Northern caving needs you

[Bob Mehew]

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

My underlying concern is that like Pitlamp, some postings on this forum may well tip a land owner into issuing a total ban. May be some people are prepared to pirate trips, I would prefer not to have to do so.  We can argue as to whether the number of pirates exceed the number who get permits, but until someone goes up onto the fells and carries out a large monitoring campaign, we will never know for sure.  At the moment I presume most clubs believe the level of pirating is small so they think they are in the majority.  And the majority wins in our society. 

I fully agree CNCC should change and change it probably will do in years to come as old farts like me die off.  I would suggest that the only realistic prospect of changing CNCC within the next few years is to work within it.  I have suggested how this might be achieved.  I will admit I am not prepared to actively work for such an objective as I have other things I prefer to do, though I am willing to give advice if any one wishes to listen. 

The new secretary did express an interest in seeing individual membership, but he is but one person on the committee.  It was striking that excepting Ian Peachy's nomination to the post of Secretary in competition with Matt, no other new person put forward their name for any other officer's post.  So the rest of the officers were re-elected.  I will admit that there was a change in the Committee membership with three clubs changing places.  That is a start but it is not enough in my view.  Only 20 full member clubs turned up out of about 50ish full members.  If you can't get the others out to vote then what hope is there for change in the short term?

 

 

[NigR]

My underlying concern is that like Pitlamp, some postings on this forum may well tip a land owner into issuing a total ban.

A total ban? As has previously been pointed out, in the case of Leck and Casterton Fells this would be impossible to enforce. However, at least everyone would be in the same boat which, in itself, would be far preferable to things as they stand. The good little boys (like Pitlamp) might choose to obey the edict of their betters but nobody else would bother. So, overall, a ban might not be such a bad thing. It would get rid of the lackeys that want to kiss the landowners' boots and make more space available, both above and below ground, for those with the initiative to do things of their own accord. Less people in the caves would be good for conservation as well!

 

[Pitlamp]

Blimey NigR, you've changed a lot since you emigrated to Wales. I was tempted to respond to your accusations (in your penultimate post) and vague insults (most recent post) but I've got caving gear to sort out from this morning's trip and I think I'll just let your remarks go by.

I understand that there were some positive outcomes from the CNCC meeting yesterday and I'm hopeful that common sense will prevail.

 

[Pitlamp]

On second thoughts, I'll send you a PM Nig R.

 

[NigR]

PM received and replied to.

No accusations or insults (vague or otherwise) intended in my earlier posts, just stating the facts as I see them.

 

[Pitlamp]

Ta mate - just noticed a message is waiting; will have a look now.

 

[richardg]

My underlying concern is that like Pitlamp, some postings on this forum may well tip a land owner into issuing a total ban.

A total ban? As has previously been pointed out, in the case of Leck and Casterton Fells this would be impossible to enforce. However, at least everyone would be in the same boat which, in itself, would be far preferable to things as they stand. The good little boys (like Pitlamp) might choose to obey the edict of their betters but nobody else would bother. So, overall, a ban might not be such a bad thing. It would get rid of the lackeys that want to kiss the landowners' boots and make more space available, both above and below ground, for those with the initiative to do things of their own accord. Less people in the caves would be good for conservation as well!

Weird guy!  Doesn't cave up here in the Dales. but tells the world  it'll be a good thing if caving were banned.

Then he is  also apparently insulting one of our most popular guys.

I remember reading a post on where you insulted cavers on your home ground in S Wales following a rescue from Dan Y Ogof.

That too upset a lot of people, a lot of people came on here to say what a great guy the other fellow was and there was a lot said about you Nig R all of it negative.. 

Richard

 

[Pitlamp]

Let's keep this in perspective folks; we can disagree with fellow cavers without falling out.

I'm in touch with NigR directly now and we're having a useful discussion.

 

[Bottlebank]

My underlying concern is that like Pitlamp, some postings on this forum may well tip a land owner into issuing a total ban. May be some people are prepared to pirate trips, I would prefer not to have to do so.  We can argue as to whether the number of pirates exceed the number who get permits, but until someone goes up onto the fells and carries out a large monitoring campaign, we will never know for sure.  At the moment I presume most clubs believe the level of pirating is small so they think they are in the majority.  And the majority wins in our society. 

Bob,

So far as I can see that simply reinforces for the CNCC to change it's view and start to represent all cavers.

Let's be clear, this doesn't need constitutional change (thirty seconds reading the constitution will show you this), it simply needs them announce that they will in future make every effort to accommodate the needs of DIM's and other in negotiations with landowners.

Tony

 

[jasonbirder]

EXACTLY...particularly as it is apparent that the objection to BCA DIM's and members of CNCC affiliated clubs making individual bookings rather than for the club as a whole is driven by the CNCC voting clubs NOT the landowner...

As i've asked many times and never been enlightened...WHAT is their objection to this?

 

[Bob Mehew]

EXACTLY...particularly as it is apparent that the objection to BCA DIM's and members of CNCC affiliated clubs making individual bookings rather than for the club as a whole is driven by the CNCC voting clubs NOT the landowner...

Well I would not go quite that far.  I have no information as to whether land owners have been asked.  (And do bear in mind we are talking about a fair number rather than one or two.  Though yes it is probably only a handful which are significant.) 

As i've asked many times and never been enlightened...WHAT is their objection to this?

Do turkeys vote for Xmas?  My take on this is that in the early days of caving it soon became apparent that you needed a number of people to not just descend a cave but also fund the gear.  So clubs were created.  Being in a club meant a degree of control could be exerted over you and the club would tend to ensure their good name was maintained.  CNCC grew up to obtain access in part on the basis that it could provide a degree of control over bad behavior and also ensure a level of competence.  SRT has undermined the need for clubs and hence that control system.  Whether BCA's DIM status provides an equivalent control system is a debatable question.  But I almost certainly haven't caught all the reasons.

I have pointed out how cavers could work within the system to seek to obtain changes but I fear that there a number of cavers out there who do adopt NigR's position.  And yes I think NigR's point about a ban benefiting conservation is true.  But the judicious placement of a roll or two of barbed wire (or worse) would be even better in that it stops every one, not just us boot kissers.  I just hope there are sufficient cavers who will work to achieve these changes and avoid this doomsday scenario where every one looses.

 

[susie]

As i've asked many times and never been enlightened...WHAT is their objection to this?

I suspect that it is because the CNCC are dominated by traditional clubs who have large investments in club cottages and, in two case, winch meets which require the support of substantial memberships. If DIMs are allowed access to permits, these clubs fear that some cavers will question the necessity for belonging to a club, and that their memberships will suffer.

 

[Simon Wilson]

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

My underlying concern is that like Pitlamp, some postings on this forum may well tip a land owner into issuing a total ban. May be some people are prepared to pirate trips, I would prefer not to have to do so.  We can argue as to whether the number of pirates exceed the number who get permits, but until someone goes up onto the fells and carries out a large monitoring campaign, we will never know for sure.  At the moment I presume most clubs believe the level of pirating is small so they think they are in the majority.  And the majority wins in our society. 

I fully agree CNCC should change and change it probably will do in years to come as old farts like me die off.  I would suggest that the only realistic prospect of changing CNCC within the next few years is to work within it.  I have suggested how this might be achieved.  I will admit I am not prepared to actively work for such an objective as I have other things I prefer to do, though I am willing to give advice if any one wishes to listen. 

The new secretary did express an interest in seeing individual membership, but he is but one person on the committee.  It was striking that excepting Ian Peachy's nomination to the post of Secretary in competition with Matt, no other new person put forward their name for any other officer's post.  So the rest of the officers were re-elected.  I will admit that there was a change in the Committee membership with three clubs changing places.  That is a start but it is not enough in my view.  Only 20 full member clubs turned up out of about 50ish full members.  If you can't get the others out to vote then what hope is there for change in the short term?

My God Bob, where to start?            Nice to see you at the AGM.

You have said yourself that you never go caving and the AGM was the first time you have been to a CNCC meeting for years. So with the greatest respect Bob, you are a little out of touch. If you read the committee minutes you will see that the Chairman appears quite amenable to the DIM access question and the new Secretary appears to be enthusiastic for DIMs getting access. Your impression from listening to a few people at the AGM is different to my general impression and I think it won't be long before DIMs get access. I've only been to two CNCC meetings recently but the question was debated briefly at the January meeting and the only objection to DIMs getting permits was from the then Secretary who said that if DIMs could apply for permits it might be the end of some smaller clubs. My impression is that not many people are at all convinced by that argument.

"We can argue as to whether the number of pirates exceed the number who get permits, but until someone goes up onto the fells and carries out a large monitoring campaign, we will never know for sure." A large monitoring campaign is being carried out. I am not the only person who goes onto Leck Fell regularly and asks cavers if they have a permit. The estate manager goes onto the fell and checks on permits and I know this because I have bumped into him and discussed it with him. I can assure you that your presumption about the numbers caving without permits is wrong.

The number of clubs in attendance at the AGM was, I think, 25. The list of full member clubs is still top secret but the Secretary did say that they have been able to contact about 30 full member clubs. So on that basis the turnout was about 83%.

 

[kay]

Being in a club meant a degree of control could be exerted over you and the club would tend to ensure their good name was maintained.  CNCC grew up to obtain access in part on the basis that it could provide a degree of control over bad behavior and also ensure a level of competence.  SRT has undermined the need for clubs and hence that control system.  Whether BCA's DIM status provides an equivalent control system is a debatable question.

That would be a good argument if it were the case that the caves chosen to be within a permit system were the most  difficult caves, or caves of particular conservation concern. But whether a cave needs a permit is governed by geographical accident, that it's on this landowner's land, rather than that one's

Or are we suggesting that, in order to keep control over incompetent or badly behaved cavers, we should extend the club permit system to all caves (with the possible exception of one or two "sacrificial" caves)  :tease:

 

[Simon Wilson]

Hi Kay,
What a pleasant change to find myself agreeing with you.

 

[Bob Mehew]

So with the greatest respect Bob, you are a little out of touch.

A large monitoring campaign is being carried out. I am not the only person who goes onto Leck Fell regularly and asks cavers if they have a permit. The estate manager goes onto the fell and checks on permits and I know this because I have bumped into him and discussed it with him. I can assure you that your presumption about the numbers caving without permits is wrong.

The number of clubs in attendance at the AGM was, I think, 25. The list of full member clubs is still top secret but the Secretary did say that they have been able to contact about 30 full member clubs. So on that basis the turnout was about 83%.

I agree,  I have never been in touch with Yorkshire caves.  It is one reason why I don't want to actively help.

I am glad to hear that some data is being collected.  But please note I made no comment about numbers on the fell, my comment about the majority was focused on CNCC full member clubs.

I counted 19 full member clubs plus one who became a full member at the meeting.  There were around 40 people present.  That is roughly twice 2013 turn out.  I recall that there are around 50 full member clubs of which around 30 are thought to be active.

I accept Kay makes some good points.  Are there more?

 

[Simon Wilson]

Apologies Bob, I have checked and you are exactly right about the numbers. So the turnout was about 66%.

 

[NigR]

But the judicious placement of a roll or two of barbed wire (or worse) would be even better in that it stops every one, not just us boot kissers.

Come on, Bob! Is that really the best you can do when it comes to scare tactics to quell any burgeoning unrest? Surely they can't be that far behind the times up in the Dales? Down here in South Wales the reactionary forces have a fleet of mobile concrete mixers on round the clock alert in case the masses get out of line.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Down here in South Wales the reactionary forces have a fleet of mobile concrete mixers on round the clock alert in case the masses get out of line.

I guess the mine owners of South Wales can afford such luxuries.  I am not sure if the typical Yorkshire land owner is willing to open his purse that far. 

On a more serious note, the point I was trying to make is that that way all cavers could loose.  But I guess you don't agree.  So there is little point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Farmers have been filling in caves for at least five thousand years and it is likely that there are many times more entrances that have already been filled in than those that are open. The last cave that I remember being filled in was Greenwoods Pot and we could easily open it up again if we wanted to.

Cavers have a reasonably good and generally improving relationship with the landowners, estate managers, farmers etc on the fells which have access agreements and I don't think anybody wants to see that change.