Premature action on CRoW?

[ah147]

I had some questions in my last (admittedly silly in places) post which remain unanswered, so I thought I would tidy them up and ask them again.

Genuine questions:

How often do you see 'non-cavers' in caves (not mines)?

Are there any caves which require keys or permits, but are not leader-led, where there are checks about the competency of the cavers applying (i.e. not just that they are in a club)?

Has the introduction of CROW caving in Scotland made any obvious differences? Have some gated/leader-led caves had to be opened up? Has access to any caves been lost or gained? How does it work - is the entire cave CROW if the entrances are on CROW land, or is only the portion of the cave beneath the CROW land accessible?

There are caves which require a key, aren't leader lead and need no check on competency of the cavers.

Same with permits.

I cave nationally...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Badlad]

On the poll was a list of things the BCA would need to do if there was a yes vote. One of the items was "seek to change Section 4.6 of our Constitution".  That was because it was felt that "campaigning" would be against the Constitution and it would have to be changed first.

That view was upheld when BCA passed the following motion at the 2015 AGM with virtually everybody voting in favour.

"This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving."

Hence the belief BCA was constrained by the Constitution and the AGM motion to only clarify rather than campaign. However it would seem BCA has changed its mind.

This was all debated over a year's worth of BCA meetings and is fully recorded in the minutes.  You can pick out bits of the constitution and bend them to support almost any position but the will of the BCA membership was made clear in the poll.  No where in the constitution does it say that you cannot campaign for better or legal rights of access to caves and common sense would suggest that the British Caving Association is there to represent the will of it's membership and cavers in general rather than trying to subvert the constitution to support a few landowners who might not want cavers on their land.  Many landowners support the CRoW rights applying to caving as it makes legal and liability issues clear for them.  The BCA came to a sensible compromise to pursue the campaign of clarification (or however you wish to term it) within the existing law.  The consequences of the BCA continuing to do nothing or just tinkering at the edges will not fool the membership.  If the BCA don't take the action, then groups of individuals will, and that could lead to more situations like we see at Drws Cefn - and one of them is more than enough for everybody.

I will continue to work within my remit, keeping BCA closely informed of my actions on their behalf, until I am told otherwise.  In the course of my duties I don't intend to disrespect any landowner or anyone else for that matter, so I don't expect there to be any real cause for complaint.  I am a landowner myself, but I am also well aware of the general political mood on the outdoors, where the importance of outdoor recreation and wildlife protection has already been given legal rights over individuals and the future is set for that trend to continue in the same direction, BCA constitution or not.

 

[Alex]

Yep as I always sais CRoW is a big plus for landowners when it comes to liability and we should be doing all we can make sure they are all aware of this to get land-owners themselves behind this act.

I also agree if the BCA did not do anything people will take things into their own hands, heck at one point of insanity even I was behind the legal action at Drws Cefn as it seemed the only way at the time.

 

[cavemanmike]

and if the bca don't do  anything cavers will find alternative way's of insuring themselves and there fore making the bca redundant

 

[NewStuff]

and if the bca don't do  anything cavers will find alternative way's of insuring themselves and there fore making the bca redundant

or just not bother whatsoever. I know quite a few that want nothing to do with BCA, permits, politics. We can expect to see more should the delaying tactics etc gain any traction.

 

[martinr]

.....CRoW is a big plus for landowners when it comes to liability.........

That's a very good point. When/if CROW is extended to cover caving, where would that leave the BCA insurance scheme? Presumably many cavers will no longer need PLI insurance (good) but if they leave the scheme those who remain will see their share of the cost  rise (bad). Might we end up with just the organisations (club committees, regional bodies etc) left to pick up the tab?

For clarification, I'm not asking this in order to derail CROW campaign, it's a genuine question

 

[Cookie]

On the poll was a list of things the BCA would need to do if there was a yes vote. One of the items was "seek to change Section 4.6 of our Constitution".  That was because it was felt that "campaigning" would be against the Constitution and it would have to be changed first.

That view was upheld when BCA passed the following motion at the 2015 AGM with virtually everybody voting in favour.

"This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving."

Hence the belief BCA was constrained by the Constitution and the AGM motion to only clarify rather than campaign. However it would seem BCA has changed its mind.

This was all debated over a year's worth of BCA meetings and is fully recorded in the minutes.  You can pick out bits of the constitution and bend them to support almost any position but the will of the BCA membership was made clear in the poll.  No where in the constitution does it say that you cannot campaign for better or legal rights of access to caves and common sense would suggest that the British Caving Association is there to represent the will of it's membership and cavers in general rather than trying to subvert the constitution to support a few landowners who might not want cavers on their land.  Many landowners support the CRoW rights applying to caving as it makes legal and liability issues clear for them.  The BCA came to a sensible compromise to pursue the campaign of clarification (or however you wish to term it) within the existing law.  The consequences of the BCA continuing to do nothing or just tinkering at the edges will not fool the membership.  If the BCA don't take the action, then groups of individuals will, and that could lead to more situations like we see at Drws Cefn - and one of them is more than enough for everybody.

I will continue to work within my remit, keeping BCA closely informed of my actions on their behalf, until I am told otherwise.  In the course of my duties I don't intend to disrespect any landowner or anyone else for that matter, so I don't expect there to be any real cause for complaint.  I am a landowner myself, but I am also well aware of the general political mood on the outdoors, where the importance of outdoor recreation and wildlife protection has already been given legal rights over individuals and the future is set for that trend to continue in the same direction, BCA constitution or not.

It is possible to change a Constitution. So rather than ignore the Constitution, why not change it? Then there can be no criticism.

 

[droid]

I have much sympathy for the attractive notion of just rocking up to a cave and going down it without any faff.

No CNCC, bollocking around with 'permits' etc etc.....nirvana.

My only concern is, as it has always been, that alienating the landowners is a bad move. Cavers are generally there for the weekends. Landowners all the time.

Now this point has been raised before. We have been assured it will be fine. o adverse consequences. Those that gainsay that rosy notion are vilified. I would say 'bullied' but the very idea of being 'bullied' by some hero behind a keyboard is laughable.

I hope the optimists are right, and the gainsayers (most of whom have buggered off) are wrong.
I would bet a round of drinks that if it does all go pear-shaped, those that were advocating CRow for caves will quietly try to distance themselves.

It's all very amusing.....

 

[jasonbirder]

But CRoW has been applicable to climbing for years now...and no-one has been able to come up with a single instance of a crag that's been closed off because the landowner didn't like climbing being consider an allowed activity under CRoW...
I'd have more sympathy for the gainsayers if they didn't continually ignore this...

 

[droid]

it's a lot easier to sabotage entry to a cave than stop people getting to a crag.

I'd have more sympathy if proCRoWs didn't continually ignore this.....

 

[Wayland Smith]

But CRoW has been applicable to climbing for years now...and no-one has been able to come up with a single instance of a crag that's been closed off because the landowner didn't like climbing being consider an allowed activity under CRoW...
I'd have more sympathy for the gainsayers if they didn't continually ignore this...

You are missing a vital point!
A crag suitable for climbing is worthless to a farmer /  landowner!
You can not grow anything or raise sheep or shoot grouse! So not worth arguing over, unlike shooting grounds and Trout / Salmon streams.

 

[Alex]

That's a very good point. When/if CROW is extended to cover caving, where would that leave the BCA insurance scheme? Presumably many cavers will no longer need PLI insurance (good) but if they leave the scheme those who remain will see their share of the cost  rise (bad). Might we end up with just the organisations (club committees, regional bodies etc) left to pick up the tab?

But people will still need insurance for those caves on non-CRoW land, so I doubt many would decide to get rid of their insurance.

 

[droid]

Whatever....it'll be a big change with possibly unforeseen consequences, possibly bad ones

Will those advocating the change be so vociferous then?

I think we all know the answer to that one....

 

[Alex]

You are missing a vital point!
A crag suitable for climbing is worthless to a farmer /  landowner!
You can not grow anything or raise sheep or shoot grouse! So not worth arguing over, unlike shooting grounds and Trout / Salmon streams.

You can't grow much on a cave entrance either being blank space! Like to see someone farm gaping gill lol.

Plus people have to walk to crags just like caves so as far as landowners are concerned I think crags are pretty much the same thing.

 

[andrewmcleod]

That's a very good point. When/if CROW is extended to cover caving, where would that leave the BCA insurance scheme? Presumably many cavers will no longer need PLI insurance (good) but if they leave the scheme those who remain will see their share of the cost  rise (bad). Might we end up with just the organisations (club committees, regional bodies etc) left to pick up the tab?

But people will still need insurance for those caves on non-CRoW land, so I doubt many would decide to get rid of their insurance.

Why would people not want PL insurance for CROW caves? I don't think the landowner has any liability anyway as caving is a risky activity freely entered into, volenti non fit iniuria or whatever it is. But just because the landowner has an extra easy legal defence to rely on doesn't mean that if you don't want PL insurance anyway for if you damage something or cause someone to be injured and they try and sue you. There are all sorts of hazards you could be held responsible for: a dig that caused a collapse, injuring someone or damaging surface land; leading a novice who got themselves injured; using explosives and failing to adequately warn people...

I don't know how extensive the BCA insurance is. The equivalent for climbing (I assume it is similar for caving?) includes pretty much everything, including all non-commercial teaching (whether by qualified instructors or not). Obviously in climbing you always have the risk of knocking a rock onto a passerby's head or car while in caving you are usually kept away from the general public...

The BMC are big on the 'climbing is never the liability of the landowner' (except in the case of negligence/bear traps of course); I've never heard this related to whether it is on CROW land or not.

 

[Stu]

But CRoW has been applicable to climbing for years now...and no-one has been able to come up with a single instance of a crag that's been closed off because the landowner didn't like climbing being consider an allowed activity under CRoW...
I'd have more sympathy for the gainsayers if they didn't continually ignore this...

You are missing a vital point!
A crag suitable for climbing is worthless to a farmer /  landowner!
You can not grow anything or raise sheep or shoot grouse! So not worth arguing over, unlike shooting grounds and Trout / Salmon streams.

You've obviously been to different parts of England and Wales I have...

 

[Simon Wilson]

...it'll be a big change ...

Nobody will notice anything different to the present.

Many fells are already open access for caving and on those that aren't officially open access there is de facto open access partly due to the dwindling number of cavers but mainly because of CRoW. Landowners can't distinguish between walkers and cavers; they know that, we know that and they don't seem to be the least bit bothered.

 

[Fulk]

Simon, would you care to elaborate in what context you state:

Landowners can't distinguish between walkers and cavers;

?

Surely most cavers get changed at the roadside and walk to the cave, obviously dressed as cavers (though I have been known on the odd occasion to dress as a walker with a big heavy rucksack full of caving gear, walk to a cave and get changed there to avoid 'looking like a caver').

 

[Simon Wilson]

Simon, would you care to elaborate in what context you state:

Landowners can't distinguish between walkers and cavers;

?

Surely most cavers get changed at the roadside and walk to the cave, obviously dressed as cavers (though I have been known on the odd occasion to dress as a walker with a big heavy rucksack full of caving gear, walk to a cave and get changed there to avoid 'looking like a caver').

If you aren't wearing a helmet and light most people would not know the difference. If one in a thousand people walking up the track is heading for a cave, the farmer doesn't know where they're going and really isn't bothered.

 

[Alex]

In the past where access is sensitive subject (No official access), I have taken the approach of going in walking gear which works well, it don't pee anybody off don't jeopardise access to anywhere. Just don't pick the wrong date like I did once and end with an audience. My attempt at hiding in the grass don't work. Thankfully nobody was bothered.