As I mentioned in a previous thread, I would like the committee to look into the historic aspect of reasons for access restriction. I suspect that the majority of restrictions in the South are there for conservation of cave features and, if so, a mechanism for their retention should be sought. The fell permit system in the North, however, I suspect is a relic of the private land/ grouse shooting moor period and has been largely superceeded by the CRoW act, and should be treated as such. These two examples are not mutually exclusive and can be approached and acted upon according to their respective merits. There will be other reasons for access controls but until the research is done these remain unidentified.Maybe the committee could look into formulating a set of guidelines of accepable reasons for controlling access? NOTE; I said guidelines, NOT rules
Which is the point I was making earlier.... Both the CSCC and the CNCCare strongly "anti-CRoW".....Yet would anyone really suggest that amajority of active Northern AND Southern Cavers are in favour of more landowner restrictions and against better access?
Whilst investigating historic Access agreements and restrictions would be a useful and interesting excercise...I don't see it having anything to do with the BCA's stance on whether to push for clarification on whether caving is included or excluded from CRoWIn fact I don't see what peoples interpretation of the act has got to do with whether BCA pushes for clarification and indeed pushes for it be be included or not...As a representative body the BCA should find out what the majority of its members want and ally itself with their wishes...
Caving is in a bit of a Limbo isn't it...Many Cavers assume CRoW applies to caving and have been caving on access land without permits etc for quite some period of time without any problems...But as its not a specifically included or excluded activity there will always be some friction over it until the point is clarified one way or another...Whilst there currently exists a QC's legal opinion over its inclusion (whilst persuasive) its not definitive until either it is tested in court of clarified at a legislative level...While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...And would give heart and support to cavers who feel their national body support them...rather than Landowners...If the BCA came in behind CRoW and ultimately it wasn't included and the status quo remained I think we could all get behind it...its the feeling that the BCA wants "to throw its members to the wolves" that's galling...Can you imagine the outcry from their members if the BCU didn't so everything in its power to push for increased access for paddlers?I'd like to (and I'm sure many others are the same) see the same backing from OUR body
While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...
Quote from: jasonbirder on August 09, 2014, 11:16:36 amWhile it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...I thought the BCA's opinion was that it currently has no stance on CRoW?
But, unless I've missed something, the clubs haven't canvassed the opinion of their members (me!)
Quote from: kay on August 09, 2014, 11:58:02 amQuote from: jasonbirder on August 09, 2014, 11:16:36 amWhile it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...I thought the BCA's opinion was that it currently has no stance on CRoW?You are right Kay, the only reference to CRoW recently by BCA is to refer it to the C&A committee who have not yet met on the subject.
Apparently, according to the CSCC, I'm against CROW access.Though I don't remember either of the clubs I belong to asking me.........
Thaks for that Bob, Must check who's carrying the vote for us,also would encourage other folk to do the same!.
Main Menu