As a climber who only recently started caving, the idea of the relevant national body's constitution having a clause that foremost protects the rights of landowners, not cavers, seems crazy. As I'm sure everybody knows, the BMC fought heavily to have climbing included in CROW legislation and this has been a massive benefit to climbers. I know that caving access is more complex and some places may need more protection, but if that was the case (and my limited research suggested it would only be a few places) I believe the correct avenue would be the Section 26 orders designed for this purpose.
(and if you think cavers care more about conservation than climbers, try sticking a bolt in Stanage and see how many hours it lasts! Go anywhere near the place with a chisel and you might end up buried in a shallow grave at the foot of a climb...)
Genuine questions:
How often do you see 'non-cavers' in caves?
Are there any gated caves which have keys but are not leader-led where the key-holders make some checks about the competency of the cavers applying (I presume not)?
Has the introduction of CROW caving in Scotland made any obvious differences? Have some gated/leader-led caves had to be opened up? 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?
Since this thread rapidly degenerated into highly speculative extrapolations from the legislation, I will add some more of my own for humour value. I am of the opinion that since the BCA clearly missed the chance to deal with CROW access (or otherwise) for caving when the act was being drafted (unlike the BMC), the issue will not be decided until it goes to court or further legislation is made.
In Schedule 2, 'General Restrictions' states that the CROW act does not entitle any person to be on the access land if that person 'bathes in any non-tidal water'. So be careful to emerge from any sump, duck or streamway muddier than you went in... Equally you are not allowed to use any vessel or sailboard on non-tidal water, so better keep your lake-crossing Tyrolean skills handy (no crossing in a rubber ring any more!). You can take your dog (but not any other animal) though. Incidentally, does the Otter Hole sump count as tidal? Does it have to be salt water to count as tidal, or just dependant on the height of the tide? These are important questions!
Caving clubs concerned about have entrances they wish to restrict access to have a wide range of activities they can use to prevent land being access land. Such options include growing crops, covering the entrance with a building, making the entrance the centrepiece of a park or garden, quarrying rock from the cave and using the entrance to extract the rock, build a railway or tramway, golf course, racecourse, aerodrome, having a dwelling house or a building used for housing livestock within 20m, or using the land for training racehorses (although this last one is only the morning + actual use times).
I can just image the a miniature golf course where the final hole drops your ball into a streamway far below, and clubs developing strangely out-of-character interests in horticulture...
Far more exciting are the possibilities for digging. Sections 35 and 37 allow for the access authority to make orders where they feel works are necessary to allow better access to CROW land. Normally this just means that the landowner has to build a stile or a gate, but if we could convince the access authority that there was CROW cave between say Swildon's and Wookey Hole, they could make an order that the landowner had to open access to it...
You missed the point (again). I was answering the question - why does the BCA constitution respect the right of landowners to grant or withhold access.
