Responsible cavers
- Thread starter cap n chris
- Start date
Tommy
Active member
Madness said:
Of course it doesn't, but it does make you (or in the general sense, 'non-club' cavers) harder to vet and police, that's a certainty.
However, I doubt that there are many 'lone', 'non-club' cavers around, i.e. those who never cave or even interact socially with other 'True'
Those who fit into both the 'lone' and 'non-club' categories are likely be one-time cavers, or an untypical being who may simply be considered a renegade and left to it, if they're ever even 'noticed' - by definition we don't know who they are or how many there are. Just because they fall outside the potential bounds of a system doesn't mean they cause issue. (I aim not to imply any negativity here, you know what I'm getting at).
Ian Adams
Active member
Two examples;
Person ?A?
Is 60+ years old and has been caving and mine exploring since he was 17 years old (43+ years experience). Well known, respected and liked. Chairman of caving club with 60+ members and gives his time to help ?new members?. Fully competent with all the usual aspects of caving including rigging, SRT, good conservation practice. Never had anything more than a minor personal accident underground etc etc. (you get the picture).
Person ?B?
First year caving/mine exploring and takes the mine explorers leader qualification course which he passes. He receives a certificate to say he is ?qualified? (which person ?A? does not have). He is respected and liked but lacks the 43+ years experience of his colleague.
Scenario
A party of 6 people exploring a mine (with 4 inexperienced people and persons ?A? and ?B? above) encounter a ?situation?. Persons ?A? and ?B? are not in agreement on how to proceed ? who do the 4 inexperienced people trust? (in other words, who do they perceive to be the more responsible person?). The actual ?encounter? is irrelevant. It?s the decision making process that the 4 inexperienced people go through that is relevant. (Not every club appoints a ?leader? on every trip either).
In a different instance, as the party of six are walking along the passage, the (false) floor gives way and they all drop 100 feet down a stope with varying degrees of injury ranging from broken bones to death.
Who do the courts recognise as being the more ?responsible? person when it comes to ?blame??
The Persons ?A? and ?B? (above) are not examples, they both exist in real life, right now. The scenarios are purely fictional and have not happened.
However, would the most ?responsible? person be the same in both the scenarios?
(Bet they wouldn?t be).
In short, I don?t think there is a definitive answer to the OP?s original question.
Ian
Person ?A?
Is 60+ years old and has been caving and mine exploring since he was 17 years old (43+ years experience). Well known, respected and liked. Chairman of caving club with 60+ members and gives his time to help ?new members?. Fully competent with all the usual aspects of caving including rigging, SRT, good conservation practice. Never had anything more than a minor personal accident underground etc etc. (you get the picture).
Person ?B?
First year caving/mine exploring and takes the mine explorers leader qualification course which he passes. He receives a certificate to say he is ?qualified? (which person ?A? does not have). He is respected and liked but lacks the 43+ years experience of his colleague.
Scenario
A party of 6 people exploring a mine (with 4 inexperienced people and persons ?A? and ?B? above) encounter a ?situation?. Persons ?A? and ?B? are not in agreement on how to proceed ? who do the 4 inexperienced people trust? (in other words, who do they perceive to be the more responsible person?). The actual ?encounter? is irrelevant. It?s the decision making process that the 4 inexperienced people go through that is relevant. (Not every club appoints a ?leader? on every trip either).
In a different instance, as the party of six are walking along the passage, the (false) floor gives way and they all drop 100 feet down a stope with varying degrees of injury ranging from broken bones to death.
Who do the courts recognise as being the more ?responsible? person when it comes to ?blame??
The Persons ?A? and ?B? (above) are not examples, they both exist in real life, right now. The scenarios are purely fictional and have not happened.
However, would the most ?responsible? person be the same in both the scenarios?
(Bet they wouldn?t be).
In short, I don?t think there is a definitive answer to the OP?s original question.
Ian
I suspect the question raised by the OP is related to the BCA constitution and guiding principles. The first sentence of section 4.6 (quoted below) has been the subject of much debate and a motion at the BCA AGM. The second half of section 4.6 is mentioned less frequently and uses the term 'responsible cavers'.
4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access. Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.
Recently I drafted some advice to 'Access Controlling Bodies' on behalf of BCA and I referred to the sentence in bold. The term 'responsible cavers' is not defined by BCA and, as this thread demonstrates, probably never will be. If the constitution is revised it would be worth completely rephrasing this section. However, although the exact wording of this principle causes much debate, to me the intention, the spirit if you like, of the section is fairly obvious.
4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access. Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.
Recently I drafted some advice to 'Access Controlling Bodies' on behalf of BCA and I referred to the sentence in bold. The term 'responsible cavers' is not defined by BCA and, as this thread demonstrates, probably never will be. If the constitution is revised it would be worth completely rephrasing this section. However, although the exact wording of this principle causes much debate, to me the intention, the spirit if you like, of the section is fairly obvious.
Clive G
Member
such access should be obtained and granted as reasonably as possible for all cavers
Thereby, if a cave is so vulnerable that a leader might be required - or the technical demands and risks so great that a minimum party size of cavers are needed to meet the challenges (such as through being members of a recognised caving club), or the possibility of an inexperienced caver coming to grief is such that some sort of 'caving insurance' is advisable, such as provided by the BCA - the caving body having control over access can make the appropriate judgment and set the entry requirements as reasonable for the particular situation in hand underground.
JasonC
Well-known member
Badlad said:
Thanks for the context, which was so badly lacking from the original post...
This is specifically talking about access. In the eyes of the vast majority of landowners - who aren't cavers - a responsible caver is one who follows the country code, doesn't make a mess, scare the stock, break down fences etc etc.
None of this has anything to do with conservation, and only tangentially to do with safety (ie landowners probably wouldn't be chuffed if a large-scale rescue took place over their land, with all the attendant trampling, vehicles, hullabaloo).
Second point - if there was some sort of responsibility catechism we all had to learn before being granted access, the irresponsible cavers would soon enough learn the right words to say before going ahead and doing exactly as they pleased.
Peter Burgess
New member
Perhaps it has something to do with the BCA wanting to be seen to be encouraging cavers to cave responsibly, by making access as trouble-free as is practical for those who are ...... responsible. I would expect a national representative body to do this and to enshrine it in a constitution as a matter of course.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Badlad said:
100% spot-on Badlad. It's in the BCA's own documentation. Given that conservation is the new hot topic, this kind of stuff needs to be looked at. From a landowner's point of view it is an important question. How do they know they are granting access to a RC?
Clive seems to hint that it might be easily washed out, viz:....
Clive G said:
However, making such a change, simple though it is, requires a Constitutional alteration and that can only be done with a postal ballot and that is very very expensive.
So, for the time being it stands. And hence....
How does a landowner find out that they are granting access to a caver who is Responsible?
PS for everyone locked on beam with the CRoW topic please note this is completely different and actually non-related. So don't bother getting het up on that front, ta.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Clive G said:
Such access should be granted freely to any member of the public.
... would be the CRoW version; bear in mind though that many many many caves are not on Access land so don't confuse the two as being synonymous.
cap n chris
Well-known member
PeteHall said:
How do the caving bodies determine who is responsible?
The question stands. Happy to hear the answer.
PeteHall
Moderator
Generally, I assume a BCA green (or red or blue) card. Joining the BCA shows some (small) level of commitment and effort to do things "the right way" therefore implying some level of "responsibility". Any BCA member at very least has taken the time to discover its existance and is committed enough to hand over some cash and personal details.
This isn't to suggest non-BCA members are irresponsible, but ultimately, this is the BCA constitution we are talking about and BCA ACB's, so it is reasonable to assume it only applies to BCA members.
Perhaps instead it should instead state:
This isn't to suggest non-BCA members are irresponsible, but ultimately, this is the BCA constitution we are talking about and BCA ACB's, so it is reasonable to assume it only applies to BCA members.
Perhaps instead it should instead state:
cap n chris
Well-known member
PeteHall said:
Indeed.
But you may recall from the BCA AGM that only 10% of BCA members receive the newsletter/communications from BCA so being a member doesn't mean they're up to speed on news/conservation/best practice etc. Anyone can pay their subs and yet 90% of them are out of the loop in terms of knowing what being a responsible caver means.
Put simply, being a member of BCA does not mean someone will have any idea about being responsible; it does not serve as a reliable bona fide.
Peter Burgess
New member
Brains this was a perfectly innocent and non-mischievous comment. Please don't accuse me of doing things I have been warned against, and which I have given an undertaking to desist from.Brains said:
PeteHall
Moderator
Cap'n Chris said:
Indeed, but it is a good start. It is also practical to implement.
Though to play devils advocate for a moment, isn't it BCA's job to support/ represent its membership, regardless of who is or isn't a responsible caver?
Perhaps then insisting that all members sign a BCA code of conduct each year on renewal of membership would help, effectively ensuring all BCA members agree to be a responsible caver.
Smiley Alan
New member
PeteHall said:
i red somewere that there was plan to print converstion code on the bca card so people new it and wo'nt forget it . good idea .