To all CNCC member clubs - a suggested way forward for the CNCC.
- Thread starter Bottlebank
- Start date
Bottlebank
New member
Bob Mehew said:
Huh. And to think we near enough used to be neighbours
I lived in Arundel Road and then Hillside Road for twenty years. But you're right Bob, we never met.
No problem.
On CRoW I always understood that access for caving wasn't allowed, the act say:
"
Rights of public in relation to access land.
(1) Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation"
Which would seem to rule out caving.
Part of this debate seems to be between on the one hand people like Simon who want to use CRoW to force access on large estates and people like me who are concerned that local farmers will retaliate by refusing digging permission.
I can see Simon's point, but he seems to refuse to acknowledge the risks involved.
We always could. Perhaps he feels the same way I do, who knows?
I'm currently involved in several digs, only one is on estate land. The rest rely on goodwill from local farmers. Why alienate them by forcing access using CRoW on them when we already have access and need their support.
graham
New member
Bottlebank said:
Every single time that I have had this debate over the years, I have come up against this same refusal to acknowledge this point.
Bottlebank said:
Indeed, we already have just about all we need, why can we not work with people rather than against them?
True there are a few cases where access has been a problem down the years, by no means all on access land, but it is very difficult to see large gains to cavers through taking this route and it is easy, for me at least, to see significant risks. I accept that CNCC may not, possibly, have acted as well as it might, sometimes, but that is a reason to reform and clarify their methods of working, rather than to attempt to change things in other ways.
The main trouble, as I see it, is that there is a hard core who believe that they are entitled to go where they wish when they wish and to hell with everybody else. If they were golfers, they'd probably demand the right to play at Sunningdale or St. Andrews whensoever they wished to turn up.
Simon Wilson
New member
graham said:
That is in your mind and it is insulting to us citizens who have been granted the right to go onto access land and are simply exercising our rights under the law. The legislators have granted us that right after about eighty years of continual campaigning by people like my late father. We owe it to people like those not to turn our backs on the rights that they have won for us.
Before 2006 Lord Shuttleworth could legally eject us from his land and he did. The Police were called regularly to Leck Fell and assisted in the ejection of cavers but that will never happen again. People like you and the CNCC Access Officer have to face up to the reality that things have changed radically.
Simon Wilson
New member
Bottlebank
New member
Simon Wilson said:
Simon,
This shouldn't be about ideology, this about the practical ramifications of CRoW. Must admit I can never recall hearing about the Police being called to Leck Fell but I'll take your word for it.
Why don't you answer a straight question or two?
Why are you willing to risk alienating local farmers over something that doesn't bring any real benefit to us?
Are you really willing to jeopardise digging access in say parts of Kingsdale or elsewhere simply to further your crusade or your belief in your "right" to go anywhere regardless of the wishes of the landowners?
Where specifically do you expect to see any benefit? "Sport" cavers rights winning out over diggers and new exploration suffering as a result, is that your aim?
Tony
graham
New member
Simon Wilson said:
I was not including you in that Simon, I do not know you. I am aware of others, however, who have actively threatened landowners when they did not get their way. This is one of the things that has changed radically in the last few years, it would never have happened when I started caving.
graham said:
Really? Were the police called on this occasion or occasions? If not, they most certainly should have been.
To say you are "aware of others who have actively threatened landowners" is to make a statement of fact. This is a very serious allegation and should be backed up with firm evidence if true. This evidence should then be immediately passed on to the police in the hope that the appropriate action would be taken against those involved.
Has this been done?
kdxn
New member
Regarding CRoW, I wrote to Natural England and got an answer with respect to Caving and Commercial caving.
Permission was then sought to share that detailed answer with BCA and this was passed to the BCA working group on CRoW access some time ago.
I do not want to print the verbose answer here because I did not get permission to do that.
I can summarise it as the following.
1. Cavers have a right on CRoW designated land to walk on the surface to a cave entrance (although see 3 and 4 below).
2. CRoW does not provide a right of access INTO a cave on CRoW designated land. Access into a cave is controlled by the Landowner or their designated authority.
3. CRoW does not permit commercial activities. Commercial activities are controlled by the Landowner.
4. The Landowner has the right to close off CRoW areas for specific reasons as mentioned within the act. A typical example of this is a close season to protect ground nesting birds.
The above is my interpretation of the detailed NE response.
My argument that CRoW explicitly includes Climbing as a permitted activity and that Caving is a form of Climbing was rejected on the basis that Caving is not an open air activity. It should be noted that CRoW does not explicitly include Caving as a permitted activity but also it does not explicitly exclude it.
In my opinion we need to abide by the current law and that means working with the Landowners.
It would be useful if ALL BCA members were individually polled as to whether they want BCA to lobby for a change to CRoW to provide open access to caves or continue with the current permit system.
Permission was then sought to share that detailed answer with BCA and this was passed to the BCA working group on CRoW access some time ago.
I do not want to print the verbose answer here because I did not get permission to do that.
I can summarise it as the following.
1. Cavers have a right on CRoW designated land to walk on the surface to a cave entrance (although see 3 and 4 below).
2. CRoW does not provide a right of access INTO a cave on CRoW designated land. Access into a cave is controlled by the Landowner or their designated authority.
3. CRoW does not permit commercial activities. Commercial activities are controlled by the Landowner.
4. The Landowner has the right to close off CRoW areas for specific reasons as mentioned within the act. A typical example of this is a close season to protect ground nesting birds.
The above is my interpretation of the detailed NE response.
My argument that CRoW explicitly includes Climbing as a permitted activity and that Caving is a form of Climbing was rejected on the basis that Caving is not an open air activity. It should be noted that CRoW does not explicitly include Caving as a permitted activity but also it does not explicitly exclude it.
In my opinion we need to abide by the current law and that means working with the Landowners.
It would be useful if ALL BCA members were individually polled as to whether they want BCA to lobby for a change to CRoW to provide open access to caves or continue with the current permit system.
jasonbirder
Member
I can definitely see the benefits of working within the system to prevent Landowners vetoing new surface digs/exploration...
BUT with regards to these specific area's the VAST majority of cavers are excluded from caving under the current system...and the CNCC seems remarkably resistant to change...so for most cavers the question isn't the blunt instrument of CRoW vs the currrent access agreement, its the blunt instrument of CRoW vs pirating...
Its a sad indictment that the strongest push for CRoW access to caves isn't in an area where landowners prevent access to cavers...but in an area where the ACCESS body itself blocks access to cavers...
BUT with regards to these specific area's the VAST majority of cavers are excluded from caving under the current system...and the CNCC seems remarkably resistant to change...so for most cavers the question isn't the blunt instrument of CRoW vs the currrent access agreement, its the blunt instrument of CRoW vs pirating...
Its a sad indictment that the strongest push for CRoW access to caves isn't in an area where landowners prevent access to cavers...but in an area where the ACCESS body itself blocks access to cavers...
It's interesting that they consider caving to not be an outdoor activity. I wonder where they stand on potholes such as Rumbling Hole. You can get a fair way in before you no longer have sky above you. At what point are you no longer outdoors? My own view would be "when you go through a door" but that is clearly far too simple.
martinm
New member
kdxn said:
It is already being worked on by the CRoW Working Party survey for BCA to evaluate the situation and what action to take, if any can be. (We are as I've said before building a database of info about caves, access and whether they are or not on CroW land.)
Includes prominent Northern Cavers and DCA. I suggest everybody read the Northern Cavers' article in DESCENT 235 (Dec. 2013/14) p.36: "Caves and CRoW". A very good article. Just be patient, it is being looked at behind the scenes...
Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.
Simon Wilson
New member
Nobody posting on here appears to have grasped what I am saying so I?ll try to explain it at more length. The argument about whether or not, or to what extent, caving is an ?open air recreation? is important but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make so please put that to one side for the time being.
Lord Shuttleworth used to be quite heavy-handed in dealing with cavers on his land and he even turned out in person sometimes. He had a man who went up to Leck Fell several times a day and made sure cavers left if they didn?t have permits. The law allowed him to do that and it allowed for reasonable force to be used to remove anyone who refused to go. I have never heard of anybody refusing to go but it probably happened and I have heard of people giving his man some serious verbal abuse. It is possible that the use of force could come into it which I suppose is why the Police could justify their attendance.
The foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 closed down caving in the Dales and after that the numbers going caving were very much depleted for years. It has only been during the last few years that numbers have increased to something like the numbers before 2001 and we are now seeing occasions when it is difficult to find room to park at Lost Johns car park. I have met the Estate Manager at LJ car park and he did ask if I had a permit but it was all very friendly and we had an interesting chat about access matters.
It simply isn?t possible to use the CRoW Act as a ?blunt instrument? because the CRoW Act is now in place and there is no conflict. You can now walk freely all over the fell in caving gear. If the landowner was to do or say anything which might be intended to deter you from being there he would be breaking the law and he knows that. He could ask you if you are intending to go caving and he could ask you if you have a permit but you wouldn?t have to answer him ? and he knows that too. What the CRoW Act has done is render it impractical to enforce the access agreement and in effect the permit system has become voluntary. There is now no heavy-handedness from the landowner and it appears that the only heavy-handedness is coming from the CNCC. It seems to me that the people who are most in fear of the effects of the CRoW Act are the CNCC.
Lord Shuttleworth used to be quite heavy-handed in dealing with cavers on his land and he even turned out in person sometimes. He had a man who went up to Leck Fell several times a day and made sure cavers left if they didn?t have permits. The law allowed him to do that and it allowed for reasonable force to be used to remove anyone who refused to go. I have never heard of anybody refusing to go but it probably happened and I have heard of people giving his man some serious verbal abuse. It is possible that the use of force could come into it which I suppose is why the Police could justify their attendance.
The foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 closed down caving in the Dales and after that the numbers going caving were very much depleted for years. It has only been during the last few years that numbers have increased to something like the numbers before 2001 and we are now seeing occasions when it is difficult to find room to park at Lost Johns car park. I have met the Estate Manager at LJ car park and he did ask if I had a permit but it was all very friendly and we had an interesting chat about access matters.
It simply isn?t possible to use the CRoW Act as a ?blunt instrument? because the CRoW Act is now in place and there is no conflict. You can now walk freely all over the fell in caving gear. If the landowner was to do or say anything which might be intended to deter you from being there he would be breaking the law and he knows that. He could ask you if you are intending to go caving and he could ask you if you have a permit but you wouldn?t have to answer him ? and he knows that too. What the CRoW Act has done is render it impractical to enforce the access agreement and in effect the permit system has become voluntary. There is now no heavy-handedness from the landowner and it appears that the only heavy-handedness is coming from the CNCC. It seems to me that the people who are most in fear of the effects of the CRoW Act are the CNCC.
