prahja said:Ps I do know what is at the DYO rescue dump. I certainly do think that spending ?7000 on a rescue dump is impressive. I also think that ?7000 to stock a rescue dump is ridiculous and to lay power deep into a cave is also utterly ridiculous and needs very costly maintenance. I cant imagine any demand from cavers and I cant see that it reduces the risk of death to cavers being trapped by flood water. Personally, I am able to boil a pot of water on a camping stove without needing a kettle. Do you know what the power is for? Maybe the power is there for heating or lighting? (I?m sure electric radiators and flourescent lighting will make the rescue dump much more homely).
Personally speaking, I think charging ?5 to access a system and to justify it by criticising rescued cavers and for an unnecessary power cable may not be the best reasons to start down a slippery slope towards commercial caving. I do not think this is just "ingratitude" or ?silly"
I say again [puts diplomatic hat on]: we are dealing with management of a showcave who want things done on their terms, not on anyone else's. The NRW are represented on the DYO CAP.Martin Laverty said:I suspect that BCA, Cambrian CC, and SWCRO would all engage in mutually valuable discussion and action on conservation, fixed aids and rescue scenarios for DYO if asked by DYOCAP or the show cave management, but it appears that the DYOCAP have felt bound to talk only to the management. Is anyone willing and able to say if there is some antipathy from the management to external caving bodies? I also wonder if NRW have been involved?
Ed said:I never said they were.... The access control panel /wardens are. They need to fully aware of the potential impact and liability on themselves as they are charging for access... It now becomes a commercial enterprise - even if its not for profit.
RobinGriffiths said:On a more general question of cave ownership. How does that work? Is it purely limited to cave under the surface land that the company owns? Or does it extend under other landowners land? Or maybe they lease underground under someone else's land? Maybe mineral rights based? Or do the company just own and control the access point? Bit OT, but would be interesting to know
RobinGriffiths said:Righty ho. So any extension of DYO not under DYO owned land do not belong to them. But they would have gatekeeper role by virtue of access point.
nickwilliams said:Ed said:I never said they were.... The access control panel /wardens are. They need to fully aware of the potential impact and liability on themselves as they are charging for access... It now becomes a commercial enterprise - even if its not for profit.
Without making any comment on any other aspect of this matter, it would be a really good idea for people to stop spouting this sort of bollocks.
aricooperdavis said:From my understanding as wardens make no gain, financial or otherwise, from facilitating access
https://british-caving.org.uk/about-bca/bca-council/prahja said:I couldnt fint the current bca committee so was asking if Nick still dealt with insurance and if this was a bca statement on it as Nick seemed to be pretty clear in the implication that wardens *are* covered.
prahja said:Thanks for clarifying Nick. (Is this the bca?s official position? I think you used to/still have responsibility for bca insurance - is that right?). So the basic bca insurance definitely insures individuals to take groups and individuals caving who are required to pay money for the trip as a condition of entry? Does this still apply if the leader gets the benefit in kind of free access whilst taking paying groups but has to pay themselves otherwise? Is this just for dyo or does it cover other caves (I am thinking of another cave where this sort of arrangement could be used to raise funds).
That definitely clears up a major concern!