Loss of cave access, CROW and other things

Ian Adams · Mar 16, 2013

[gmod]New thread for general discussions not directly relating to Carno.[/gmod]

The topic was the loss of access to a system and there was a suggestion mooted that we might want to look at access with CROW and some other cases. I only added an extension of ?being controlled? to the loss of access (I feel in some cases it sits harmoniously) and the quote you have cited was a response to a question/challenge on precisely that.

I hardly think I have indulged in any ?wild rantings?, on the contrary I feel that I have adopted a view point held by some others and supported a proposal which has arisen directly as a result of this threads raison d?etre. In short, I believe I am addressing and commenting on issues that are central to the topic.

Droid, no, but I guess I should not answer specifically for further for fear of being ?off topic?. :doubt:

?loss of Access? (on topic) can be ?lost? (diminished, made very difficult or become impossible) by a club/body or group imposing it?s own conditions/criteria (having persuaded a landowner that their way is the right way) to some cavers. I am sure any experienced caver can name examples without me having to.

Ian

graham · Mar 16, 2013

Jackalpup said:
I hardly think I have indulged in any ?wild rantings? ...

Oh, I dunno, I suspect that there are some who might, just, possibly, think that your use of Gestapo style policing would fall into that category.

I could be wrong, though

langcliffe · Mar 16, 2013

graham said:
Oh, I dunno, I suspect that there are some who might, just, possibly, think that your use of Gestapo style policing would fall into that category.
I could be wrong, though

Was it not just an inevitable manifestation of Godwin's law?

steviet_scg · Mar 16, 2013

langcliffe said:
graham said:

Oh, I dunno, I suspect that there are some who might, just, possibly, think that your use of Gestapo style policing would fall into that category.
I could be wrong, though

Click to expand...

Was it not just an inevitable manifestation of Godwin's law?

Brilliant

Although when it comes to negotiating access then Hofstatder's law may be more applicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law

graham · Mar 16, 2013

But Hofstatder's law applies to complex tasks; according to the OP negotiating access is a simple job; all that has to happen is that a landowner has to agree to give cavers, i.e. him, whatever they want.

Simple.

SpeleoTrog · Mar 16, 2013

I'm still waiting for an answer from Jackalpup. I asked who he thought should negotiate access and, at the end of a long rant about who shouldn't, he still doesn't tell us who should.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Ian Adams · Mar 16, 2013

I already suggested I would much prefer either the BCA or the CCC were such a "body" to exist.

Failing that, I get the impression from David that he was proposing some form of unity be brought about to look at and address access issues - if that were the case and if such a "body" were formed, I expect that "body" would be less biased in favour of their own individual (club) preferences and more representative of "cavers" in general (as I expect that would be their mandate).

Ian

graham · Mar 16, 2013

Jackalpup said:
I already suggested I would much prefer either the BCA or the CCC were such a "body" to exist.

This sentence doesn't make sense, given that both BCA and CCC do exist.

Ian Adams · Mar 16, 2013

Please stop being pedantic Graham. You know exactly what I mean.

Ian

droid · Mar 16, 2013

Graham might, but I'm buggered if I do....

Ian Adams · Mar 16, 2013

The BCA and the CCC exist as entities but their mandate is not to seek and secure access to ?any old hole? on behalf individuals, clubs or groups. They may do so (and I know they do) where they consider it appropriate but they do not exercise any authority, per se, to supersede individuals, clubs and groups where those bodies are already negotiating or have negotiated access.

Since there is no ?body? in existence whose raison d??tre would be to secure unbiased access for cavers , Jessop asked who I would propose take on such a role. I suggested the BCA (and/or the CCC for Wales) as I consider them to be both appropriate and unbiased in the absence of any other apparent alternatives.

Ian

droid · Mar 16, 2013

Might the CNCC or CSCC be better alternatives, or are they part of your conspiracy theory?

Ian Adams · Mar 16, 2013

I don?t have any conspiracy theories. I was supporting David?s original proposal;

Does anyone agree with me that cavers collectively should be trying to mount some kind of campaign to get it restored - not only to Carno but to other affected caves, both in Wales and other areas?

droid · Mar 16, 2013

You do with regard to Club control of access.

And while I might have sympathy for Dave Rose's wish list, I don't think that it will happen any time soon. As it is, the CNCC and CSCC do a pretty good job IMHO.

Ogof Draenen may well be a farce, but that doesn't apply to all Club/cave situations.

graham · Mar 16, 2013

Jackalpup said:
...but they do not exercise any authority, per se, to supersede individuals, clubs and groups where those bodies are already negotiating or have negotiated access. ...

Indeed they do not and an ounce of research would lead you to discover that their constitutions do not permit them to muscle in on pre-existing access schemes and and ounce of thought would have you realise why. I really, really hope I do not have to explain this. I cannot believe that anyone involved in caving does not understand it.

Do you know how many separate access schemes there are on Mendip that are not negotiated by nor administered by CSCC. The short answer is most of them.

Ian Adams · Mar 16, 2013

Droid,

Please don?t tell me I subscribe to conspiracy theories ? I don?t. I know of a number of instances that I would consider ?unsatisfactory?, I also know of a number of instances that I would consider ?satisfactory? and I also know that there are an even greater number of instances that I have no clue whether access is satisfactory or not.

I posted earlier;

David did say "in certain cases" ....

I do have an issue with ?some? bodies (clubs or otherwise) ....

I have not questioned your judgement or opinion on CNCC, CSCC or Draenen and I am very well aware that any issues surrounding any of the three you have named are hardly likely to apply elsewhere.

Graham,

Yes I know. I was making the point that they don?t do it ? not arguing it.

Ian

graham · Mar 16, 2013

ian

You miss the point. They do not exercise that authority because they do not have that authority. Any attempt to acquire such authority would be bound to end in acrimonious failure.

cap n chris · Mar 16, 2013

And en route it would entail hysterical comedic value.

Ian Adams · Mar 16, 2013

graham said:
ian

You miss the point. They do not exercise that authority because they do not have that authority. Any attempt to acquire such authority would be bound to end in acrimonious failure.

Graham,

I am not in disagreement with you and have not disagreed with you

Ian

bograt · Mar 16, 2013

Cap'n Chris said:
And en route it would entail hysterical comedic value.

Yea, good in't it Chris. dus't think we could show these young Jackalpup's a thing or two, up 'ere in't Peaks.

Descent 305 - Pre-order is open!!

Our August/September issue has a publication date of 2 August, and it is a special summer bumper issue full of stories of exploration and wonder from the underground world.

Loss of cave access, CROW and other things

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads