Northern caving needs you

[martinm]

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

Andrew Hinde has done a fantastic job as Conservation Officer! See the latest edition of Speleology. Cleanups, fence and stile repairs, access restored to caves. Without him and his volunteers none of that would have been acheived.

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.

It is already done like that, CNCC just sort out the training of bolt installers, etc. and coordinate things. At this they do an excellent job.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

 

[Badlad]

Going back a number of posts on the different categories of commercialism in caving.  Question;

Is it commercial if a caver joins a club, solely because he has to in order to get a permit to access certain caves.  This course of action has been suggested to me several times by the Council of Northern Caving Clubs.

There is a transaction of money for the sole purpose of gaining access to certain caves.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

I suspect not. I suspect the nebulous thing that is trying to be pinned down is:- is someone on the caving trip being paid to be there. I suspect the landowner's agents just want to "tax" people/organizations who are prepared to pay to have someone take them caving.

So if a school pays a teacher to take some kids caving then they must have a bit of dosh to spoon over to the landowner. If a stag party pay a CIC for a day underground then again they pay the landowner through the CIC. But if a volunteer scout leader takes some scouts then no one is being paid to be there (even if they hire kit) and so do not pay the landowner.

For the avoidance of doubt I do not support paying for access and feel this is fairly petty on the part of the landowners given the small sums of money involved (but then that is probably why they are wealthy landowners and I am not...)

 

[Bottlebank]

I don't know why they've asked for a payment - in fact I'm not sure they did - there was a suggestion that it was CNCC who suggested it.

If they have my best guess is that having negotiated access and agreed no commercial caving (sorry Andy/Chris!) and having then discovered that it was taking place anyway they are simply saying in principle if you make a profit from our land we expect a token payment in return.

Must admit while I generally don't wish to see payment for access I do support it in certain situations - for example heavily used caves where caver traffic results in track or path damage for example. I suspect chucking a pound or two per head to the farmer in compensation is a small price to pay to maintain goodwill, whether it's used to repair the damage or not doesn't really matter. Alum, P8 and Giants are examples that spring to mind, where I'm happy to pay.

 

[cap n chris]

While it might seem like a reasonable and fair proposition and the principled thing to do be very careful/aware that you're not moving towards cash for access, gentlemen. Law of Unintended Consequences etc.. I imagine club cavers might be less than happy if landowners soon begin time-sharing big chunks of access to the highest bidder (probably commercial operators, if you must insist on using the term). Isn't the expression "Money talks"?

There is also another logical consequence but you can work that one out for yourselves.

 

[Simon Wilson]

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

Andrew Hinde has done a fantastic job as Conservation Officer! See the latest edition of Speleology. Cleanups, fence and stile repairs, access restored to caves. Without him and his volunteers none of that would have been acheived.

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.

It is already done like that, CNCC just sort out the training of bolt installers, etc. and coordinate things. At this they do an excellent job.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

Andrew Hinde is an employee of Natural England paid to do cave conservation work and to organize volunteers; the CNCC do not necessarily have to be involved.

The resin anchor programme is carried out by the CNCC TG which is an incorporated part of the CNCC. The anchor programme is in complete disarray and could be sorted out more easily if it the CNCC was less incestuous. The CNCC TG should be dis-incorporated.

The CNCC do many things badly and could do fewer things better.

 

[MarkS]

I've had a read through the CNCC info on commercial caving, a large chunk of which I'm fairly puzzled by, so I don't think I could say that my views lie particularly on either side of the fence.

One thing that intrigues me, though, is the cash for access theme. On the one hand I really don't like the idea of risking setting a precedent for it, but at the same time there are already fees in place for caves like Alum, Longchurn, Giants, Oxlow, Maskhill, Nettle, JH, P8 (and presumably others) which I get the impression doesn't seem to particularly bother most people?

Is the difference simply the (potential) magnitude of the payment, or something to do with accessland vs non access land, or something else I've missed?

 

[cap n chris]

Simplistically it's the notion that once landowners realise they have a choice of getting significant and regular sums from commercial operators or a warm fuzzy feeling by being charitable towards random groups of clubs there is a risk that the former will gain the ascendant to the detriment of the latter. Or something along those lines. Perhaps.

 

[Bottlebank]

Andrew Hinde is an employee of Natural England paid to do cave conservation work and to organize volunteers; the CNCC do not necessarily have to be involved.

The resin anchor programme is carried out by the CNCC TG which is an incorporated part of the CNCC. The anchor programme is in complete disarray and could be sorted out more easily if it the CNCC was less incestuous. The CNCC TG should be dis-incorporated.

The CNCC do many things badly and could do fewer things better.

Simon, I think these are your personal views rather than views canvassed from Earby members?

I completely agree that the CNCC should be doing a better job for cavers than it is, and I tend to agree that the CNCC TG is a distraction from it's primary role and would be better left to the Technical Group as a club in conjunction with the BCA.

I think you're wrong on the conservation job though, this seems to be one thing the CNCC has made a pretty good job of over the last few years, and as ideally it does require someone at regional level to organise things it seems to me that just as DCA carry out the job in Derbyshire it makes sense for CNCC to continue with it in Yorkshire. So far as I can see there has been no criticism on here or anywhere else of the job done or the role Andrew has played - just the opposite in fact.

A lot of us were pretty nervous or sceptical when the man from English Nature first got involved several years ago, but I think with hindsight our worries were unfounded. He's certainly helped us - despite catching us more or less in the act!

Importantly the conservation officer is also in a position to mitigate any damage or wear and tear caused by other access agreements, and so you could argue that it falls within the CNCC's existing remit.

Simplistically it's the notion that once landowners realise they have a choice of getting significant and regular sums from commercial operators or a warm fuzzy feeling by being charitable towards random groups of clubs there is a risk that the former will gain the ascendant to the detriment of the latter. Or something along those lines. Perhaps.

Chris,

I understand your concern, on this and on charging instructors for access, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case. Just the opposite in fact - show cave owners for example that continue to allow us access for a fraction of the price paid by the general public and farmers charging a small fee for access when they could easily have doubled, tripled or quadrupled over the years.

I'm pretty sure you can't show me one example, certainly in the North, where either fees have escalated dramatically or "professionally led" groups have gained ascendency over us so called amateurs.

 

[Simon Wilson]

OK Tony,
I'm trying to make the general point that the CNCC is trying to do too many things and needs to be pruned down to it's core which is access.

I don't think you need to defend Andrew Hinde; I have not seen any criticism of him on here or anywhere else. He does the job that he is paid to do and doesn't necessarily need to be part of the CNCC.

 

[Bottlebank]

OK Tony,
I'm trying to make the general point that the CNCC is trying to do too many things and needs to be pruned down to it's core which is access.

I don't think you need to defend Andrew Hinde; I have not seen any criticism of him on here or anywhere else. He does the job that he is paid to do and doesn't necessarily need to be part of the CNCC.

I agree on the first bit, pruning it down seems a good idea.

I'm not defending Andrew, I was disagreeing with you, I don't agree that's an area that needs pruning

My impression (rightly or wrongly) is that he does far more than NE pay him for - I've no idea if he's paid as CNCC Conservation Officer but I suspect not. Either way I think CNCC should continue with the conservation role, it's a natural fit (ouch!) for the job. If he can get NE to pay him overtime for it fine by me.

 

[kay]

OK Tony,
I'm trying to make the general point that the CNCC is trying to do too many things and needs to be pruned down to it's core which is access.

I don't think you need to defend Andrew Hinde; I have not seen any criticism of him on here or anywhere else. He does the job that he is paid to do and doesn't necessarily need to be part of the CNCC.

His role is  Reserve Manager and Cave Conservation Advisor.

He facilitates conservation work, but (and I'm not seeking to belittle the enormous contribution he makes), without caver input the work would not be done. So if CNCC withdrew, how would you see the caver input being coordinated? Or don't you think it needs coordination?

 

[martinm]

OK Tony, I'm trying to make the general point that the CNCC is trying to do too many things and needs to be pruned down to it's core which is access.

I don't think you need to defend Andrew Hinde; I have not seen any criticism of him on here or anywhere else. He does the job that he is paid to do and doesn't necessarily need to be part of the CNCC.

I agree on the first bit, pruning it down seems a good idea.

I'm not defending Andrew, I was disagreeing with you, I don't agree that's an area that needs pruning

My impression (rightly or wrongly) is that he does far more than NE pay him for - I've no idea if he's paid as CNCC Conservation Officer but I suspect not. Either way I think CNCC should continue with the conservation role, it's a natural fit (ouch!) for the job. If he can get NE to pay him overtime for it fine by me.

OK Tony,
I'm trying to make the general point that the CNCC is trying to do too many things and needs to be pruned down to it's core which is access.

I don't think you need to defend Andrew Hinde; I have not seen any criticism of him on here or anywhere else. He does the job that he is paid to do and doesn't necessarily need to be part of the CNCC.

His role is  Reserve Manager and Cave Conservation Advisor.

He facilitates conservation work, but (and I'm not seeking to belittle the enormous contribution he makes), without caver input the work would not be done. So if CNCC withdrew, how would you see the caver input being coordinated? Or don't you think it needs coordination?

Sigh. I agree with the whole need for change, BUT CNCC are only doing what DCA do, except for the damn permit system on Leck and Casterton which excludes BCA Dims. They should (as others have already said) be negotiating more inclusive access agreements. (Including 'instructed caving without other than maybe a token payment as other peeps have mentioned above, but this should be applicable to everyone, not just 'instructed groups'.) I would imagine (as I've said elsewhere) that instructors don't make very much  from their work, it's mostly cos they love their work. Let's face it buying kit for a group must be damn expensive.

DCA have a training officer (for courses, etc.), an equipment officer (for bolting, etc.) a conservation  officer (me, same sort of work as Andrew), an access officer (to negotiate access agreements where necessary, or deal with gate or other associated issues) and others, it works well. We all deal with our own specialist areas and talk to each when required. We DON'T just deal with access, we deal with whatever needs to be dealt with.

Andrew Hinde has done loads of things over and above NEs requirements (which is basically just fulfilling their statutory obligations which includes monitoring caves and by necessity has to involve local cavers because they have the skills and necessary experience, but it is entirely voluntary. NE have massively cut staff over the past few years due to government cuts), he (Andrew) has subsequently become CNCC conservation  officer and now co-opted to be BCA conservation  officer, something everyone has supported.

CNCC just need to address the issues of access for all and modernise. Several members of CNCC (I have read) have wished to step down from their posts in recent years, but nobody has come forward to take their places, that is one of the main problems.

Tomorrow, DCA are going to be losing a chairman and an assistant access officer (I think), I wonder who will replace them.

Good luck with the meeting tomorrow, the most important thing is to step forward for the voluntary work and move things forward, then all will be well in time.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

 

[graham]

Simplistically it's the notion that once landowners realise they have a choice of getting significant and regular sums from commercial operators or a warm fuzzy feeling by being charitable towards random groups of clubs there is a risk that the former will gain the ascendant to the detriment of the latter. Or something along those lines. Perhaps.

On the other hand, I am aware of landowners who are perfectly happy that something under their land is enjoyed by others, but dislike the concept of somebody else exploited what is theirs for personal gain.

 

[bograt]

Yup.
As a Peak District Landowner I would agree to folks using my ground for there own enjoyment, but when it comes to personel profit, NO WAY !!!!

 

[cap n chris]

Would you allow keen outdoorsy youngsters to be taken caving on your land if accompanied by someone who knew what they were doing? Perhaps a group of pupils who were studying Earth Sciences, geology or somesuch?

Would you be cool about allowing access specifically for training in caving techniques? i.e. experienced cavers hoping to learn how to become efficient in rope rescue.

Bear in mind that the expression "personal profit" is a skewed way of saying "Earning a crust to help pay a bill or buy supper".

 

[menacer]

Yup.
As a Peak District Landowner I would agree to folks using my ground for there own enjoyment, but when it comes to personel profit, NO WAY !!!!

No one would disagree you are entitled to that opinion.
The whole crux of all these access problems is that some people with their own valid opinions, have tried to force these opinions on the whole of the caving community.

Take your own views, you couldn't provide fair balanced access agreements to represent ALL cavers if that were your opening gambit to a new land owner.

Im guessing you are sensible enough to recognise that with those views you would not perhaps be in the best position to fairly represent access arrangements for the whole caving community, as such would not stand to be elected to such a position.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Bear in mind that the expression "personal profit" is a skewed way of saying "Earning a crust to help pay a bill or buy supper".

Of course, but you don't succeed in doing that by making a loss, only by making a profit. Tis only a word.

 

[graham]

Bear in mind that the expression "personal profit" is a skewed way of saying "Earning a crust to help pay a bill or buy supper".

Of course, but you don't succeed in doing that by making a loss, only by making a profit. Tis only a word.

Sure it is. (And I do see what you did there.) the issue isn't the making of profit per se it is the making of profit by exploiting something which is mine* and which I don't wish to be exploited by third parties for their benefit. I might say the same about my daughter, if I had one.

*or, in this case, bograt's.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I agree - I just wanted to point out that "profit" is not a word with some nasty hidden connotation, and anyone doing something for personal profit is only doing what anybody working to keep themselves in socks and kippers does, whether individually or as part of a larger salary paying organisation. We have a similar issue at Reigate where we get enquiries from people to use the caves for some purpose or another. If they are undertaking some kind of educational activity, or are a group of amateurs then its very simple, and easy to arrange. If they are doing it as part of a business - film production, paranormal company, etc, they have to pay a licence fee to the owners to allow them to do it. Where it has got messy is where paranormal companies give the impression they are a group of enthusiasts. Within the paranormal community there are tensions, just as there seems to be within caving, between enthusiasts who do it for "fun" and mediums trying to make money out of other people's gullibility.