I have received a communique from the BCA regarding a caving problem that has occurred at Casterton Fell in Yorkshire.
In short, the caves operate on a permit system overlorded by the CNCC (Council of Northern Caving Clubs) and there are 5 permits available for the caves on this Fell. On the 18th August last the landowners visited the Fell to find a large number of cavers and none of the permits had been issued.
This has obviously created a problem and the BCA are anxious to draw this to all clubs attention.
You can see more here;
http://tinyurl.com/castertonfell
and more here;
http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=14026.0
Of course, there is another section already on this forum on how to apply for a permit for the CNCC governed caves.
Regards,
Ian
(Secretary)
On the occasion of the Landowners visit, were any UCET members found naked ? (without permit).
Are these caves worth a visit?
No UCET members were present and the caves are very well known and very popular.
In addition to the caving element, it should be noted that the land is Open Access land and is also full of walkers excerising their right to "roam". There are cavers who feel very discriminated against because of this and, indeed, some of the people that were seen by the landowners would have been walkers not cavers.
Ian
Is there anyonme like 'Kate Ashbrook' who can speak well for 'Cavers rights'?
I don't think that cavers have any "rights" ? Do we ?
Yes, we have the same right of access as anyone else, so a landowner cannot discriminate against cavers and prevent them from exercising the same right to walk on land as non-cavers. Also, we have a right to be listened to so any issues that we wish to bring to the landowner should be considered politely.
Also, I feel that the very existence of caves implies that man-kind should attempt to explore them and understand them. This task is most likely to fall upon a type of human generally called 'a caver'. Cavers practice the 'sport' of caving in the same way as those who practice mountain climbing exercise their particular sport.
They cannot discriminate under the CRoW act for "walking" but the legislation is dubiously worded for whether they must allow "caving".
The BCA has chosen not to seek clarity and wish to avoid a test case in the fear that there is every chance a test case would go against cavers. However, I personally do not believe that the legislators intended to exclude cavers when they produced the act and that the wording thereof is an unfortunate circumstance.
My biggest gripe in this area is "do gooders" saying that we must abide the landowners wishes (which, of course, we must) but who then fail to mention the fact that, in cases, the "do gooders" have approached the landowner and suggested to the landowner that access such be restricted and policed (usually by the "do gooders"). All sorts of politcal crap is usually thrown up when the "do gooders" are challenged to deflect attention such as conservation, landowners rights, SSSI, vandalism, spoilers and many more things that I cannot just bring to mind because of cloud of poison has just entered my mind ....
Ian
to be fair, it's not that hard to apply for permits.
I've not bull pot (and i dont think i've done any of the others of the fell but i'm not sure whats on there)
I'm not sure what these caves are like, but i dont see any isue with simpally getting a permit and keeping out if you've not got one.
it keeps the land owner happy and keeps access open, it's a simple way to make sure visiting cavers have the correct insurance in place
to be fair, it's not that hard to apply for permits.
I've not done bull pot (and i dont think i've done any of the others of the fell but i'm not sure whats on there)
I'm not sure what these caves are like, but i dont see any isue with simpally getting a permit and keeping out if you've not got one.
it keeps the land owner happy and keeps access open, it's a simple way to make sure visiting cavers have the correct insurance in place
BCA's stance is that open access to caves will be bad for the caves. Imagine if anybody had the right to go in a cave, such as vandals and partygoers. It would be difficult to prevent that if they had a legal right of access. Also if a cave needs protection (i.e. a gate) then it could be legally challenged if it obstructed somebodies right to access.
That was pretty much the argument given, whether the argument stands scrutiny is a different matter...
You obviously feel strongly about it Ian.
I do John but I cannot be insensible to the other side of the coin.
I also don't want cave formations damaged, partygoers partying and vandals vandalising but I also don't want gates.
I cannot find an equitable solution to "who" draws the proverbial line or where the "line" should actually be drawn.
It is easy to complain when you have no alternative answers and I do feel like that sometimes. However, it is an inescapable fact that "man" (I am not PC) is an explorer, "man" is a creator of things and "man" is a destroyer of things, I see cave exploration (and the trials and tribulations) as being perfectly "normal" which includes "mans" stupidity, arrogance and his mistakes. If formations are damaged in the process then I am minded to so "so mote it be", it is the natural order of "things".
... Still, I don't want to see any damage come to them which leaves me in a mental pickle :blink:
Ian
You set out the frustration excellently. I am sure everyone will share your feelings - I certainly do.
Few of us would have been able to express the dilema so well.
I think there are ways to resolve this problem, but really I would like to discuss the whole subject with you slowly and carefully one evening - over a few beers.
The best solution is the one they have at cwm, open access to all with a gate, that requires a code and not a key.
if you wanted it to work on a large scale, you gate all the caves, change the codes every year and make the list of codes available to all caving clubs that have BCA membership.
if you want the gate code for a cave, you get it off your own club, if your own club thinks you're a dick, then dont give that member access to the codes.
it's then down to the clubs to police it's members, and those members causing damage get kicked out of the club.
in an ideal world with lots of funds it should work, but obviously at the moment it would be a huge complicated and expensive project to undertake
Yes, I think Dan has half the solution.
The other half is with insurance. I feel that maintaining caves should be funded by those who enjoy uning them, so if every cave or mine is under the control of a local club then they should receive and account for funding to ensure the acess is secrure and maintained, and also that there are adequate safety measures to ensure responsible use.
I feel that all those expecting to access caves should pay towards the cost, and how better than by including a fee within the insurance charge? When we get the BCC card this would show that we have paid for the insurance and also our part towards the cost of maintaining the heritage of British caves.
When I enter Rhyd Alyn I feel very aware of the amount of work (mainly put in by one person) to make this route easily accessible. Any more work done on making the route safer would involve cost. I would not mind paying more on my BCC card knowing that this money will be used to provide better safety and security to cave and mine systems, in such a way that enables access by those who have likewise paid their levy, and that excluded those who may cause damage.
The moment there is official funding from a central body to carry out official work to "make safe" or "maintain" any caves or mines is the moment the hobby/sport would go to shit.
you would instantly get tied up in bureaucracy and red tape over liability and H+S isues.
thats before you even start to get into the "we fixed it, you're not comming in" mentality that would provale. and then obviously you would get the "this place is to dangerous, lock it up"
the easiest thing to do at the moment is just apply for the required permits and permision
I've got the same opinion as Dan here. The permits do and have worked for many years. I'm sure that many of us have met the odd caver down a Yorkshire pot that clearly hasn't applied for a permit, but it's only a problem when a minority become a majority.
It's an attempt to protect and preserve the caves we love and enjoy so much after all.
My view is that H + S does not apply to situations where people venture as a sport. They may apply where people pay to go into a 'pay cave' as a tourism feature, and the operators of the site take responsibility for the safety of thoe who visit.
I am thinking of the situation that Ian describes so well, and the frustration we all face in protecting caves from vandalism, and at the same time protecting our right to explore freely and responsibly.
No doubt the frustration that Ian expresses will get worse and worse as more people become involved in cave and mine exploration, and no universal system of protection and policing is achieved. Becasue of this I feel we do need to act assertively towards establishing the best possible form of protection for the future. It will be a lengthy process, but it will not begin without some considered impulse.
If this process is well worked out and achieves a wide concensus amoungst the exploring community, then it will be sucessful. What we do not want is to see small power groups set up who will control cave and mine access on their own terms for their own purposes.
Part of the process should be to establish a framework through which decisions on policy are made by a democratic process in which all who are affected by any decision are enabled to take part in that decision making process. By this means the community can set out a policy guidelines on how caves are classified in terms of risk of venture and risk of damage, and also on what technical means are regarded as 'best practice' in all situations.
I think such a process could greatly strengthen the cave exploring community, give clubs a clearly defined role in terms of managing their caves and providing legitimate access to them. It could also improve relations between clubs and ensure a raft of funding to enable the work required to discretely improve access safety.
I also see the national BCA and regional groups such as the CCC having a much more active role in administering the funding and setting out principles by which standards are set.
The isue you have with what you are saying is, no none goverment governing body can dictate what can happen on private land, which is where a lotof the entrances to caves and mines are located.
If I had an entrance to a mine or cave on land that i owned, the moment someone tried to tell me who or what could go in that entrance would be the moment i made sure that hole wasn't accessable.
if it wasn't for some clubs now acting like gods, the current system would work just fine, apply for a permit if one is needed, ask permision for theones that need it, or the ones that nave no access at all, just go at night (or early on a sunday)
some places for example, long churn and giants hole have a different system in place, the place is open to all, but to get to them you pay a tresspass fee to the land owner, in return you get somewhere to park and a decent path to walk up.
on the whole, the current system works just fine for most, it is those few who are making waves which is causing the problems.
this isnt just a problem with caving, i'm sure lots of other hobbies which involves going on private lane have the same isues, the best thing to do is to just not rock the boat
I am sure you are right that governments can't (or will not) legislate about what people can do on another person's land. However, the 'Access to Roam' legislation shows what can be achieved through a Labour Government, and after a great deal of preparatory work. Particular rights have also been granted to people for hunting and fishing.
But it is evident that the contention that 'this isnt just a problem with caving' is not true - other wise we would not have this topic. Clearly there are widespread problems with access permissions. My guess is that this problem will get a lot worse rather than better and we all need to get 'realistic' about the way we want our national and regional bodies to respond to the issue.
Personally, I think that the days of free access to caves and mines are soon comming to an end, and in the future anyone expecting to explore underground will need a licence and full insurance. My hope is that this can be administered in such a way that will continue to allow non-club affiliated individuals to gain authorised access to protected sites. But there needs to be a system by which it is know exactly who is visiting any site on any date, in case any damage occurs.
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=9384]Personally, I think that the days of free access to caves and mines are soon coming to an end, and in the future anyone expecting to explore underground will need a licence and full insurance.[/quote]
The second anybody *tries* to license caving or Mine exploration, is when I go solo, and give up all pretences of being civil and "politically acceptable" to other clubs. I will express my contempt for such an idea in any way I possibly can, and I don't want to sully the reputation of UCET in that process. Should anybody actually manage to enforce it, I'll carry on without missing a beat.
Really... a frigging *LICENSE*????
If I'm dangerous, other people simply won't go underground with me... i do not need a piece of paper to tell them I am safe. They will ask others, or decide for themselves. I was under the impression a lot of people went underground to escape bureaucracy, not embrace more of it.
Thats an interesting turn on the term 'underground'.
But in reality we already have a licence system - its the green card. This proves that we are affiloiated to a Cave Club and also have BCA insurance cover. The insurance is not to provide protection to ourselves in the event of injury but rather to protect landowners.
When roads were built there were toll houses to collect funds from those who used roads. This enabled the funding of better roads and developed a much better transport network. Then when motorised vehciles came about a licencing system was devised to ensure that roads could be maintained to a standard that is required for motor transport. Now we are looking at toll systems again to fund big bridges and super motorways. This is a fact of life to-day.
You know that you cannot get a licence for your car unless you have a MOT and can prove you have valid insurance.
The worrying thing is that the landowners at Casterton Fell could decide to close access to the caves because of the abuse of the agreement made with the local Caving Club. This could also happen to us if things ever got tricky. We do need to maintain a rational approach to the issue, and prove that cavers who are members of caving clubs and communities are responsible and will treat caves and mines with respect.
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=9386]Thats an interesting turn on the term 'underground'. [/quote]
I'm not sure what You mean. Caves and Mines are underground. Expand if You will.
[quote="JohnNicholson" post=9386]But in reality we already have a licence system - its the green card.[/quote]
No, we don't. It's an insurance system. At no point does anyone need to prove their competence. When I bought mine last year through another organisation, all I had to do was click a few buttons, enter my payment details, and hey presto, I'm insured. Just like your car insurance. Zero human interaction, and *anyone* can do it.
License implies, at least to me, that I would need to prove my competence underground. I have already done this, as I am typing this, and not lying at the bottom of a shaft or stop somewhere, decomposing. I will continue to do so on further trips. I will not, however, at any point, submit to a system that duplicates this, and then makes me pay for for that priveledge, (Because you *know* that is going to happen). It's simply not necessary.
You have an outlook where everything will run according to plan. I foresee a system full of red tape and frustration. All I want to do is go down a hole, not fill in bloody forms, take tests, and deal with the frustration that yet another of bureaucracy will inevitably add.
I can see the point of insurance, even if only to serve as a nice lever in negotiating access. I can not see the point of a License. The Community is pretty much self-policing, and long may it continue that way. Permits for sensitive places are fine. A Blanket license is just stupidity.
there will always be access it's just a case of how it's managed. there is also access problems with climbing ,canoeing,fishing ect ect ect . like i said it's how it's managedand like dan also said it is the mindless few who spoil it and it only comes up when some one spoils it , other wise we just get stuck in and go caving-oops or mine-exploreing
[quote="mike leahy" post=9389]there will always be access it's just a case of how it's managed. there is also access problems with climbing ,canoeing,fishing ect ect ect . like i said it's how it's managedand like dan also said it is the mindless few who spoil it and it only comes up when some one spoils it , other wise we just get stuck in and go caving-oops or mine-exploreing[/quote]
Tell me about it!!
Dee Access (http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94300)
If any one wants to email to Ashley (Ashley.charlwood@canoewales.com) he is work on the case now, you don't have to be a paddler just want to see right of access to our rivers for all.
[quote="JohnO" post=9394][quote="mike leahy" post=9389]there will always be access it's just a case of how it's managed. there is also access problems with climbing ,canoeing,fishing ect ect ect . like i said it's how it's managedand like dan also said it is the mindless few who spoil it and it only comes up when some one spoils it , other wise we just get stuck in and go caving-oops or mine-exploreing[/quote]
Tell me about it!!
Dee Access (http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94300)
If any one wants to email to Ashley (Ashley.charlwood@canoewales.com) he is work on the case now, you don't have to be a paddler just want to see right of access to our rivers for all.[/quote]
i know john it's shit , thats one of the reasons i stopped paddling. why can't it be more lke scotland(FREADOM)
just been reading the DEE ACCESS
oh what fun you boy's are having.
it sounds like you guy's have a gethyn as well . hey ian you should read this dee access it's right up your street :lol: :lol: :lol:
it just goes to show we all have access problems :( :( :(