Some good news on cave access

[cavermark]

Well put, Jasonbirder

 

[Jon]

But there aren't problems in Derbyshire, or Mendip. Or if there are, they can be sorted locally.

Having Caving considered an activity that can take part on CRoW land isn't going to affect those agreements though is it? Yes, its mainly an issue that affects the Dales and yes, mainly the large estates...but farmers in Derbyshire aren't going to think Oh no! Caver's are caving freely on access land...I must instantly bar access to them on my farmland to show solidarity with my Grouse Moor owning bretheren in Yorkshire are they?

Similarly there are plenty of Caves on access land in Yorkshire were there is a fantastic and flexible arrangement in place...IE E Kingsdale Caves...no need to change things there if the interpretation of the CRoW legislation changes...if access to those Caves contains reminder...please make a courtesy call at the farm before descending...people still will...

A change in the interpretation of CRoW doesn't blow any existing relationships or agreements away...it merely opens up more possibilities in area's where access is presently difficult...or dis-allowed...

Well said.

There seems to be a lot of scaremongering that using CROW will cause the sky to fall.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I do not want to see the CNCC in control of anything because they clearly cannot be trusted.

But you must take some responsibility for that, surely? Earby has been a member of the CNCC Committee since at least 2008.

The EPC have not been a member of the committee for about 15 years before the 2014 AGM and did not attend a committee meeting before 2013. It was our representative at the meeting in 2013 who alerted us to the fact that correct procedures were not being carried out at committee meetings. I have already pointed out that the list of the committee in the agenda for the AGM is complete fiction. The officers were unable to name the committee at the January meeting; something that they have since tried to deny. As the Minutes Secretary at the time you should have known who the committee were and clearly you do not. It is highly offensive of you to suggest that the EPC bear any responsibility for the appalling behaviour of the CNCC over the past few years and you should apologise.

 

[dunc]

But there aren't problems in Derbyshire, or Mendip. Or if there are, they can be sorted locally.

Similarly there are plenty of Caves on access land in Yorkshire were there is a fantastic and flexible arrangement in place...IE E Kingsdale Caves...no need to change things there if the interpretation of the CRoW legislation changes...if access to those Caves contains reminder...please make a courtesy call at the farm before descending...people still will...

Nothing would change with that particular example, as you pass the farm and use a field (not CRoW) to gain access to the CRoW land.. Unless of course you took a long winded route via a footpath that crosses the CRoW land and avoids the field, but that's just silly! Similar situations exist elsewhere in the Dales..

 

[Bottlebank]

I do not want to see the CNCC in control of anything because they clearly cannot be trusted.

But you must take some responsibility for that, surely? Earby has been a member of the CNCC Committee since at least 2008.

The EPC have not been a member of the committee for about 15 years before the 2014 AGM and did not attend a committee meeting before 2013. It was our representative at the meeting in 2013 who alerted us to the fact that correct procedures were not being carried out at committee meetings. I have already pointed out that the list of the committee in the agenda for the AGM is complete fiction. The officers were unable to name the committee at the January meeting; something that they have since tried to deny. As the Minutes Secretary at the time you should have known who the committee were and clearly you do not. It is highly offensive of you to suggest that the EPC bear any responsibility for the appalling behaviour of the CNCC over the past few years and you should apologise.

Simon,

I love the idea that Kay should apologise for the fact that despite being founder members of the CNCC the Earby couldn't be bothered getting involved until last year and so it's everyone else's fault but ours!

Of course responsibility for the way CNCC has been operating, good and bad, is partly our fault, just as it's partly the fault of every other full member club, whether they remained involved or not.

I don't like the suggestion made by someone that Dales diggers are a small minority whose views aren't worth listening to. That is much more offensive (even if only to me) than Kay's idea - but I'm not going to demand an apology

Pub calls.

Tony 

 

[Alex]

Exploration is important we should support them, after all they give us more caves to play in!

But I do not think it will make any worse getting permission for digs, when CROW act gives free access, well no more problems than the 60% who ignore the permits currently, in-fact since no one would be breaking any rules I would think the land owners would have less things to be angry about.

Rather pointless me posting on here as everyone seems to just ignore me anyway. Oh well will go and make fun of that religous nut person in the expedition forum, he picked the wrong website to post that on didnt he!?

Bah it's locked.

 

[graham]

But there aren't problems in Derbyshire, or Mendip. Or if there are, they can be sorted locally.

Having Caving considered an activity that can take part on CRoW land isn't going to affect those agreements though is it? Yes, its mainly an issue that affects the Dales and yes, mainly the large estates...but farmers in Derbyshire aren't going to think Oh no! Caver's are caving freely on access land...I must instantly bar access to them on my farmland to show solidarity with my Grouse Moor owning bretheren in Yorkshire are they?

Similarly there are plenty of Caves on access land in Yorkshire were there is a fantastic and flexible arrangement in place...IE E Kingsdale Caves...no need to change things there if the interpretation of the CRoW legislation changes...if access to those Caves contains reminder...please make a courtesy call at the farm before descending...people still will...

A change in the interpretation of CRoW doesn't blow any existing relationships or agreements away...it merely opens up more possibilities in area's where access is presently difficult...or dis-allowed...

And still we have a Yorkie-centric view with no understanding of what happens in other places. I find this very frustrating as I cannot give details of arrangements that I know would be compromised by changes in CRoW that are being put forward here, as I am obviously not in a position to speak for others.

The sky might not fall in, but some things would undoubtedly be compromised.

Please solve your problems - which seem to be within your own access body as much as anything else - without making more for us. Please.

 

[jasonbirder]

Fail to understand how having Caving allowed under CRoW would impact negatively on any existing relationships...

If landowners are happy to allow access currently with minimal reservations why would bringing that under a legal framework have any negative effect?

What concrete examples are you thinking of?

 

[Alex]

Thats what I am thinking. If he cant explain his position how can he expect us to understand his point of view.

 

[zomjon]

Jason's Yorkie-centric view is from someone who does the majority of his caving in the Peak, and as another Peak based caver, I totally concur with what he wrote.  Well said Jason

 

[NigR]

Some people seem to be locked into the thinking that a problem that affects their area is a national problem.

Yes, there may be (are?) problems in the Dales and North Wales.

But there aren't problems in Derbyshire, or Mendip. Or if there are, they can be sorted locally.

There are also several different places in South Wales where problems either currently exist or could well arise in the non too distant future.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Do you think it would stop people illegally ripping locks off gates? If so, I'm all for it.

 

[graham]

Thats what I am thinking. If he cant explain his position how can he expect us to understand his point of view.

I can explain it, but I refuse to discuss potentially delicate relationships on an open forum which is not only frequented by landowners and other bodies but is used by folks who have a known distaste for their concerns.

Why can you not simply reform your own body, if you feel that to be necessary & sort out new arrangements in your own areas?

 

[georgenorth]

Your gain should not be at others' loss though, George.

I can see how the surface diggers feel they've got something to lose. It's entirely possible that if this isn't handled well then the likes of the Kay-Shuttleworth Estate would refuse permission for a future dig such as the dry entrance into Witches II. I'm slightly more sceptical that this would result in a refusal to dig on land where the landowners are more caver-friendly (Marble Steps area for instance).

I'm at a complete loss to see how this might affect access arrangements in areas outside of the Dales such as Graham is alluding to. Clearly I'm not the only one...

My hope is that the BCA/CNCC adopt a much more progressive stance on CRoW, and hopefully the negative impacts of a 'forced' change can be avoided. As David Rose said earlier removing the inaccurate 'BCA Position on CRoW' document would be a good start.

 

[NigR]

Do you think it would stop people illegally ripping locks off gates? If so, I'm all for it.

In some cases it might well do so, in others maybe not.

(Only way to be 100% certain that locks and gates will not be damaged or removed is to refrain from putting them there in the first place.)

Does this mean that you are now in favour of caving on CRoW land, Peter?

 

[graham]

I'm at a complete loss to see how this might affect access arrangements in areas outside of the Dales such as Graham is alluding to. Clearly I'm not the only one...

Will you not adopt the precautionary principle and accept that taking steps that might deal with a local issue locally, by reforming CNCC and revamping its relationships with the relevant estates, might be preferable to potentially destabilising relationships that currently work perfectly well elsewhere?

Don't listen to the likes of NigR, he is ideologically anti any cave gates at all. He'd even be against the gated access to cave that I negotiated some 20 years ago on the edge of a large housing estate. A cave that had been closed for 30 or more years up until that point because local kids had needed rescuing from it.

It it wasn't for me, that cave would be closed now. Instead of having concrete down the entrance it now has a gate and an access system that has worked well for 20 years.

I use this as an example because it is in an urban setting, not on CRoW land and thus cannot be used as a stick to beat me with. I use it simply to show that not every cave is in the middle of a moor.

And of course that will still be held against me, but hey.

 

[blackholesun]

Graham;

That last comment is both an ad hominem and straw man fallacy. You can't reasonably say "Ignore idea Y from person X because I think person X believes idea Z, which is ludicrous".

Pen Park Hole has nothing to do with CROW.

 

[graham]

Graham;

That last comment is both an ad hominem and straw man fallacy. You can't reasonably say "Ignore idea Y from person X because I think person X believes idea Z, which is ludicrous".

Pen Park Hole has nothing to do with CROW.

I have given my reasons why I shall not give more direct examples. Sorry, but I shall not change that stance simply to satisfy some people on here.

The reasons for citing that cave are twofold, firstly to demonstrate my long term commitment to improving cave access and secondly to point out - not a straw man - that some people on here are ideologically opposed to any restrictions on their access, any at all. NigR has posted his opposition to all cave gates on here, I simply give an example of a sensible cave gate.

 

[graham]

Pen Park Hole has nothing to do with CROW.

BTW

The fact that you name a cave where I didn't is a perfect example of why I refuse to identify any of the other situations that I am concerned about. That one is non-contentious, others less so.

 

[georgenorth]

I'm at a complete loss to see how this might affect access arrangements in areas outside of the Dales such as Graham is alluding to. Clearly I'm not the only one...

Will you not adopt the precautionary principle and accept that taking steps that might deal with a local issue locally, by reforming CNCC and revamping its relationships with the relevant estates, might be preferable to potentially destabilising relationships that currently work perfectly well elsewhere?

I'm not sure that access could be re-negotiated at a local level if the national governing body for the sport has a document on its website (now incorrectly) stating that CRoW provides no right of access to caves. You still haven't explained how the BCA/CNCC changing its position would in any way affect a location such as PPH (I assume), or similarly sensitive locations, which believe it or not, do exist in the Dales.