Casterton Fell - Yorkshire

[Ian A]

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)

[John Nicholson]

On the occasion of the Landowners visit, were any UCET members found naked ?  (without permit).

Are these caves worth a visit?

[Ian A]

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

[John Nicholson]

Is there anyonme like 'Kate Ashbrook' who can speak well for 'Cavers rights'?

[Ian A]

I don't think that cavers have any "rights" ?   Do we ?

[John Nicholson]

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.

[Ian A]

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

[Danny Sutton]

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

[Danny Sutton]

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

[Les Williams]

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...

[John Nicholson]

You obviously feel strongly about it Ian.

[Ian A]

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

[John Nicholson]

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.

[Danny Sutton]

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

[John Nicholson]

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.