Caving and the right to roam, above and below ground

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/caving-and-the-right-to-roam-above-and-below-ground

Version 0 of 1.

Gaping Gill is one of the finest natural creations in the UK, ranking with Ben Nevis, Malham Cove or Cheddar Gorge. The recent linking of the Three Counties system – a network connecting Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria – was equivalent to the completion of the Scottish munros or the first polar expeditions.

The legal position for access to caves on access land is bizarre and irrational (Cavers want the right to roam taken to a much deeper level, 29 March). You can go into a cave entrance, according to Defra, only as far as the light penetrates. Why not as far as sound might penetrate – or fresh air can be detected?

Potholers must seek the permission of landowners to venture underground. Landowners do deny access for considerable periods each year. Why is potholing not recognised in the Countryside and Rights of Way (Crow) Act? The legislation stems from the mass trespasses of the 1930s in Derbyshire, when caving was not an issue; there was no lobbying by cavers before the introduction of Crow; there is little experience of potholing by those in Whitehall charged with framing the legislation.

There seem to be no good arguments as to why underground access should not be a legal right. There would be no additional burden on landowners. Recognition of the right would reduce landowner liability. There will still be the opportunity for landowners to impose temporary restrictions for land management matters. There will be no costs to the public purse.

Defra’s interpretation is unnecessarily restrictive and does not reflect the intention of parliament.Cllr Richard ToonChair, Lancashire Local Access Forum

• The position taken by Defra and Natural England with regard to open access to caves as far as daylight permits is a strange one and appears to be taken in ignorance of one of our planet’s great natural environments. What on earth can be darker than a cave? This peculiar technicality maintains current access by permit only. These have to be applied for in advance by caving club secretaries on headed notepaper, the number of cavers permitted in the cave could be as low as six. When caves flood you lose your chance and must reapply. So much for spontaneity.

An argument against open access is the conservation of a fragile environment. The last 10 years or so has shown a massive increase in conservation efforts made by caving clubs and groups. It should be no surprise that conservation has developed alongside the campaign for open access on Crow land. Caving is unlike any other form of exercise; where else can you walk, stoop, squeeze, crawl, climb and swim all in one gritty excursion? Caving takes you into spectacular spaces, places of wonder, lands of lost rivers. To be in a cave is to experience an intense altered state of natural awareness and in these uncertain, earth-changing times, we need such ways of grasping and respecting the forms and forces of nature more than ever. The Crow Act encourages you to walk and climb over mountains; it should also encourage you to walk and climb under them.Frank PearsonPreston

• Swimmers and canoeists would like the right to swim and canoe more widely. The half-hearted Crow Act, unlike the more radical Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, specifically excluded people from bathing in, or using a vessel on, any non-tidal waters in the access lands. Voluntary access agreements, favoured by government, have not proved a panacea for canoe clubs, not least because of the difficulty of finding out who owns the land beside a river. And access agreements offer nothing for the casual walker who might feel like a swim on a summer’s day.Jean PerratonCambridge

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com