a. Members of the SMACG assembled at a properly convened
Annual General Meeting shall constitute the supreme authority
of the SMACG
Looks like Whaley ash was 'on message' on 'the other site!'
Owd Git. :thumbup:

As things stand, however, they have a constitution to rule, govern and police all of Snowdonian and North Wales mines regardless of the landowner.

Well, the constitution doesn't prohibit them from doing that, no, but I don't see anywhere that sets out that they intend to! (neither to I see any part which prohibits anybody else from doing so). Which part of the constitution do you interpret to mean that?

There's nothing to stop anybody trying to 'rule, govern and police' any particular site, if they get agreement from the landowner, and it's pretty common for that to happen as you know. I don't see the SMACG as being any different in their aims to Grovenor, NWCC, CATMHS, SWCC etc etc.

Chris.

Which surely is the problem Chris!

Sorry Chris, we are not seeing “eye to eye”.

You cannot be insensible to the political access problems in North Wales and I would be surprised if you were unaware of the ones in South Wales.

Clubs, groups and individuals who have “recently” sought to create access arrangements where there was already unfettered access has resulted in, not only political warzones, but serious threats and police involvement. It all starts with what may be a totally innocent ideology but very quickly escalates to biblical proportions.

You are correct that this is no different (in essence) to access agreements sought by GCC, NWCC etc. But you must also be well aware that most of those arrangements lay in total tatters and that there is a tremendous amount of ill-feeling towards those people involved in those actions within those clubs/groups.

Any attempt to control access to mines is inherently divisive within our community.

I am not opposed to certain parties seeking certain access arrangements (specifically, in this case, as it appears, the OEC and other commercial interests seeking to obtain access to a limited number of FC owned mines) but I am certainly against any “body” attempting to police or control the exploring populace in general. If SMACG is, indeed, interested in only a few FC controlled mines then they would set a large numbers of minds at rest by amending their constitution as such. Publishing a constitution that lays out that they seek to procure access agreements with any/all landowners in Snowdonia/North Wales and to limit access to qualified leaders only is either very bad wording or very provocative. I would choose to believe it is bad wording and I would hope for it to be corrected.

I am surprised that a representative of the “group” has not yet come forward on one of the forums to make clear their objectives or, at least, dispel the controversy.

Regards,

Ian

---

I, for one, try to avoid stressful or un-necessary beligerant confontation; however it seems a point of basic understanding has been brought to attention in the dialogue preceeding.I do hope the matter is fully expanded in polite terms, as there is some ambiguity in term and reach of phraseiology. I would thank those who have been kind and put time to bring us to this point of affairs.
I certainly had not enough time, or ashamedly, inclination at the first posting.
(serious) O.G.

Ian,
Indeed, I am fully aware of issues at the Milwr, the NWCC in general at Minera and the 'excitement' at Draenen in South Wales.

Clearly a good number of sites are accessed without the landowners knowledge, and long may that continue.
However, if the Landowner sets out his terms of engagement, and they include an access controlling body such as the one being discussed, then surely that's better than no access at all? (compare the recent issues at Church Mine, Sliption and the Drayton Estate).

What I would like you to explain however is your justification for this statement:

any “body” attempting to police or control the exploring populace in general.

I just don't see where you get that from?

I also realise that whatever happens, you won't please anybody. The Draenen fiasco illustrated that, and probably also put off many folk from even getting involved in trying to open up access! Yet I do believe that situation was unneccessarily fanned by belligerence, political intransigence and ideology. Some pragmatism would have been beneficial to all.

Chris.

Chris,

There are a good number of additional “problems” to those you have listed and more recent and more local. As the secretary of one of the local clubs I have been involved with some of these even though the club has not always been directly involved. Some have resulted in serious threats of violence and many have resulted in lids being ripped off and more than one instance has resulted in police involvement. Some of the people involved are well known on the main two forums.

I would agree with you that Landowners wishes are paramount and should be “engaged”. However, it is my experience (and I have seen ZERO examples to the contrary) that the Access body has approached the landowner with their own proposals to which the landowner has agreed. I have yet to see, learn of or know about any landowner who has laid down such stipulations as “the mine may only be entered if a qualified leader is present” etc. Again, it is my experience that such groups/clubs/bodies hide behind the statement “the landowners wishes ….” To further their own position and freeze out other “bodies” thus claiming the mine as their own (same with caves).

Having said that, I have no particular problem with a group doing so provided they tell the truth about it and provided is does not hinder or bar existing unfettered access. I have a big problem with groups that lie and deceive to empire build and then impose their own “laws” – I see this power mongering.

However, if it is the case (as I believe) that the FC have been approached over a period of time and difficult negotiations to open up a few mines in the Gwydyr forest have been taking place for the benefit of OEC and other commercial interests then I have no problem provided it doesn’t screw everything up for the rest of us (or any collateral damage is limited and “we” are considered in the process) provided SMACG are open and honest about what they are doing. Currently their constitution does not reflect this, and, to be honest, it looks really bad.

To answer your other question; by “body” I mean a group, a club, an association, persons or person.

Regards,

Ian

---

Ian,
Absolutely no need for violence and ripping lids off!

I take your point about access bodies engageing with landowners in a manner that overcomplicates the arrangement and is effectively a land-grab. There are examples of where access is permitted by the landowner on an informal bases, Roy Fellows has arranged a number of these. This modus-operandii should be avoided, presumably this is one aspect in which you believe the constitution should be amended to safeguard.

I think our differences are about how we interpret the consitution, and you still haven't explained why you think the consitution mandates that the SMACG will attempt to expand their coverage!

It seems that the best way to avoid the unhappiness about which you are acutely aware is with transparency.

Perhaps three things should be instigated on Wednesday:
1. A consitutional requirement for transparency, e.g. publishing minutes of meetings on-line.
2. Consitutional requirement for committee members to be drawn from all user groups (and specify those groups to cover commercial, club, individual etc.)
3. Constitutional requirement for meetings to invite the 'the community', and allow 30mins for the 'public' to speak.

Ian - I hope you can attend the meeting, clearly you have a lot of experience which would be valuable.

Chris.

you still haven't explained why you think the consitution mandates that the SMACG will attempt to expand their coverage!

.... I haven't suggested that they "will", I have pointed out that their constitution provides that they "can" if they choose to.

I have been asking for clarification and have suggested that if their intentions are to seek permission for access to a few selected FC mines in Gwydyr then it would be very helpful to amend the constitution to precisely that.

I am hoping to attend the meeting but had hoped that this issue could be clarified in advance.

Regards,

Ian

---

you still haven't explained why you think the consitution mandates that the SMACG will attempt to expand their coverage!

.... I haven't suggested that they "will", I have pointed out that their constitution provides that they "can" if they choose to.

I have been asking for clarification and have suggested that if their intentions are to seek permission for access to a few selected FC mines in Gwydyr then it would be very helpful to amend the constitution to precisely that.

I am hoping to attend the meeting but had hoped that this issue could be clarified in advance.

Regards,

Ian

I totally agree Ian. Amending the proposed constitution as you have proposed (or ven without listing mines just restrict it to FC mines in Gwydyr Forest would be ok by me.

It can always be amended if needed or requested at a later date by voting at an AGM or EGM.

I would also add I am not happy with clause 12 as it stands.

As it is currently written, not only does it need a two thirds majority (rather than a simple majority) but also unanimous agreement of the executive. This means that even if every member at an AGM votes for an amendment, but just one member of the executive votes against, then the motion is lost. That cannot be right!

Also I think an amendment should be capable of being put before an EGM, not just an AGM.

Things have not changed much in 30 years in North Wales, some people empire building on top of the good very hard work and name of underground explorers. :guns:

Things have not changed much in 30 years in North Wales, some people empire building on top of the good very hard work and name of underground explorers. :guns:

Which is what we are trying to avoid, whilst opening up previously off-limits places.

Will your next suggestion be helpful?

Chris.

I understand that there has been a lot of negative experiences in north Wales with regards to empire building and subsequent restriction of access. You can tell reading back through this thread.

I also understand that the mine exploring (and cave exploring) community thrives in an environment that is organisationally light of touch.

It would help take this debate on if a representative of the SMACG were to give an account of what they hope to achieve and why this constitution is the minimum organisation that is required to achieve it.

I am encouraged by the publication of the constitution. It demonstrates that there may be openness in this. (I'd imagine that any group could engineer an agreement with FC(WG) behind closed doors and reveal that as a *fait accompli*).

Finally, i don't see the management of all mines in north Wales by one body as an inherently bad thing. So long as it is the right body, suitably recognised and resourced and with an appropriate remit.

Why "manage" mines in North Wales where currently there is no problem with access at all? :curse:

I have no idea about the ins and outs of access in Wales and the FC and I might be really missing something, but it looks like Miles is involved, Simon Lowe is involved and others which I do not know. Miles has commercial interests, but is also a mine explorer and runs a forum. Simon is a explorer and runs this bloody forum. Mine Exploration forums, I might add, in case some of you have forgotten.

I think I trust these guys to put the mine explorers case forward with their best interests in mind, so why the fook are you all bitching? Have you got too much time on your hands?

---

Miles has been very forthcoming with information and his position on this issue is clear.

Simon has stated that his interests are to protect the “ordinary” explorer.

The issue with the constitution needs to be remedied to restore harmony – it is my belief that SMACG will do this as I do believe they are interested in only a small number of mines controlled by the FC.

I imagine that would be a favourable conclusion for all parties.

Ian

---

Simon Lowe is involved and others which I do not know.

Not strictly true. I asked to join the email distribution list but I'm not involved in any capacity. I won't rule out being involved, but I'm not at the moment and I've had zero input in anything to date. I only found out about it just before Christmas at which point I understand it was mostly sorted out.

If I was involved I'd have posted that I was involved.

I stand by what I've said that it needs somebody involved who is only interested in the hobby (and conservervation) side of things and has zero commercial or professional interest.

I don't think hobby and commercial interest are mutually exlcusive, but I'm realistic enough to understand they might not see eye to eye about everything.

There's been a lot of discussion about this on all the forums and I hope that's followed by a good turnout at the meeting.

I think it's important that the group be given some slack in that a) it's a draft constitution and b) as I understand it the group doesn't exist yet - not until the constitution is agreed.

I hope that the main objections raised are simply down to wording in the constitution and can be re-worded.

I don't want to see it controlling anything outside of the Gwydir and Rhiw Bach and I do want to see recreational use free and easy to arrange.

Ref. comparison to NWCC, Grovesnor etc., I take the point, they're all access controlling bodies, but there is a subtle different as the former are primarily hobbyists and not specifically involved in mines under the LCMLA scheme.

However, if the constitution can be tightened up to avoid any misconception about it being an empire building exercise, if a definitive list of mines covered can be provided, if recreational access is easy to arrange and free, and if conservation issues are addressed then I can't see a problem with it.

---

Sorry Simon, I was sure I read that you were representing the hobbyist explorer, maybe on ME or maybe I'm just totally mistaken or some else is.

---

Looking at the current state of play in north Wales with different clubs/associations/interests claiming their own spheres of influence , a situation where there is no 'management' of mines or caves seems fanciful.

I assume that we want as much access at as little cost as possible. But there will be a cost.

It is important to understand the cost of access to mines on Forestry Commission (Welsh Government) land, and that what SMACG proposes is the minimum required to meet that cost.

Simon Lowe is involved and others which I do not know.

Not strictly true. I asked to join the email distribution list but I'm not involved in any capacity. I won't rule out being involved, but I'm not at the moment and I've had zero input in anything to date. I only found out about it just before Christmas at which point I understand it was mostly sorted out.

If I was involved I'd have posted that I was involved.


I think it's important that the group be given some slack in that a) it's a draft constitution and b) as I understand it the group doesn't exist yet - not until the constitution is agreed.

I hope that the main objections raised are simply down to wording in the constitution and can be re-worded.

I don't want to see it controlling anything outside of the Gwydir and Rhiw Bach and I do want to see recreational use free and easy to arrange.

Ref. comparison to NWCC, Grovesnor etc., I take the point, they're all access controlling bodies, but there is a subtle different as the former are primarily hobbyists and not specifically involved in mines under the LCMLA scheme.

However, if the constitution can be tightened up to avoid any misconception about it being an empire building exercise, if a definitive list of mines covered can be provided, if recreational access is easy to arrange and free, and if conservation issues are addressed then I can't see a problem with it.

I think you have summarised what needs to be done. I think most people would be a lot, lot happier if it was restricted as you say to FC in Gwydyr (which does include Rhiwbach) and the constitution worded thus from day one. :)

Clause 12 needs to be looked at too!