Northern caving needs you

[TheBitterEnd]

Whether or not a business makes a profit and how much is up to that business. As I see it it is more about whether someone is willing to pay for something, if someone is willing to pay a leader to lead a trip then that same person is presumably prepared to pay for use of the "facilities". After all the people* on paid-for trips are hardly likely to make reparations in other ways, such as repairing paths/walls.



*Just to be clear, by this I mean the punters not the leader.

 

[graham]

Peter

Your mention of the 'paranormal' types rings a bell. I remember a friend talking about this in the context of a site that he manages the access for. Paying participants on these trips 'expect' a certain outcome - because they've paid for it and therefore should get it by right.

Now, this is part of the issue as it spills over into caving, in that a paying participant has an expectation based on the commercial transaction that has been made and - for reasons that should I hope be obvious - so the achievement of that objective begins to override other considerations (including, in a caving context possibly conservation or even safety) that perhaps should carry more weight. The same dynamic is beginning to be seen in higher education where the large course fees are subtly changing the relationship as students become customers and has been seen for some years in parts of the climbing world and is certainly a contributory factor to many of the deaths that have occurred on Mt. Everest.

There is an interesting debate taking place in Northern Spain, at present, concerning the cave of Altamira, one of the most important rock art sites in the world. In about 2001 they opened a replica, on site, to deal with the vast number of visitors who wished to see the cave; at that time they still allowed a few trips into the original, no more than about 20 people per day. A year or so later they closed it completely save for the team that monitor its condition. Now, the local authorities are campaigning to allow some visits (no more than 5 people a day to begin with) as they feel that they need the 'pull' of the original. One of the arguments that they have used is that at present they cannot even take 'important' visitors, such as Jacques Chirac down there! Now, I do not know the technical details of its current condition and it may be that the total closure of the past decade has not been needed and that some visits might be possible without damage - I shall watch the experiment with great interest - but I do hope that if it is opened then the admission criteria are not reliant on how 'important' or well-known you are or how much money you have.

 

[Fulk]

graham ? I heard on the news the other day that they have reopened the cave (Altamira) to a handful of visitors, but I don't know what criteria they apply when choosing them.

I got to see it in 1974, and though I'm not the sort of person to be overawed by 'atmosphere' ? old (haunted) houses, cathedrals, castles, etc. ? I was  gob-smacked by the place. I had expected that  one would need 'the eye of faith' to discern the pictures, but no ? there they were, in all their glory.

Sorry ? that's even further off topic.

 

[graham]

graham ? I heard on the news the other day that they have reopened the cave (Altamira) to a handful of visitors, but I don't know what criteria they apply when choosing them.

5 at a time chosen by lottery from the day's visitors to the replica.

I got to see it in 1974, and though I'm not the sort of person to be overawed by 'atmosphere' ? old (haunted) houses, cathedrals, castles, etc. ? I was  gob-smacked by the place. I had expected that  one would need 'the eye of faith' to discern the pictures, but no ? there they were, in all their glory.

I can show you 'eye of faith' stuff in other places, but the greatest Palaeolithic sites are just boggling.

Sorry ? that's even further off topic.

8)

 

[Badlad]

One very quick heads up.

The commercial proposal was voted out unanimously.  Stark contrast to when it was voted in unanimously at the September meeting.  Similarly the other membership voting proposal was voted out too.  Thanks to everyone who took time to properly consider what they were voting for.

 

[bograt]

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".

Sorry about the delay in getting back to reply on this one, been doing "politics" like running a local community association event and chairing a caving AGM, I will respond to the questions in order;

1. 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?

  YES, we have been doing this for in excess of 20 years (except not caving, we are on Gritstone), the point is that the organising staff are usually teachers or lecturers who are on a salary so would get paid if they did not have access to our resources, we have been paid for being a "service provider" in this way, from various sources including Central Government, Local Authority, Local Health Authority, Scouts, Guides, Boys Brigade, Girls Brigade, Churches, Charities, etc., etc.

2.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.

Depends upon the nature of the course, we have offered our facilities for training FOC to charities for remote rescue scenarios etc., if the trainers are getting paid, we expect a share.

3.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".

Please be aware that small hill farmers also have to "earn a crust" and pay bills and put food on the table, to see someone else making more cash out of our facilities than we are does "stick in the craw" somewhat.

I would also like to point out that a lot of professional outdoor instructors categorise themselves as "service providers", and charge for the "service", perhaps the landowner should be considered a "facility provider" and should be treated and paid as such.

 

[exsumper]

One very quick heads up.

The commercial proposal was voted out unanimously.  Stark contrast to when it was voted in unanimously at the September meeting.  Similarly the other membership voting proposal was voted out too.  Thanks to everyone who took time to properly consider what they were voting for.

Hooray!!!

 

[martinm]

One very quick heads up. The commercial proposal was voted out unanimously.  Stark contrast to when it was voted in unanimously at the September meeting.  Similarly the other membership voting proposal was voted out too.  Thanks to everyone who took time to properly consider what they were voting for.

Can't remember what the "other membership voting proposal"was, tbh. Are they considering to look at allowing BCA DIMs to apply for permits now? This seems to be what most people are concerned about...

 

[Jon]

One very quick heads up. The commercial proposal was voted out unanimously.  Stark contrast to when it was voted in unanimously at the September meeting.  Similarly the other membership voting proposal was voted out too.  Thanks to everyone who took time to properly consider what they were voting for.

Can't remember what the "other membership voting proposal"was, tbh. Are they considering to look at allowing BCA DIMs to apply for permits now? This seems to be what most people are concerned about...

The new Secretary, Matt Eweles (spelling?) is keen to look at the DIM option.

 

[martinm]

One very quick heads up. The commercial proposal was voted out unanimously.  Stark contrast to when it was voted in unanimously at the September meeting.  Similarly the other membership voting proposal was voted out too.  Thanks to everyone who took time to properly consider what they were voting for.

Can't remember what the "other membership voting proposal"was, tbh. Are they considering to look at allowing BCA DIMs to apply for permits now? This seems to be what most people are concerned about...

The new Secretary, Matt Eweles (spelling?) is keen to look at the DIM option.

Brill, that is excellent news for all!    Well done to all who contributed to this.

 

[Bob Mehew]

One very quick heads up. The commercial proposal was voted out unanimously.  Stark contrast to when it was voted in unanimously at the September meeting.  Similarly the other membership voting proposal was voted out too.  Thanks to everyone who took time to properly consider what they were voting for.

Can't remember what the "other membership voting proposal"was, tbh. Are they considering to look at allowing BCA DIMs to apply for permits now? This seems to be what most people are concerned about...

The new Secretary, Matt Eweles (spelling?) is keen to look at the DIM option.

Brill, that is excellent news for all!    Well done to all who contributed to this.

But in my opinion based on comments at the meeting, a majority of the voting member clubs were not in favour of individual membership.  I sense there is a very long way to go on this topic and probably before then, there is a need to sort out the commercial question plus some hopefully simple procedural matters like getting a better representation of clubs in the north as full members.

And please don't get me wrong.  As someone who put a hell of a lot of effort into getting DIMs & CIMS into BCA, I too would like to see them in CNCC.  But I sense all of the opposition is still present that was around back in 2004 when BCA was launched.

PS it is Ewles.

 

[NigR]

Thanks for the info, Bob.

Better to be realistic about these things rather than leave people with a false sense of expectation.

Never mind.

Back when I lived up north I used to go on Leck and Casterton Fells an awful lot and never once had a permit.

A couple of months ago I went caving with an old friend from that time who still often goes there and he has never had a permit.

Recently, another very active northern caver told me that "everyone just does the trips without permits".

So, nothing has really changed even after all this time.

And it doesn't look as though it is going to, does it?

 

[Bob Mehew]

And it doesn't look as though it is going to, does it?

Not in the short term.  But if I may use a 'dirty' word, I suspect if EVERYONE goes around the politics of it in a less abrasive way and focuses on changing the attitude of cavers who are members of clubs, especially the smaller clubs, then the clubs' attitude will change and hence a voting majority be obtained for individual membership. 

It was noteworthy that one small club managed to get elected to full member status yesterday and then was able to vote for the rest of the meeting!  I understand several clubs who thought they were full members realised prior to the meeting that they were not.  If they had been nimble, they too might have got it. 

I will give you another example.  Despite all of the discussion on this forum, only one Officer's post was contested.  If there is wide spread sympathy for change, then why did no one else stand?  Whilst Tim has done a lot of useful work, he can't do it all.

 

[Pitlamp]

Your facts are wrong NigR. It's not the case that "everyone just does the trips without permits".

There is a large body of northern cavers who do comply with the permit system. I make no value judgements here - I'm merely correcting your opinion. I felt this is important for two reasons:

1. because this whole subject of developing the CNCC has been fraught with misinformation, which has not been helping.

2. I wouldn't want any land owner reading your remarks to think that they are representative.

Sorry Nig, you and I are old buddies - the last thing I'd want to do is fall out with you - but facts are facts.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Your facts are wrong NigR. It's not the case that "everyone just does the trips without permits".

There is a large body of northern cavers who do comply with the permit system. I make no value judgements here - I'm merely correcting your opinion.

Pitlamp (John),

I would bet my last Meander suit that you have had some of the so called 'digging permits'.

 

[Bottlebank]

One very quick heads up. The commercial proposal was voted out unanimously.  Stark contrast to when it was voted in unanimously at the September meeting.  Similarly the other membership voting proposal was voted out too.  Thanks to everyone who took time to properly consider what they were voting for.

Can't remember what the "other membership voting proposal"was, tbh. Are they considering to look at allowing BCA DIMs to apply for permits now? This seems to be what most people are concerned about...

The new Secretary, Matt Eweles (spelling?) is keen to look at the DIM option.

Brill, that is excellent news for all!    Well done to all who contributed to this.

But in my opinion based on comments at the meeting, a majority of the voting member clubs were not in favour of individual membership.  I sense there is a very long way to go on this topic and probably before then, there is a need to sort out the commercial question plus some hopefully simple procedural matters like getting a better representation of clubs in the north as full members.

And please don't get me wrong.  As someone who put a hell of a lot of effort into getting DIMs & CIMS into BCA, I too would like to see them in CNCC.  But I sense all of the opposition is still present that was around back in 2004 when BCA was launched.

PS it is Ewles.

Bob,

So long as the CNCC issues permits only to recognised clubs then those people who are not recognised or supported by them will continue to cave without permits. The CNCC forces them to either do this or not cave in one of the country's best caving areas.

This brings the CNCC system into disrepute and damages everything they try to do. As a result many cavers who are in recognised clubs will also continue to ignore the CNCC.

If the club members who resist DIM membership want the CNCC to work they need to reconsider, the sooner the better.

Tony

 

[NigR]

Pitlamp (John),

No, my facts are not wrong. Read what I wrote again. It is not my opinion, it is what I was told by someone who caves in the Dales on a regular basis. Obviously, it is a generalisation and should be regarded as such. I am sure that there are many responsible citizens (such as yourself) who spend great amounts of time and effort organising permits for themselves before setting foot on a fellside with the intention of going caving. However, (and this is a fact) there are many who do not and there always have been. As Bottlebank has stated, under the present system this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Misinformation, you say? Landowners reading this, you say?

The greatest single item of misinformation anyone can give to a landowner is to tell them that the current permit system works because it quite simply does not (and that is a fact too). One recurring theme of your posts is the importance of showing respect to landowners. If this is the case, why do you (and the CNCC) insist on deliberately lying to them? Not very respectful is it?

 

[jasonbirder]

Genuine question...given that it appears that opposition to DIM's and members of affiliated clubs who want to do "Non-meet list" type trips comes from voting clubs rather than the landowners (as everyone always suspected)

What are their objections?

Lets be realistic, a huge proportion of cavers pirate the trips because its almost impossible to get a permit in any convenient fashion...so opening up the permit procedure wouldn't have any impact on who/how many people do Casterton/Leck Fell trips it would just enable people already doing them to "legitimise" their trips...

Who'd care to guess at the ratio of official to pirate trips in these two area's? Its got to be close to 1:1 at the very least hasn't it?

The permit system doesn't force people to choose between doing a trip or not - it merely forces people to choose between doing the trip officially or unofficially...

So, a change in the application system would seem to be in everyone's favour...landowner knows who is going on his land and when, CNCC has accurate data for cave usage and cavers wouldn't have to pirate!

Seems win - win to me...so why does there appear to be a rumble of opposition to it from CNCC voting members?

 

[droid]

Tony makes a very valid point.

I haven't caved much in Yorkshire for 2 decades now, but even back then, the permit system was largely ignored by those who couldn't or wouldn't jump through the organisational hoops.

The only rules were:

Don't get caught

and

Keep out of the way of the permit group.

Nowt much seems to have changed.

 

[jasonbirder]

Keep out of the way of the permit group

Yes indeed...the old game if there is another party of cavers in the pull in at Leck...

"Where are you going?"
"No no...where are you off to?"
"Lost Johns..."
"Ahhh in that case...we're off into Boxhead"