Vanoord's earlier post where he makes the distinction between obtaining access and controlling access is spot on.

If the objective of the group is to "gain" access for commercial activities (and, thusly, the use of the mine leader qualification comes into play) then I see no objection per se (not from me anyway).

If the objective is commercial and seeks to police/control (call it what you will) recreational exploration (either in addition too or solely) then I see a clear conflict.

If the objective is commercial and it has no impact or effect on the recreational explorer then, again, I see no objection per se (not from me anyway).

A question I have asked here and elsewhere has not been answered so I would like to ask again;

Has the FC already been approached either formerly or informally ?

Ian

---

Has the FC already been approached either formerly or informally ?

Ian

I would guess this all started with some informal 'testing the water' type banter with FC.

Edit: Would seem logical to take the views of a major player into consideration?

Possibly Morlock, but someone will know the answer and I am obviously asking for a reason.....

Ian

---

professional/commercail groups only have ONE interest and thats to make money, recreational users are just collateral damage to them. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

recreational users are just collateral damage to them. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Possibly, but it's much better if the majority of recreational users are, to use a famous quote;

"inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in"

This will be achieved through due consultation and there will be disgruntled caualties along the way.

We are in danger of making assumptions and acting on them ....

It has been suggested to me that "we" (the rest of us) should wait for the inaugural meeting which, prima facie, has merits.

However, I am trying to be prudent and illicit very important information beforehand as the meeting may already be fait accompli and may not be inaugural in the true sense especially if dialogue has already occurred with the FC.

I have been given different answers to this in that I have been told;

1) The FC wanted this and asked for it
2) The CCC (Cambrian Caving Council) have set up this initiative and are pursuing it
3) A group (seemingly headed by Gethin Thomas) has arbitrarily set up the group.

(Clearly all three cannot be true)

I have also been told that it applies only to the Gwydwyr Forest and with regards to the FC – however, the constitution is clearly at variance with this and certainly seems to suggest that the association exists to “manage” all mines and only by permitted qualified leaders only.

Furthermore, the constitution sets out to indemnify landowners by using the BCA scheme. In fact, landowners are already covered under the BCA scheme and this is entirely unnecessary unless it exists for some clandestine purpose.

In fact, the way the constitution is written suggests to me that it is a document written, ready for presentation to landowners with a view to persuading them to grant access and control rights to “SMACG”.

It is for the reasons above I am pressing to find out (before the meeting), who (if anyone) at the FC has been approached and what has already been discussed.

In short, I am concerned we are being mis-lead.

Ian

---

Ian A has put most of my concerns (and obviously others too) very succinctly.

I would add briefly, the following, partly covered by his, and other posts.

What about FC land (outside Gwydir) that currently has freely accessible adits? Obviously I am not going to name names!

What "other owners" have been/are going to be approached?

As it stands the group and it's constitution need to be reigned in (at least to begin with). It can always be extended later, but once an "open constitution" has been agreed it will never be allowed to be contracted, whatever the (initially)unintentional results might be.

Whilst I might agree the basic idea, (FC in Gwydir plus Rhiwbach) may be a good one. As it stands at the moment the constitution definitely is not, by a substantial margin at that!

To add one further point. I think holding just one meeting at quite short notice is not very helpful or encouraging either.

I think perhaps it's a bit harsh to judge the group before it's founded!

If the aim of the preliminary meeting is to establish the ground rules, then it seems churlish to query them before they're settled.

I've not had time to have a proper read of the draft constitution as yet, but I'm sure that constructive comment at the meeting would be welcomed.

To that end, it may be worth anyone who does have any queries raising them on a forum such as this one, if only to see if there is accord or dissent?

---

I don’t think I have been bad tempered or rude and I am not pre-judging the group before it is founded.

I am, however, asking questions as the existence of the post on numerous forums is an invitation to do precisely that. The constitution has already been written and published. Based on this information which was volunteered to all of us – I asked some questions which I felt were relevant. I regret that there have been inconsistencies with the answers and evasion with regards to what may already have been discussed with the FC.

There have already been many well known cases of political troubles and, personally, I am anxious to avoid another one.

However, the constitution clearly seeks to control access to mines in Snowdonia and appears to seek to limit access to those with mine leader qualifications. I hope this is not so and I hope it is a case of an ambiguously worded constitution. I know from experience that, once a club/group/association (or whatever) comes into existence and forms an agreement with a landowner as an Access agent, they will secure the support of the CCC and the BCA even if 99.9% of people do not agree with the club/group/association etc. I also know from experience and evidence that clubs/groups hide behind the statement “The landowners wishes ....” when, in fact, the club/group created the conditions and NOT vice-versa.

If the existence of this group is not going to affect the “average explorer” then why hasn’t a representative of the group come forth and said that ? On the contrary, statements have been issues to the effect that this group now exists and the constitution DOES (as it is currently drafted) affect us all.

In light of recent troubles (very well known troubles) between various individuals and various clubs with regards to access, I am somewhat astonished at what is happening here.

When the club meets on the 29th, all things being equal, it will exist with a constitution that can potentially screw up access for the vast majority of explorers. I am simply trying to understand the groups true intentions before it is too late if it is not already too late.

Ian

---

Here here Ian, well said.

As I said in a previous post it is not good enough just to give people one meeting at a little over a weeks notice when such a lot is at stake!

Marty initially accused me of being negative, that was not my intention, but having read the constitution it started ringing a load of alarm bells.

As I also said earlier. I think initially it should be restricted to only FC land within Gwydir area (plus Rhiwbach for convenience).

I have been reading this with some interest from the perspective of a recreational explorer. I am not a qualified u/g leader.
From what I have read, it appears that the main point is being missed by many.
To my knowledge, the current situation in the Gwydyr Forest is that there is no access to any mines sanctioned by the FC, with the exception of Rhiw Bach. All mines are gated and locked up. That is the FC's official stance, and has been for a number of years.
It is my understanding that the FC charge quite a lot to the users of Rhiw Bach, who (Go Below apart) are pre-dominantly non-profit making educational establishments, using qualified leaders to take groups of children on u/g trips.
For a qualified leader to take groups into ANY mine, the mine itself has to be cleared by a mines inspector annually (sometimes bi-annually). No clearance means no group access, regardless of what the landowner says, and regardless of what any access body says.
The point people are missing is this. Only a very small number of mines in the Gwydyr forest will ever be cleared for group use, and therefore fall into the remit of group use by the new access body being set up.
So while at present individual explorers have little or no legitimate access to the mines, the setting up of a legitimate body to manage access on FC land will only improve access to the mines for the individual explorer.
The only stipulation I can forsee from what I have read in the constitution is the holding of BCA insurance, which is the norm in a large number of places anyway.
Now I am on record many times as not being a fan of insurances of any kind, but even I must admit it would be a small price to pay.

---

Chris,

I hope you are right (really I do). If you are right – will the “Group” modify it’s constitution to that effect ?

Ian

---

In a way Chris, you are backing up what I and others have said in this thread. To quote your words "the current situation in the Gwydyr Forest is that there is no access to any mines sanctioned by the FC, with the exception of Rhiw Bach". It is other FC areas and other land owner areas I (and I think a lot of others too) are more concerned about.

Obviously this group could (and hopefully will) improve the situation in Gwydyr. It must not be at the cost of present freedoms (whether official or otherwise) in other FC/nonFC areas.

It is my understanding that the group will have no remit whatsoever to manage access to mines located outside of FC land.

I also understand from reading MM's recent post on ME, that this group formation is in response to the FC deciding to allow access to their mines nationally, but not wanting to be burdened with the associated logistics such access would bring.

FC land in other areas of the country would be managed by other groups.

Might go to the meeting myself if I have the time. It all sounds very interesting.

---

It is my understanding that the group will have no remit whatsoever to manage access to mines located outside of FC land.

I also understand from reading MM's recent post on ME, that this group formation is in response to the FC deciding to allow access to their mines nationally, but not wanting to be burdened with the associated logistics such access would bring.

I would suspect FC may also hope to generate an income stream from the 'professional' aspect?

It is my understanding that the group will have no remit whatsoever to manage access to mines located outside of FC land.

Read section 3, a, ii of the constitution wherein it refers to any landowners and does not specify which mines.

Again, I hope you are right Chris - will the constitution be amended to reflect this ?

Ian

---

It is my understanding that the group will have no remit whatsoever to manage access to mines located outside of FC land.

Read section 3, a, ii of the constitution wherein it refers to any landowners and does not specify which mines.

Again, I hope you are right Chris - will the constitution be amended to reflect this ?

Ian

Nor does it restrict itself to FC land within Gwydyr either! That may well be the intention, in which case the constitution needs to be amended to reflect this. I think making both of the necessary amendments to reflect what is intended, rather than what is at present written, will put a lot of people's minds at rest.

I have to say that I don't understand peoples issues with the constitution.
3.a.ii:To manage the access to a listed selection of mines...

Therefore not all mines, just a listed selection.

3.a.iii: To manage access to several mines within the land owned and managed by the FC....

I read that as mines agreed with the FC.

3.a.v: To provide access to the mines listed by SMACG to appropriately insured and managed recreational .....

Insured is OK, managed might mean a member of a bona-fide club. I realise Dark Places won't like that, but if it's the key that unlocks some FC sites, so be it.

4.b.1: Membership - Individual members who are appropriately insured...... will be entitled to access all mines within the SMACG management.

Again, SMACG will have a list of mines they have negotiated access to. This is not going to be all mines in Snowdonia / North Wales!

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that makes a land-grab?! My interpretation is that a specific list of sites will be available initially (probably already agreed with the FC), but a framework will be in place to extend that list in due course as members of SMACG feel fit. That could be commercial members, if Rhiwbach collapses and MM needs another venue, or individual members need more gravitas to negotiate with a landowner.

So all good in my book. In my opinion it goes without saying that the FC are aware of this - I can't imagine anybody going to all this effort if the primary landowner in this inaugural configuration is not open for dialogue.

The only pity is the time / date for the first meeting!, it pretty much precludes anybody who isn't local. I certainly can't get away from work in Cambridge at 5pm and make the meeting........

Chris.

Chris,

You are being very charitable and very generous in your interpretation of the constitution. That said, as I have previously indicated with other posts, I do, genuinely and seriously hope you are right.

However, the constitution, as it is currently set out, does give a mandate for a “land grab” (as you put it) for potentially every mine in all of Snowdonia and North Wales.

I really do hope this is just ambiguous wording and I hope that the truth and facts of the matter are that the OEC and maybe some other commercial interests have their eye on a few mines within the Gwydyr Forest (Owned by FC) that they would like to open up for commercial reasons –especially ones that the rest of us currently have no access too. If that is the case, I doubt there would be much (if any) objection from the exploring populace. As things stand, however, they have a constitution to rule, govern and police all of Snowdonian and North Wales mines regardless of the landowner.

Assuming they have an interest in only a small number of FC mines in Gwydyr, would they amend the constitution to reflect this ?

Ian

---