Paying for dyo

prahja

Member
Is there a need to install a rescue dump with phone line and mains power to mazeways as well ? You could get stuck there pretty easily as well....
 

Tony_B

New member
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"

The entrapment camp didn't cost ?7000. I believe the figure, including the cost of the contractor, was around ?3-4k. The showcave estimate that their expenditure over the years comes to around ?7k. I have to take their word for that, but even prior to the rescue they readily paid for all sorts of stuff like fixed aids, and as I outlined above this was usually on a no-expense-spared basis. Which is why there is, for example, a stainless-steel ladder on the climb down the Abyss, where previously this was rigged with a fixed rope. Those involved in the decision-making on this (it was just before my time on the panel) made the case for the ladder on the basis it would be safer than simply replacing the rope and that convinced the showcave management.

Before you say it, even ?3-4k is ridiculous on an entrapment camp. But it was specced according to the showcave's wishes on the basis, again, of no-expense-spared.     
 
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?

I looked on the BCA website to see which cave access control boards have joined it as members, but I could only find clubs listed. (and , very usefully, mapped) I also note that it cost ?60 a year to join, so maybe there are no ACB members, hence the lack of contact?  And if there are no ACB members does BCA propose doing anything about it?
 

prahja

Member
Tony_B said:
But it was specced according to the showcave's wishes on the basis, again, of no-expense-spared.   

Thanks Tony - I do appreciate all the hard work you have put into this - I just disagree with the outcome :)
 

mikem

Active member
ACBs will struggle to find insurance anywhere else at that price, just that clubs have requested to be listed.
 

Tony_B

New member
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?
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.
 

nickwilliams

Active member
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. It's exactly the reason why people like the management of show caves (and I'm not singling out DYO here) think that they have to demand that everybody have insurance, and/or that they will somehow be liable if experienced cavers, who are there entirely by their own choice, have an accident in their cave.
 

RobinGriffiths

Well-known member
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
 

andrewmcleod

Active member
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

I refer you to Bocardo Vs Star Energy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocardo_SA_v_Star_Energy_UK_Onshore_Ltd

Whoever owns the surface owns the land underneath for depths greater than we care about by default. Mineral rights are in addition to this.
 

RobinGriffiths

Well-known member
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.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
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.

Wales caving history has some interesting in-cave gating wars over disputed boundaries a long way into established linked caves going back decades, IIRC. Someone properly in the know can probably recall the details and backstory.
 

prahja

Member
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.

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!
 

prahja

Member
aricooperdavis said:
prahja said:
Is this the bca?s official position?

No. If you want more info about the PLI policy that the BCA has arranged you can find it here: https://british-caving.org.uk/our-work/insurance/

Yes I had already looked on there - I read the policy and my understanding from reading it was that wardens would not be covered, hence the question.
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.
 

aricooperdavis

Moderator
From my understanding as wardens make no gain, financial or otherwise, from facilitating access, nor are they travel agents etc, they are covered. If you want formal clarification you can email insurance@
 

prahja

Member
aricooperdavis said:
From my understanding as wardens make no gain, financial or otherwise, from facilitating access

I thiught they had the benefit of free access if and only if they were leading a paying group. If they arent working they have to pay. That?s definitely a gain, is it not?

Just to be clear - it sounds like you are speaking for the bca - is that right?

Maybe bca or dyo access group need to clarify it. I?d have thought that would be better than every warden ringing them? (I dont want my house to be at risk if my partner takes paying groups caving)
 

aricooperdavis

Moderator
By the same argument when I give mates a lift and we split the fuel I become employed by them as a taxi driver. I can't speak for the insurer or the BCA, but I don't think this is an issue.
 

mikem

Active member
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.
https://british-caving.org.uk/about-bca/bca-council/
 

andrewmcleod

Active member
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!

I think what Nick was saying is that charging for access has absolutely no impact on liability whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether the operation is free or charged, either a duty of care is owed or it isn't.

On a warden-led trip, the duty of care of a warden is very limited. In the main, cavers are responsible for their own competence and safety.

Volenti non fit injuria...
 
Top