, CROW and other (related) things".

Rhys

 

[NigR]

Rhys,

Fine. PM sent.

Nig

 

[notdavidgilmour]

I am also a little miffed that my comment was removed, as it did not breach any policy.  It was highlighting an observation by Jackalpup and an opinion regarding the CCC 

[gmod]I have now restored an edited form of your original post[/gmod]

 

[Rhys]

Not wishing to be accused of stifling the access debate, here's some issues that I've been pondering...

In principle I was thinking that it would be nice if we did in fact have an unambiguous "right to cave" established on all CROW (open access) land.

I don't really accept the argument that agreement to dig would never be granted if it automatically would lead to a right to cave. After all, the land owner only really sees people walking across the surface when they go caving. The effect on the surface would be minimal compared to digging and if the cavers have third party insurance through BCA membership, surely the landowner does not have any justified legal fears - the right-to-cave legislation could clarify any such legal worries in any case.

Then I started to think "What happens to existing gated caves on such land?" Off the top of my head I can think of OFD top entrance, Tunnel Cave top entrance, Agen Allwedd, Ogof Cnwc (Darren) which all fall into this category. When the right to cave comes in, do all those gates have to be removed? What happens to the rules that are in place relating to these caves? Could commercial caving take place? Could cavers use carbide? Could cavers enter with unlimited group sizes?

Perhaps exceptions might have to be made where the cave is an SSSI or a significant bat roost or has a dangerous pitch just inside the entrance. Might some local bye-laws need to be enacted to protect individual caves?

Perhaps the right could be limited to BCA members only rather than applying to the general public at large.

Of course, without a gate, there isn't really any practical control on access. The situation with cavers pirating permit-only caves in the Dales last year sort of demonstrates that.

How would all this work in practice? I'm not sure a blanket right to cave would be any simpler or more satisfactory than the patch-work arrangement we have now, but I'd like to be proved otherwise...

Any thoughts?

Rhys

 

[graham]

In principle I was thinking that it would be nice if we did in fact have an unambiguous "right to cave" established on all CROW (open access) land.

I don't really accept the argument that agreement to dig would never be granted if it automatically would lead to a right to cave. After all, the land owner only really sees people walking across the surface when they go caving.

Let us say that you own a piece of land that at present no-one has any such rights over. You allow a dig. Which goes. Now thousands of strangers have a potential right to access your property. How do you think such a move would affect the value of the land should you decide to sell it?

The effect on the surface would be minimal compared to digging and if the cavers have third party insurance through BCA membership, surely the landowner does not have any justified legal fears - the right-to-cave legislation could clarify any such legal worries in any case.

It's not so much the legal fears, though they do exist, as the financial ones as outlined above.

Then I started to think "What happens to existing gated caves on such land?" Off the top of my head I can think of OFD top entrance, Tunnel Cave top entrance, Agen Allwedd, Ogof Cnwc (Darren) which all fall into this category. When the right to cave comes in, do all those gates have to be removed?

If an absolute right of entry exists then yes, they would.

What happens to the rules that are in place relating to these caves?

Most, if not all of them become null.

Could commercial caving take place?

Potentially that could be prevented by legislation, but it is virtually impossible to police if there is no other oversight of the access.

Could cavers use carbide?

What would stop them?

Could cavers enter with unlimited group sizes?

Yes, as each person in a party would have the right to enter the cave.

Perhaps exceptions might have to be made where the cave is an SSSI or a significant bat roost or has a dangerous pitch just inside the entrance. Might some local bye-laws need to be enacted to protect individual caves?

Ah but who decides which caves need such protection - and why? The nazis?

Perhaps the right could be limited to BCA members only rather than applying to the general public at large.

I'd just love to see someone try to get the BCAs membership enshrined and defined in statute!

Of course, without a gate, there isn't really any practical control on access. The situation with cavers pirating permit-only caves in the Dales last year sort of demonstrates that.

Quite correct.

How would all this work in practice?

Badly. Especially from the point of view of cave conservation.

I'm not sure a blanket right to cave would be any simpler or more satisfactory than the patch-work arrangement we have now, but I'd like to be proved otherwise...

Why? What is actually wrong with the current arrangements? OK, not all of them work perfectly all the time, but a great many cavers up and down the land work hard to negotiate and administer them - all volunteers - only to be criticised and insulted.

Any thoughts?

Some but I'll not debate further if the nasty insults return.

 

[Rhys]

I don't really accept the argument that agreement to dig would never be granted if it automatically would lead to a right to cave. After all, the land owner only really sees people walking across the surface when they go caving.

Let us say that you own a piece of land that at present no-one has any such rights over. You allow a dig. Which goes. Now thousands of strangers have a potential right to access your property. How do you think such a move would affect the value of the land should you decide to sell it?

But, if we're talking about open access land, the great unwashed already have the right to ramble across it whenever they like. They can look at the entrance, why not go in? What's the difference?

 

[Rhys]

I'm not sure a blanket right to cave would be any simpler or more satisfactory than the patch-work arrangement we have now, but I'd like to be proved otherwise...

Why? What is actually wrong with the current arrangements?

It just seems like a nice simple ideal? Dunnit?

 

[Ian Adams]

Prior to CROW no one had the ?right? to simply use land without the owners consent. Even with CROW, there are limitations that anyone taking advantage of the act must adhere to. How can landowners ?police? the people who use their land under the CROW act ?  In short, the legislation dictates what some one can or cannot do and we have a court system to deal with people who break the law.

The question of how the caves would be policed if they fell within CROW has been asked; I think there is already a basic framework in place which would certainly starting point if all gates were removed and rules/conditions set by the controlling access bodies were lifted, that being;

The ?law? still applies, CROW rules still apply. SSSI rules still apply. CCW and NE still have their mandate in respect of conservation.

I appreciate there are a lot of volunteers who help organise ?access?  - would they not see an extension to CROW as being extremely helpful to them in that they would not need to spend nearly as much ?volunteer? time ?

Sometimes, when something is changing, it may be better to re-build from the base upwards. Why not start with ?baby steps? and just look at CROW first and leave the issue of digging and access to non-CROW land until later (since it may never come to fruition in any event).

Ian

 

[mikem]

Just as well cavers are creating access to more systems than we are losing then!

To bring things back to the Clydach Gorge, Ogof Nant Rhin was originally accessed by 3 tight squeezes and had some stunning formations, it's now, 10 years later, an (admittedly awkward) through trip with a much larger lower entrance and a lot of the formations have been trashed and this definitely wasn't done by commercial groups or the public...

Mike

 

[notdavidgilmour]

I'm not sure a blanket right to cave would be any simpler or more satisfactory than the patch-work arrangement we have now, but I'd like to be proved otherwise...

Why? What is actually wrong with the current arrangements? OK, not all of them work perfectly all the time, but a great many cavers up and down the land work hard to negotiate and administer them - all volunteers - only to be criticised and insulted.

If applied and administered correctly, I'm sure it would be simpler and more satisfactory than the current system.  If I owned land upon which a cave or mine was situated, I would feel more comfortable negotiating access with a recognised body (BCA / CCC etc.) who acted for all cavers in the region rather than one person within a caving club.  I think being approached by a spokesperson from each of the possible numerous clubs which may be in the area would be enough for me to say "right, I don't want anyone going in"

I appreciate the many hours that cavers put in negotiating access with landowners, which is great if access is open to all local caving clubs and also accommodates requests from clubs further afield.  But many cavers / clubs are negotiating access and being obstructive when approached by other cavers / clubs who may also want to see what's inside.

 

[droid]

Name them.

 

[cap n chris]

If I owned land upon which a cave or mine was situated, I would feel more comfortable negotiating access with a recognised body (BCA / CCC etc.) who acted for all cavers in the region rather than one person within a caving club.

I wouldn't.

 

[Stu]

In principle I was thinking that it would be nice if we did in fact have an unambiguous "right to cave" established on all CROW (open access) land.

I don't really accept the argument that agreement to dig would never be granted if it automatically would lead to a right to cave. After all, the land owner only really sees people walking across the surface when they go caving.

Let us say that you own a piece of land that at present no-one has any such rights over. You allow a dig. Which goes. Now thousands of strangers have a potential right to access your property. How do you think such a move would affect the value of the land should you decide to sell it?

If it's access land (as I assume that's what we're talking about), why would it affect the value any more or any less? You could still have thousands of people walking across it anyway. 

This was one of the tenets the anti-CRoW lobby tried to use in the original discussions. Conservation and erosional problems were also mentioned within the same breath. The World didn't seem to fall off its axis once CRoW was enacted.

 

[notdavidgilmour]

If I owned land upon which a cave or mine was situated, I would feel more comfortable negotiating access with a recognised body (BCA / CCC etc.) who acted for all cavers in the region rather than one person within a caving club.

I wouldn't.

If you extended your quote of me to include the next line instead of quoting me out of context, you would read that this often leads to many people from various clubs arguing over who 'holds the key'