Loss of cave access, CROW and other things

[notdavidgilmour]

Ummmm, Have I mentioned anything Urbex related? :-\

 

[Stu]

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?

The CROW act is silent on the matter of caving. The act grants permission to access the land shown on the maps. The act lists a specific set of Exclusions (quoted earlier in this thread), caving is not in that list of exclusions. Perhaps of note is that rock climbing is also in  this situation and the view there is that if it is not explicitly excluded then it is allowed.

My reading of everything the BMC sent out suggests climbing is included page 2.

 

[NewStuff]

Newbies are getting a bit exciteable

Maybe they could try to remember this is caving, not urbex

And what difference, precisely, would that make to an individuals conduct? Does it make a single iota of difference to my posts on this subject that I also happen to wander around abandoned buildings, in culverts or abandoned mines?

Irrespective of whether it Urbex, Mine Exploration, Caving, Climbing, Canyoning or Via Ferrata... it's not the pursuit itself that dictates how an individual conducts themselves, and sweeping generalisations do not help the topic at hand.

 

[mikem]

http://www.british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=26

Situation doesn't seem to have changed much, apart from access to water has been spurned by Government, who advise "Voluntary Agreements" with landowners.

http://www.riversaccess.org/

Mike

 

[Stu]

http://www.british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=26

Situation doesn't seem to have changed much, apart from access to water has been spurned by Government, who advise "Voluntary Agreements" with landowners.

http://www.riversaccess.org/

Mike

David Cooke makes mention in his post on the link you gave, that cave access has been lost in certain cases because of CRoW. Which ones, anyone?

Quick edit: Dave Judson also says that in the minor, remote cases where people are discrete (assumption being that access is denied normally), then who the hell cares? My feeling is, that is a far more likely path to losing access physically (concrete  ), than looking to have caves on CRoW land included on a list. Tacitly he's saying pirating on the quiet is OK... Is that really a responsible and sensible way to go about access?

 

[martinr]

Can someone who believes in extending CROW to caving  please explain to me why there should be a right of access for one-and-all to something like this:

and secondly, could they estimate how long the formations would survive if there was unlimited access?

(I should add: the broken stall in the image was already broken before the passage was discovered; and I know the cave is not on CROW land )

 

[Stu]

Can someone who believes in extending CROW to caving  please explain to me why there should be a right of access for one-and-all to something like this:

and secondly, could they estimate how long the formations would survive if there was unlimited access?

(I should add: the broken stall in the image was already broken before the passage was discovered; and I know the cave is not on CROW land )

Why does it make it any more or less likely that open access will lead to desecration of caves? Someone can have a permit and still smash stal. Unless every trip on a permit is closely monitored then who can say when damage was caused (easily deniable).

I said it earlier; the conservation issue was cited as reason not to have CRoW enacted (mainly by the land lobby). Funny enough it didn't lead to hordes of people traipsing among the moors causing untold damage.

 

[graham]

I said it earlier; the conservation issue was cited as reason not to have CRoW enacted (mainly by the land lobby). Funny enough it didn't lead to hordes of people traipsing among the moors causing untold damage.

More than 250,000 walkers pound the paths of the Yorkshire Three Peaks ? Whernside, Ingleborough and Pen-y-ghent each year, creating a need for costly footpath maintenance.

Source.

 

[Stu]

To be clear on my stance:

Caves on CRoW should be access open. If a new dig is to be undertaken on CRoW land then the land owner will either say yes or no. It's CRoW land so objections against, being given because they don't want people walking on their land, are (contentiously) weak and probably not likely. Landowners have had over 10 years to get accustomed to what CRoW actually means in reality.

Caves on land out with CRoW need one on one local access agreements. It's their land after all.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

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?

The CROW act is silent on the matter of caving. The act grants permission to access the land shown on the maps. The act lists a specific set of Exclusions (quoted earlier in this thread), caving is not in that list of exclusions. Perhaps of note is that rock climbing is also in  this situation and the view there is that if it is not explicitly excluded then it is allowed.

My reading of everything the BMC sent out suggests climbing is included page 2.

Perhaps you could point me to the Paragraph in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or in regulations/orders made under the act, where Rock Climbing is explicitly mentioned? AFAIAA it is isn't, it is just that the the act and regulations don't exclude it, so it is included, like I said...

 

[Stu]

I said it earlier; the conservation issue was cited as reason not to have CRoW enacted (mainly by the land lobby). Funny enough it didn't lead to hordes of people traipsing among the moors causing untold damage.

More than 250,000 walkers pound the paths of the Yorkshire Three Peaks ? Whernside, Ingleborough and Pen-y-ghent each year, creating a need for costly footpath maintenance.

Source.

Which has what to do with CRoW? Wainwright has more to answer for than CRoW. The article actually reads like a successful partnership between all parties concerned rather than a doom and gloom apocalypse.

 

[graham]

I said it earlier; the conservation issue was cited as reason not to have CRoW enacted (mainly by the land lobby). Funny enough it didn't lead to hordes of people traipsing among the moors causing untold damage.

More than 250,000 walkers pound the paths of the Yorkshire Three Peaks ? Whernside, Ingleborough and Pen-y-ghent each year, creating a need for costly footpath maintenance.

Source.

Which has what to do with CRoW? Wainwright has more to answer for than CRoW. The article actually reads like a successful partnership between all parties concerned rather than a doom and gloom apocalypse.

Merely pointing out that hordes of people do indeed traipse and do indeed cause damage that requires maintenance.

 

[Stu]

Perhaps you could point me to the Paragraph in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or in regulations/orders made under the act, where Rock Climbing is explicitly mentioned? AFAIAA it is isn't, it is just that the the act and regulations don't exclude it, so it is included, like I said...

I don't know BitterEnd the Natural England doc has climbing listed (or is it just mentioned?) as an activity that is included.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/crow/restrict.htm

Maybe I'm just taking the above link and the BMC guidelines as read that climbing is included. 

 

[Stu]

I said it earlier; the conservation issue was cited as reason not to have CRoW enacted (mainly by the land lobby). Funny enough it didn't lead to hordes of people traipsing among the moors causing untold damage.

More than 250,000 walkers pound the paths of the Yorkshire Three Peaks ? Whernside, Ingleborough and Pen-y-ghent each year, creating a need for costly footpath maintenance.

Source.

Which has what to do with CRoW? Wainwright has more to answer for than CRoW. The article actually reads like a successful partnership between all parties concerned rather than a doom and gloom apocalypse.

Merely pointing out that hordes of people do indeed traipse and do indeed cause damage that requires maintenance.

Yes Graham they do... Some (not very imaginative) people walk the same route (for charity?) causing footpath erosion. And because of that one piece of evidence, you win. 

Meanwhile I'll carry on running and hiking (and let's not forget caving) on the other areas of CRoW where I never seem to see anyone else. Even though it's open access...

 

[mikem]

Would that be the same footpath they also used before CRoW legislation?

Mike

 

[martinr]

Why does it make it any more or less likely that open access will lead to desecration of caves?

Does increasing access = less damage? Or do you think limiting access = less damage?

 

[martinr]

... Some (not very imaginative) people walk the same route (for charity?) causing footpath erosion. ......

Meanwhile I'll carry on running and hiking (and let's not forget caving) on the other areas of CRoW where I never seem to see anyone else. Even though it's open access...

There  is an obvious problem with a cave passage though -  you cant move to the side like you can on the open fell, so the same piece of cave gets used time and time again. So I'd like to ask again: if you have a well-decorated passage, how to you reconcile uncontrolled access with cave conservation?

 

[graham]

Yes Graham they do... Some (not very imaginative) people walk the same route (for charity?) causing footpath erosion. And because of that one piece of evidence, you win. 

Meanwhile I'll carry on running and hiking (and let's not forget caving) on the other areas of CRoW where I never seem to see anyone else. Even though it's open access...

This isn't about winning or losing, it's about the best way to balance cave access against cave conservation.

You may be able to access other bits of CRoW land where you never see other people, but different things apply in caves. If a passage is large enough to allow straying off the footpaths into the empty bits there are all sorts of conservation issues that come into play. Don't believe me? Ask all the people who have spent so long laying taped paths in the Frozen Deep in Reservoir Hole.

Caves are not like moors and need to be treated differently. I would have thought that was obvious, but, seemingly, it isn't.

 

[Ian Adams]

It is all too easy to find an example to support a position (on either side of the fence). There will, no doubt, be many examples of ?pretties? that might become damaged (and have become damaged) both in caves with and without access restrictions.

Additional ?traffic? will inevitably lead to more ?wear and tear? (or call it damage if you like).

?Conservationism?  is not engrained in stone but it is, rather, a very comparative idealism. Of course we want to protect the ?pretties? but just how far do we go to do that ?  What constitutes something worth conserving ?  There are no absolute answers to these questions ? only opinions.

Man is, by his very nature many things, which include being an ?explorer? of things (stories of adventures though out all of the history man ), he is a ?builder? of things (just look at what we have accomplished) and he is also a ?destroyer? of things (look at what we have had to destroy to embrace our ?progress?). Arguably, a nice green field of grass and small lifeforms were destroyed when the farmer ran his plough across it ? which he did so he could plant his seeds to grow his vegetables. Should we have ?conserved? the field ?  Or was it ok to destroy it ?  I obviously realise that this example is at the far end of a spectrum but it serves to demonstrate that the value of conservation and the nature of conservation is a very moot point and we would probably all draw different lines in the proverbial sand.

In the photo, there is a broken stal ? nature has done this herself but had she not have done so ? how many people would consider it acceptable to break the stal to explore further (because they needed to, to get past) and how many would not ?

In short, I believe that the natural order of man is what it is and as much as we want to save and enjoy everything  - footpaths WILL be eroded and caves WILL be travelled. I don?t want to lose the ?pretties? any more than the next man but, equally, we should not impose our ?line in the sand? onto others.

Man will continue to explore, build and destroy ....

Ian

 

[peterk]

"we should not impose our ?line in the sand? onto others"  I think that's pretty close to a definition of anarchy.