Northern caving needs you

[Bottlebank]

Now you're equating what I do for a living with being a terrorist?

Could be your turn to buy next time I see you in Bar German, otherwise who knows what might happen

 

[cap n chris]

I shall buy you two and bring a white flag. We can negotiate the terms of my surrender at your leisure.

 

[Bottlebank]

It'll be my pleasure, in the meantime why don't you write to the CNCC secretary and ask him politely to change the wording as it offends a few lefty over sensitive types 

 

[cap n chris]

Did that months ago via ACI. Ahead of the game. Fingers crossed. I shall bow out now and the topic can return to the matter(s) in hand. 

 

[Andy Sparrow]

It would be interesting to know why the instructors/ACI are opposed?

It doesn't look like a particularly bad deal from their point of view - at least compared with the present situation?

I can't speak on behalf of ACI but for myself the objection is to the persistent use of the word 'commercial'.  Using the 'C' word is simplistic and misleading.  It does not convey the complexity of the instructing world.

Imagine that a school or scout group wants to cave.  Consider these scenarios....

1. They have their own qualified instructor but no kit.  They hire the equipment from a commercial provider.

2. They go to a charitable organisation (eg- youth project) or non-profit making centre (eg: Charterhouse Centre on Mendip).  They pay for the activity.

3.  They go to a non-profit making centre, who (as they often do) employ a freelance professional instructor to lead the session.

4.  They go to a non-profit making centre, who (as they sometimes do) sub-contract a commercial company to lead and equip the session.

5.  They go directly to a commercial company.


The last scenario is clearly commercial, but what about the others?  Arriving in a minibus and being led by an instructor does not by default mean that a commercial business is being run.  This is the reality I would like the landowners to understand.

Andy,

All those scenarios have an element of commercial involvement - albeit not all for profit or all from the instructor.

If you're saying you would prefer an agreement which allowed free access for instructors working on a not for profit basis that would make sense - and from the sound of things could quite possibly be negotiated?

Or is it simply the word itself you object to?

Tony

The BCA recently published the draft document on 'commercial caving' in an attempt to inform landowners on the subject.  While the document very accurately described the different manifestations of commercial caving, it failed entirely to make the point that I have tried to make here.  It will not help any of us if landowners are led to believe that only two types of caving exist - club/sport caving, and 'commercial' caving.  The reality is much more complex, and that is why we need to adopt the term 'instructed caving'.  If we are not careful every novice group that arrives in a minibus might be assumed by a landowner to be 'commercial'.

 

[martinm]

The reality is much more complex, and that is why we need to adopt the term 'instructed caving'.  If we are not careful every novice group that arrives in a minibus might be assumed by a landowner to be 'commercial'.

Absolutely agree with this Andy. Instructed is a much better term. I also doubt if the instructors are making that much profit from it anyway, taking into accounts transport costs, etc. (And the work is seasonal and weather dependant making it even more difficult.)  This charging for commercial access will probably just make things worse for them as they will have to pass the new permit charges (when they are agreed) onto their clients in some way which might actually put some peeps off using their services.

In the Peak, we treat everyone the same, whether instructed or not. As long as they respect the cave environments and tell their clients to do the same (and I'm sure they do) there is no difference between an instructed group of cavers and a large group of club cavers.

The land agents in the Dales need to be told that, instead of bowing to their misguided view that people are making a profit from taking instructed groups around caves under their land.

If I am wrong on this, then I am sorry, but that's how it appears to me.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

 

[droid]

If 'professional' instructors don't make a profit from their instructing, why do they do it?

Altruism?

 

[cap n chris]

It's vocational and a work/life-balance thing: the income is minimum wage but the lifestyle makes up for it sufficiently.

Also, I rather like caving. Definitely vocational. Better off on benefits, most likely.

 

[Simon Wilson]

In the Peak, we treat everyone the same, whether instructed or not. As long as they respect the cave environments and tell their clients to do the same (and I'm sure they do) there is no difference between an instructed group of cavers and a large group of club cavers.

When I first started I paid my subs to a club and was instructed by older members of the club. Later on I led club caving trips myself and I also took people caving who had paid an outdoor centre; those two scenarios didn't look much different.

There would be lots of ways of getting round any fees. Don't go in a mini bus, set up a club and charge a daily club membership, do it through an existing club and ask for a donation etc. I'm sure people could be imaginative. But hopfully no charging will ever happen if people go and vote against it.

 

[Cavematt]

Hi Andy (and others) it's nice to see some constructive comments.

I would be interested to know, from those who are professional instructors (or whatever term you prefer), do you actually want the CNCC to represent you and provide an opportunity to access permits for your groups (not necessarily in the terms outlined in the current proposal, but just in general) or would you prefer the CNCC was not involved?

Do you think that the term 'instructed caving' could be mis-represented? For example, university clubs during their first term are instructed to some extent by the more experienced members.

I think the term 'commercial' has (rightly or wrongly) been used to try to distinguish against those doing it to make profit for themselves (and it is this which I believe the landowners have expressed concerns over).

The distinction could lie in whether the person doing the instructing is doing so for profit (either directly for themselves or another company) or whether it is done on a voluntary or not-for-profit basis.

You are right that many people who would fall under the commercial caving proposal would be instructors doing it on a voluntary basis, perhaps for a charity, or the trip would be organised to cover costs only on a not-for-profit basis (I guess an example perhaps being the Scouts, although this is just a guess). It would be nice to speak to the landowners to see whether such groups could be exempted as they are not making financial gain from the land (a vote in favour of the proposed wording change does not mean this cannot happen - it is simply a vote in favour of changing the constitution and does not lock down the fine details of how the system should work).

I think this would also go some way towards calming peoples fears that this is the start of charging for access for all cavers (for which there is absolutely no evidence to support, and no desire expressed from any side to implement).

A possible pitfall of course is should it be the job of the CNCC to check each request to decide who does and who does not qualify as a profit-making group? The CNCC has already stated that it does not actively wish to represent 'commercial' groups but is offering to do so because they feel this is the best way to meet the landowners needs, sustain access and relations, and to avoid clashes with recreational cavers. I suspect that going as far as making decisions about who does and does not qualify as a not-for profit organisation would be far beyond the remit of the CNCC committee.

What do people think?

I think this is all valuable feedback, and regardless of whether the 'commercial' caving amendment to the constitution is passed, this is something that could/should be considered over the next few years particularly through consultation with professional caving instructors/commercial groups.

 

[Stu]

It's vocational and a work/life-balance thing: the income is minimum wage but the lifestyle makes up for it sufficiently.

Also, I rather like caving. Definitely vocational. Better off on benefits, most likely.

About 10% of my instructional work time is caving (I am, for a full time, career freelance instructor, very busy). The rest is climbing, mountaineering etc. Sat on a near gale swept, rain deluged mountain side, waiting for the group I was remotely supervising, to pass their checkpoint I crunched some numbers - I'd earn (give or take a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing of numbers) the same amount on four days a week on minimum wage at B&Q...

It's just my burden and as the great Bob said - "every man's burden is heaviest". The reality is, yes droid, money is made but I nor anyone else I know will be driving around in a Ferrari any time soon.

Tourism in the rural areas of the UK is a massive economic boost. Instructors play their part in this. Don't knock us with your petty, snide asides to prove some point or other...

 

[Stu]

I think this is all valuable feedback, and regardless of whether the 'commercial' caving amendment to the constitution is passed, this is something that could/should be considered over the next few years particularly through consultation with professional caving instructors/commercial groups.

A sensible proposition.

 

[Simon Wilson]

What do people think?

I think that the CNCC is in real mess because a few people have built an empire and are over extended. We should stop the empire building and reduce the scope of the CNCC back to basics. I think we should question if the CNCC needs a Training Officer or a Conservation Officer. A clear line should be drawn between the CNCC and the resin anchor programme which would be far better done by caving clubs and individuals on a national basis under the umbrella of the BCA.

 

[Pete K]

The CNCC in its current form is not appropriate to represent individual or instructed caving groups. It is not a question of preference but practicality.
Option 1: Form new a new body to deal with professional caving and one for individual cavers. Landowners now need to deal with 3 bodies who 'represent' caving.
Option 2: Change the CNCC to a modern body in a more DCA type model. It represents on equal footing the interests of individuals, clubs and professionals without prejudice. Perhaps a rebirth as the North England Caving Association - NECA?
Option 3: Change nothing but make certain the CNCC keeps its fingers out of dealings that impact the individual caver and the instructed groups. They say they have no wish to represent these groups yet it seems they are doing so without consultation.

IMO as a pro caver, club caver and committee attendee, the CNCC has had its day in its current form. Modernise to represent the actual cavers who need you or prepare to be sidelined by new groups who will.

 

[Stu]

The CNCC in its current form is not appropriate to represent individual or instructed caving groups. It is not a question of preference but practicality.
Option 1: Form new a new body to deal with professional caving and one for individual cavers. Landowner now need to deal with 3 bodies who 'represent' caving.
Option 2: Change the CNCC to a modern body in a more DCA type model. It represents on equal footing the interests of individuals, clubs and professionals without prejudice. Perhaps a rebirth as the North England Caving Association - NECA?
Option 3 Change nothing but make certain the CNCC keeps its fingers out of dealings that impact the individual caver and the instructed groups. They say they have no with to represent these groups yet it seems they are doing so without consultation.

IMO as a pro caver, club caver and committee attendee, the CNCC has had its day in its current form. Modernise to represent the actual cavers who need you or prepare to be sidelined by new groups who will.

Option 2 is something I've thought of as being an excellent proposition. Why the need for a new body though? Why can't all the regions be brought into BCA such as happens in virtually any NGB I have dealings with?

BCU = Canoe England, Scottish Canoe Assoc, Canoe Wales - then their various regions within country boundary.
MTA = MLTE, MLTS, MLTI etc

I could go on. Centrally led with the regions split to deal with the local issues they have the expertise and personnel to deal with (you wouldn't lose the local feet on the ground, they'd just not be wearing a CNCC hat but a BCA regional officer hat).

 

[Pete K]

There are many models of NGB and all work to some extent. I don't have a problem with the current system provided all the parts are working correctly, which clearly they are not. Someone will no doubt be able to explain how we came to have the current organisational structure and I don't personally hold a complete rebirth as a priority.
I do stand by Option 2 in regards to the CNCC. Don't view it as a demolition, simply a renovation and modernisation.

 

[Stu]

Don't view it as a demolition, simply a renovation and modernisation.

Hear, hear. Hoping Saturday is more evolution and not just just a bloodbath revolution.

 

[kay]

I think we should question if the CNCC needs a Training Officer or a Conservation Officer.

Are you saying we (the caving community) don't need these functions at all? Or if some part of what they do is needed, what would be your alternative way of getting the work done?

 

[Alex]

How about economic caving, but I guess that could be confused with taking solar powered lamps underground.

 

[kay]

How about economic caving, but I guess that could be confused with taking solar powered lamps underground.

... which suggests a new categorisation of efficient vs non-efficient caving