Milwr tunnel and O.G.

[Ian Adams]

I do know Graham.

I wasn't really trying to persuade Nick to admit to anything and we are still working to try to find a solution behind all of this public debate.

I think we would (probably?) all agree that, if a landowner lays down terms for access then we must all respect that.

What I don't like (no poke at Nick because I also know he was not involved at the time) is when a club/group/body/person hides behind the phrase "landowner wishes" when, in fact, that "body" introduced <<< insert debate condition here >>> for their own means/ends.  In these cases, the reference to "Landowners wishes" are used to solicit support and favour from the caving community at large and I think that is wicked.

Of course, there will be many cases where the representation "landowner wishes" will be exactly that.

In some cases that is not true and a club/group passes off it's own agenda as "landowner wishes".

Ian

 

[shotlighter]

Sorry about that, your constant 'free access everywhere for all' rhetoric has swayed my assumptions.

While that's a nice idea, I know it is not possible. I have said so a number of times. You know this, as you have answered and interacted with a number of my posts saying so.

As for my causing "offence" to the club in question being the reason my club is not getting access? It was obvious before I posted that negotiations were going nowhere, and the offers of help were declined or ignored.

The GCC have a long history of refusing help. Several years ago, I secured an (unofficial) arrangement for one of British Coals shaft teams to bring a hydraulic cable cutter & recover the severed guide ropes that were damaging the buntings in OG shaft.
The offer was turned down on the basis of "how do we known that they know what they're doing"!!!
You just can't help people who don't want to helped.

 

[graham]

Ian

Is this "I know" as in I have seen the minutes of the meeting?

or "I know" as in I know that god loves me?

i.e is there evidence or simply belief?

 

[Ian Adams]

I understand your scepticism Graham.

The GCC agreement with UU was principally formulated by three GCC members. Two of these have since retired and one of whom is a significant member of UCET.

The original agreement was based on an agreement that another club used for a system elsewhere and was modified by GCC for the Milwr tunnel. I have the original agreement with hand written notes making the various changes throughout the document so I can see the ?first original? and the ?second original?. It was handed to me as the secretary of the club and it is a club document. The person who handed it to me is the author and he remains a pivotal member of this club.

I can say that ?I know? because I have both the agreement and the first hand testimony of one of the three authors.

Ian

 

[graham]

I understand your scepticism Graham.

The GCC agreement with UU was principally formulated by three GCC members. Two of these have since retired and one of whom is a significant member of UCET.

The original agreement was based on an agreement that another club used for a system elsewhere and was modified by GCC for the Milwr tunnel. I have the original agreement with hand written notes making the various changes throughout the document so I can see the ?first original? and the ?second original?. It was handed to me as the secretary of the club and it is a club document. The person who handed it to me is the author and he remains a pivotal member of this club.

I can say that ?I know? because I have both the agreement and the first hand testimony of one of the three authors.

Ian

Ian, if I read the above correctly then you were the secretary of the club and thus complicit in accepting the document about which you now complain.

Am I right?

 

[Blakethwaite]

No, I think he's saying he has a copy of the GCC agreement in the UCET library rather than he accepted/validated it at GCC sec?

Ian, why did your club mate assist in drafting the document if he is ideologically opposed to it & for what reason does he say that GCC inserted such a clause?

To play the Devil's advocate, I can see why such a clause could be included. This is what can accurately be described as a big f*** off shaft. Despite this no specialist knowledge or equipment is needed to descend it and any plonker with an Argos torch can theoretically get to the bottom. The shaft is in a relatively urbanised area on private business premises & is owned by a large utility company. It is also within a short drive of literally millions of people. Given this it strikes me that it would have been reasonable of GCC to enter into negotiations under the assumption that permission to use the shaft would not be granted therefore they would need to ensure that their proposal did as much to allay the utility co/landowner's concerns as much as humanely possible?

 

[graham]

To play the Devil's advocate, I can see why such a clause could be included.

Sure, I negotiated one access agreement for a cave right in the middle of a housing estate. It is locked, of course, and not with a Derbyshire lock, all the local kids own spanner sets. It is a leader system, as much as anything else to ensure good behaviour on the surface, but there are no restrictions on who might go down & we have guided interested locals down there many times.

Thing is, I wrote the access agreement, based on local knowledge and, by that stage, a clear understanding of what would be acceptable and what wouldn't, having been in discussion with the landowners & locals generally for a number of years before getting it agreed.

I am sure that there are some on here who thought I was 'empire building' though.

 

[Ian Adams]

Graham.

I am not (and never have been) a member of GCC. I did apply around 2004 but never received even an acknowledgment.

The original agreement was drawn up many years ago and, in fairness to all concerned (including GCC) I think it was pretty standard at the time and I do not think the attitude to ?access issues? existed as they do today with caving being much more niche then than it is now.

I think he's saying he has a copy of the GCC agreement in the UCET library rather than he accepted/validated it at GCC sec?

That is exactly right.

To play the Devil's advocate, ..... it strikes me that it would have been reasonable of GCC to enter into negotiations under the assumption that permission to use the shaft would not be granted therefore they would need to ensure that their proposal did as much to allay the utility co/landowner's concerns as much as humanely possible?

That?s a moot point and I guess we will never know the truth. I can say that GCC have never suggested this as the reason for the access arrangements. What I can also say is that the original model agreement was amended to encompass the proposed leader system that we are subjected to now. I can also say that there has been no effort to ease the access and GCC remain totally staunch in defending and upholding it.

why did your club mate assist in drafting the document if he is ideologically opposed to it & for what reason does he say that GCC inserted such a clause?

He isn?t ideologically opposed. He has been caving for 46 years and is very used to entrances being locked and controlled ? he sees it as the ?norm?.  I have not asked him ?why? such a clause was inserted (of course I could but I hadn?t thought to do so).

What matters now is the current agreement/arrangements. Our understanding is that UU have refused permission to use their entry points but we don?t have any details except, of course, GCC are maintaining their previous access arrangements.

Ian

 

[Bottlebank]

I should start by saying that I have no real interest in this, I'm simply making the observation! This has been going on for years and appears to be going nowhere.

At the moment it seems all we have is little more than a long term pissing contest which benefits no one and a lot of it seems to be based on misinformation or lack of understanding.

Reading this it strikes me that a good starting point would be for the GCC as the club with controlling powers, if that is the case, to put up a web site with a clear statement of the current situation, what they do and don't control, how if at all people can arrange access and so on, contact details and so on. This may already be there but I've tried googling it and nothing comes back.

Comparisons with Alderley, Parys Mountain, Great Orme etc may well be worth looking at, but the situations may also be very different. Alderley for example is essentially a collection of fairly shallow workings and most of the entrances lie in a very well used (by the public) area of National Trust property, potentially creating a problem for the Trust and an opportunity for the club to help them whilst at the same time gaining access. The end result is that after forty years or so there are many more open, albeit gated, entrances and far greater length of known passage. The leader situation is not that you have to be led but that you have to be accompanied. Trips are, I hope, easy to arrange. Certainly I can't recall any complaints. Digging and new exploration are possible but have to be agreed. From what I know of Milwr and OG this is a very different scenario.

Incidentally trips at Alderley for experienced cavers are not only open to green card holders but other cavers/miners as well, if you've no green card you simply need to become a DCC guest member for the day.

 

[NigR]

This latest information from Ian (Jackalpup) appears to provide the answers to my questions that Carter deftly avoided (and explains why he was so keen to do so).

As Ian says, this kind of thing (portraying the views and wishes of the access controlling body as being representative of those of the landowner) is far too prevalent (particularly in Wales) and has been for way too long.

GCC (and others like them) have brought their current problems upon themselves and, in my opinion, deserve everything they get both now and in the future.

Let's be honest here. Their locks and gates are just going to keep on disappearing aren't they?

 

[Bottlebank]

Oh - and like Jackalpup I also contacted the Grosvenor in the late eighties when I lived in Chester and enquired about membership and also never received a reply. I got over it though

 

[Blakethwaite]

Let's be honest here. Their locks and gates are just going to keep on disappearing aren't they?

Jackalpup & TimWatts appear to be trying to present their case in a calm, rational manner which will go someway towards winning them sympathy from other cavers.

Having the lunatic fringe jump on the bandwagon won't help them one bit.

 

[graham]

Let's be honest here. Their locks and gates are just going to keep on disappearing aren't they?

Jackalpup & TimWatts appear to be trying to present their case in a calm, rational manner which will go someway towards winning them sympathy from other cavers.

Having the lunatic fringe jump on the bandwagon won't help them one bit.

 

[NewStuff]

Really Graham? C'mon, you can post a bit more than a virtual backslap for a remark that fits your little rose-tinted view of the world.

How about you post something that's, oh, I dunno, constructive?

Given what's been said, have you anything to post that might actually help the situation?

 

[droid]

Sadly though, NigR may well be stating the Bleeding Obvious.

And to NewStuff: what about the Vet's dictum 'If you can't make things better, don't make them worse'?

Are YOUR comments constructive?

 

[NewStuff]

And to NewStuff: what about the Vet's dictum 'If you can't make things better, don't make them worse'?

Are YOUR comments constructive?

I'll refer You to this.

As for my causing "offence" to the club in question being the reason my club is not getting access? It was obvious before I posted that negotiations were going nowhere, and the offers of help were declined or ignored. My posting can't making anything worse (No access through GCC controlled points as has been the case for a number of years), and may (but it's a bloody long shot), incite a bit of soul searching, or enough external pressure to the club to make them realise that they are not playing with others nicely, and others beside local clubs do not think this is an acceptable way to do things.

 

[ChrisJC]

Let's be honest here. Their locks and gates are just going to keep on disappearing aren't they?

It would be good to try to move this forward without this one-track record on repeat eh?  :-\

Can you suggest a way forward? (I suspect you can), and are you prepared to enter into negotiations on behalf of the North Wales caving community to secure access? It would be interesting to know if your ideas are ever implemented in such an idealistic manner as you describe?

Chris.

 

[NigR]

Chris,

To answer your last question first;

My ideas have often been implemented in (as you put it) such an idealistic manner as I describe, not only by myself but also by many other active cavers in South Wales over the years. We do not gate the caves or extensions that we find and we do not impose artificial restrictions to prevent other people from going there. Think about some of the caves or passages you may visit, consider who discovered or extended them and you will soon begin to realise how different things might be now had they been found by somebody else.

Caving politics is not my strongpoint but I have indeed been involved in access negotiations on numerous occasions and would of course be willing to be involved again if it was thought that might help secure a favourable outcome. However, one thing I have always insisted upon is that the terms of whatever agreement is reached should apply to everyone, not just a select few. Hence, unless it can be demonstrated as being absolutely essential on conservation grounds, I would consider any form of compulsory leadership system as being unnecessary and unacceptable. Assuming locks and gates are deemed to be needed (for whatever reasons), I would suggest the adoption and implementation of a system whereby any caver (insured if need be) can obtain a key at any time. This would obviously require a certain amount of fine tuning but I am sure that most people (even myself) would be satisfied with something along these lines.

What do you think?

 

[jasonbirder]

Surely the issue with this is not the Leader system itself (which works perfectly well in many other caves and mines) but the fact that there were so few leaders (four originally I believe) and a big reluctance to allow any new leaders...

DYO has a leader system...and (weather conditions aside...)who has problems getting a trip there? Look at Alderley edge for example...etc etc...even Otter Hole which is only accessible for part of the year and on certain tides seems to make sure that everyone that wants to get in gets a chance (weather permitting)

I am mighty sure that at the outset UU didn't agitate for a clause that said...only a very few leaders...only leaders that are hard core GCC members...and make it very difficult to add any new leaders to the list...

If GCC added more leaders...got people who were members of other clubs signed off as leaders and if people who wanted to do any digging/exploratory work/surveying etc...got one of their particular group signed off as a leader...then surely that would solve all problems...UU would be happy as access would be controlled and only leader accompanied trips occurring...doubly happy as instances of gate removal and unauthorised trips would be greatly reduced...cavers would be happy as it would be much easier to arrange a trip....people with a special interest in the system would be happy as they'd be able to get on with their projects with minimal hassle and interference...and GCC wouldn't be expected to stump up a leader from their tiny (and aging pool) of official leaders to run every trip...

Surely a day where someone from GCC takes a group into the system...shows them round...checks they know the way in...the escape routes...no-go area's...understands UU conditions for being in the system...position of main rescue dumps etc...would be enough to get half a dozen people signed off as leaders...do that 3 times a year and voila! 18 additional leaders...and all the problems immediately go away...

Plus theirs a pool of good will, labour and expertise available anytime something major needs doing like clearing out/re-rigging the main shaft etc....

Or is that too sensible....

 

[Ian Adams]

Or is that too sensible....

I think it is a very positive post and a very positive step forward 

Ian