Loss of cave access, CROW and other things

[NewStuff]

If you're not meant to be in there, than it's common sense that You don't publish pictures.  To do otherwise is to f*** it up for everyone.

However, in this region, there are several systems, of which you are not allowed to publish pictures, at all, despite having legitimate permission to be in there. in addition to "warden" schemes that never have any available wardens, and many other issues. As I said, Old Boys Club, Empire building, and "it's ours. If You want in, join *our* club". The attitude is, quite frankly, pathetic and childish, and reminds me of 8yr olds on a playground.

 

[estelle]

If it's a dig then the club doing the dig usually negotiates access

or more likely a small handful of individuals digging as a lot of digs aren't 'club' digs as such, in that they are often a mixed group of individuals who may or may not be from the same club. Chances are that no-one else apart from the diggers care about access when it's a just a mucky dig, but it's the bit where a 'dig' become a 'cave'and we 'create a monster'! Up until this point the landowner has usually had a small group accessing maybe once or twice a week at the most, but if it goes into something worth caving into, suddenly things change and all and sundry want to cave there! It does seem to be this point where more people are interested in the site and the traffic increases, that often ends up losing the access if renegotiated access isn't done sensitively and by the 'right' people - by 'right' there is no right or wrong - some landowners will be happier dealing with the devil they know (i.e. the digging team or club) and some may prefer some sort of higher level formal access with a regional body and i think the rest of the caving community has to respect this as ultimately it is the landowners decision.
I think the one thing everyone has to remember is that landowners are usually not cavers, they have little or no interest in caving politics and arguments and at the end of the day, if sh*t is being stirred, they are far more likely to tell cavers to just get of their land! I mean, look at it from their point of view - what's in it for them to let a bunch of mucky cavers go caving on their land? Some will see it as a chance to make money, and perhaps try and charge cavers loads of money to cross their land to the cave - Lamb Leer is a good example of a cave lost to that idea. Some won't care as long as it doesn't impact their life - which goes back to caver politics, stirring, pirating, etc. which has also clearly lost us access to caves. Access is a very difficult and clearly touchy subject, but one thing i do think is important to remember because caves are always found on someone's land, there is no one shoe to fit all!

 

[mad-dan]

I've tried to read this thread and the "other" quite a few times, but my mind just starts to melt and i give up.

can someone just tell me if this is right or wrong though please..

CROW land is land covered by "The countryside and rights of way act"?

you have the right to roam on land covered by CROW?

if there is a cave on land covered by crow, you can walk up to said cave in caving gear, but you cant go in without the permision of the land owner?

if the above is correct, how would extending CROW to give you permision to cave have any extra effect, either negertive or posertive on the land owner...

Nore would it give people the right to access caves on land not covered by CROW.

if all the above is right, i dont understand why anyone wouldnt want open access for all, on all caves on land covered by CROW unless it was so they could controll access and "empire build"

 

[Ian Adams]

Estelle,

Your overview is very good and I expect most (perhaps all?) readers will agree your sequence of events.

The contentious element is where the land owner is approached and representations for access are negotiated where the ?agenda? (laid down by the person(s) approaching the landowner) is not in the interests of cavers per se but, rather, for their own purpose. This ?empowers? that person/club or group and some of those people begin to command dominion over their peers and ?police? something that does not need to be policed. This includes making other people jump through hoops or even not allowing them access at all. Sometimes the approaching person(s) intentions are iniquitous even though they are probably unaware of it and may even believe that they are acting in the best interests of ?all?.

The main problem (I think) is that I do not believe any of us have the right to command, demand or dictate what we et al can or cannot do (with respect to caving).

Again, though, we have moved away from the original suggestion of extending CROW to allow for access to caves and ?digging? would not be embraced within that.


Dan,

You have the position exactly.

Ian

 

[cap n chris]

Eh?

Surely an access agreement is bound to contain certain stipulations*. Are you suggesting that an access agreement should just be a blank sheet of paper?

* Various things spring to mind (some or many of which might include): insurance/BCA membership, group size, minimum age, closed season/times, conservation considerations etc.).

You may believe, for whatever reason, that cavers might not have the right to "demand" such things, but landowners certainly do.

In your comment "cavers per se" how do you define a caver? - is it someone who within the space of ten minutes pops to a builders' merchants and buys a site helmet and a boiler suit and wears a badge with "I'm a caver, me" written on it? Bingo! - a caver is born.  How do you discern what makes a caver per se?

 

[Brains]

Should an access agreement include a prohibition on publishing photos / surveys of long known systems, or denying access to cavers from the wrong side of the border?

 

[Ian Adams]

An "Access Agreement" is not needed per se if CROW was extended to include entering caves.

Ian

 

[cap n chris]

Many caves extend WAY beyond the boundaries of the land their entrances are located within. How would CROW resolve things in such instances where the majority of the cave passage is in private ownership and set within non-CROW real estate?

 

[Brains]

Many caves extend WAY beyond the boundaries of the land their entrances are located within. How would CROW resolve things in such instances where the majority of the cave passage is in private ownership and set within non-CROW real estate?

How are such matters addressed now? Generally by turning a blind eye

 

[cap n chris]

I don't think people charged with drawing up functioning legislation are able to include a Blind Eye clause, though.

 

[notdavidgilmour]

Many caves extend WAY beyond the boundaries of the land their entrances are located within. How would CROW resolve things in such instances where the majority of the cave passage is in private ownership and set within non-CROW real estate?

But if you have a right to enter a cave as the entrance is on CROW land (and CROW was extended to caving) how would any land owner know / prove if you had explored parts of the cave beneath land in their private ownership?

 

[cap n chris]

Bumping into them while exploring their cave via the entrance on their land might be a giveaway.

Also, some caves have concealed data loggers which record numbers, direction etc..

 

[Ian Adams]

Many caves extend WAY beyond the boundaries of the land their entrances are located within. How would CROW resolve things in such instances where the majority of the cave passage is in private ownership and set within non-CROW real estate?

Assuming "some" caves do (and I am sure some will), then you have raised an interesting question. I am not a legislator and I don't know how that issue would be addressed.

I would be in favour of looking at that issue within the scope of reasoned debate were the prospect of an extenstion to CROW become a realistic possibility.

Ian

 

[cap n chris]

I think it is neither realistic nor possible. But this is just a hunch; perhaps someone with expert knowledge could guess how realistic and possible it is.

 

[mad-dan]

Many caves extend WAY beyond the boundaries of the land their entrances are located within. How would CROW resolve things in such instances where the majority of the cave passage is in private ownership and set within non-CROW real estate?

Just put a sign in the cave saying "this is the boundry, you must not pass this point" it works in cwmorthin/oakly

 

[notdavidgilmour]

Bumping into them while exploring their cave via the entrance on their land might be a giveaway.

Also, some caves have concealed data loggers which record numbers, direction etc..

But in the scenario we are debating, we have already established that the entrance may not be on their land.  If it is on their land but the land was covered by CROW then surely if CROW was extended to cover caves, bumping into them at the entrance still wouldn't be an issue?

 

[Ian Adams]

I think it is neither realistic nor possible. But this is just a hunch; perhaps someone with expert knowledge could guess how realistic and possible it is.

It depends on whether the legislators deliberately worded CROW to exclude caving or whether it was unwittingly excluded. It also depends on what a court of law would think the answer to that question was should it be brought before them.

My ?guess? would be that if caving was deliberately excluded then any form of campaign to have it instated would probably fail. On the other hand, if it was unwittingly excluded there is every chance of a campaign succeeding unless, of course, there was significant (valid?) opposition.

Ian

 

[Ian Adams]

Just put a sign in the cave saying "this is the boundry, you must not pass this point" it works in cwmorthin/oakly

Yes it does and I guess that would be one way of addressing the issue ....

 

[NigR]

Also, some caves have concealed data loggers which record numbers, direction etc..

Really?

 

[Ian Adams]

Draenen has (had?) one .....