Conservation Wardens?

Aubrey

Member
Is the use of the term "Leader" misleading?
Some cavers feel it is beneath them to be "led" around a cave and therefore they object to the access controls put in place to conserve the cave.

I suggest that where the aim is to conserve our caves we have Conservation Wardens not leaders.  Using that name will also make people more aware why the access controls are in place.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Aubrey said:
I suggest that where the aim is to conserve our caves we have Conservation Wardens not leaders. 

Perhaps the aim should be for all cavers to behave in caves as though they are Conservation Wardens. Perhaps it could be a defining characteristic for what makes a bona fide caver.
 

Aubrey

Member
Cap'n Chris said:
Perhaps the aim should be for all cavers to behave in caves as though they are Conservation Wardens. Perhaps it could be a defining characteristic for what makes a bona fide caver.

That is never going to happen.
e.g. One caver, with over 50 years experience, says everything in the passage below shoulder level does not matter because it is going to get trashed sooner or later.
 

badger

Active member
wardens, conservation wardens, both terms are better, but suspect most cavers will see it as a leader.
and certainly in my opinion some caves do need wardens. as good as a warden might be, they cannot make up for the inability within a group however hard they work at it
 

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
I think it is fair to say that we " Leaders " at Reservoir Hole and Fairy Cave Quarry consider ourselves as Conservation Wardens. That's what I tell my groups. I dont want the responsibility for their own caving practices or place myself anywhere near litigation. My responsibility lies solely with protecting the cave. Reservoir groups have to be responsible for their own kit and safety procedures on the pitch. We keep a log in the cave that must notify any damage and of course that means any harm done in the cave will be easily attributed to the group responsible. ( Unlike locked or open caves with no warden system.) I see no harm with this"bureaucracy" as some anti gate folk call it. No triplicate forms, no problem in assigning wardens . Most Mendip clubs have their own wardens in any case. The sad fact is caves without gates will get trashed far quicker than those with gates. Those with a warden system will get the least damage as the warden is responsible and he wants no grief over that sort of thing.Some people dont seem to understand that some landowners insist on locked caves and warden control. It's their asset after all and they dont want it damaged. Fairy Cave Quarry caves were closed for twenty years before the present system was agreed with the landowner. Perhaps that's why some Mendip cavers are cautious about CROW ( sic ). Our fragile systems of control work purely because the majority of Mendip landowners are on our side. Any perceived threat to the status quo by law might make some edgy and shut up shop. Certainly in terms of starting new digs where caves dont currently exist. Both Holwell Cavern and Twin Titties Cave were closed by landowners who would not accept other people telling them what to do with their land now or sometime in the future. Anyway that's my "cautious" stance re CROW ( sic ).
Back to wardens. If folk like we can tell them about the history and formation of the cave and point out good photo spots. I ask them what they want. Most like to hear of the effort involved in digging a place like Reservoir and learning a bit about the unique geology and cave formation at Fairy Cave Quarry. We did a field trip there this week for non cavers. They loved it and now want to learn more about cavers and caves.
 

Simon Wilson

New member
The Old Ruminator said:
.... The sad fact is caves without gates will get trashed far quicker than those with gates. ...  Anyway that's my "cautious" stance re CROW ( sic ).

There you go again trying to make out that CRoW will affect gated caves when you know it will not.
 

droid

Active member
He plainly doesn't.

Why not deploy your persuasive powers to explain why CRoW won't affect gated caves?
 

Simon Wilson

New member
droid said:
He plainly doesn't.

Why not deploy your persuasive powers to explain why CRoW won't affect gated caves?

It's because there is only a very small number of gated caves on Access Land and they can be kept gated.
 

paul

Moderator
[gmod]Can we please stay on topic - there are enough Topics on the Pro/Anti Crow viewpoints already.[/gmod]
 
Fairy Cave Quarry caves were closed for twenty years before the present system was agreed with the landowner.

I don't want to pick fault with you in particular Old Ruminator BUT surely its important to point out that the closure has NOTHING to do with protecting the Caves and EVERYTHING to do with active Quarrying operations...which lets be honest through blasting damage and slurry sludge have done FAR more damage than cavers could do in a lifetime of trips...
 

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
Perhaps I should not have mixed issues.( Crow/ gates ) Anyway the quarry caves were closed after the quarry ceased operations. In fact were it not for quarrying it is certain that Shatter and WL would never have been discovered. ( The continuation to both was buried under thick stal flows in Balch Crystal Chamber) It is also probable that Withyhill would not have been found either. The net result is that although some cave has been lost we have more than we could have hoped for now. As for slurry pumping that was almost impossible to avoid as the entrance to Hilliers Cave lay directly under the crushing and washing machinery. We rectified that by digging through to Hilliers from Fairy Cave. The caves were closed for more complex issues which it would not be helpful to drag up again now. As I seem not to be the only one confused let me make my personal position clear. I am cautious about the implications of crow and very much pro gates on caves with fragile or dangerous environments. That said its best that the thread gets back to topic but I felt I had to make implied positions clear.
 

badger

Active member
think conservation wardens are good, in mendip the access to these caves in general is pretty good.
slightly off topic, I think it has been demonstrated that the mechanisms for gated/warden trips on access land in mendips would remain as is under any crow.
the pic of the muddied formation, not been there so can not answer how it was muddied, but I do know that some formations in Otter are right off the marked track and therefore cannot have been muddied by cavers, but yet they are muddied maybe by rock worms as we all know form the caves, ;)
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
Aubrey said:
That is never going to happen.
e.g. One caver, with over 50 years experience, says everything in the passage below shoulder level does not matter because it is going to get trashed sooner or later.

We have met the enemy, and he is us?

Even if you accept that in 50 years any given pretty cave will be less pretty, the aim should be to minimise and slow the damage - it is a lot better if 1000 people get to see a feature before it gets smashed than 50 people. I'm not convinced, however, that it is better if the cave just lasts for longer because visitor numbers are reduced - so yes you can keep a cave pristine for 50 years if you only let 1 person in a year but then no one (other than a 'lucky' few) get to see it...
 

Maj

Active member
I prefer the term conservation Warden, and have for a long time usually used the term warden.
I never have liked the term leader.

Maj.
 

Kenilworth

New member
andrewmcleod said:
Even if you accept that in 50 years any given pretty cave will be less pretty, the aim should be to minimise and slow the damage - it is a lot better if 1000 people get to see a feature before it gets smashed than 50 people. I'm not convinced, however, that it is better if the cave just lasts for longer because visitor numbers are reduced - so yes you can keep a cave pristine for 50 years if you only let 1 person in a year but then no one (other than a 'lucky' few) get to see it...

This is why access should require commitment (not "luck"). Recreational caving and modern society are all about removing commitments and responsibilities while claiming to do the impossible, that is, retain all the benefits. It sounds horrible, but perhaps 1000 people don't deserve to see such and such feature. If that can be accepted (it probably can't, by most), it will then be obvious that reducing ease of access is not as filthy as it sounds, from a standpoint of true conservation. Of course, it is difficult for large caving organizations to be truly conservative.
 

NewStuff

New member
And just how do you judge that someone "deserves" to see certain features that are tidily locked up? A mate? Several years in a favoured club? It's Elitism and it's disgusting. Of course it isn't bloody acceptable, it's the problem that caving has suffered from and has given it the bad reputation it has in certain areas.



Kenilworth said:
andrewmcleod said:
Even if you accept that in 50 years any given pretty cave will be less pretty, the aim should be to minimise and slow the damage - it is a lot better if 1000 people get to see a feature before it gets smashed than 50 people. I'm not convinced, however, that it is better if the cave just lasts for longer because visitor numbers are reduced - so yes you can keep a cave pristine for 50 years if you only let 1 person in a year but then no one (other than a 'lucky' few) get to see it...

This is why access should require commitment (not "luck"). Recreational caving and modern society are all about removing commitments and responsibilities while claiming to do the impossible, that is, retain all the benefits. It sounds horrible, but perhaps 1000 people don't deserve to see such and such feature. If that can be accepted (it probably can't, by most), it will then be obvious that reducing ease of access is not as filthy as it sounds, from a standpoint of true conservation. Of course, it is difficult for large caving organizations to be truly conservative.
 
Top