Cavers - why do we bicker about access so much?
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
PeteHall
Moderator
I would say the issue at the heart of this is slightly more subtle than just cavers do clubs, miners don't do clubs.
From my experience (caving all over the country and mine exploring in the north east/ north of England), access to mines is very often prohibited by the land owner. Mine explorers therefore make discrete trips in small groups. Many sites are well known to those in the know, but nothing is published about them for those not in the know. I have found with few exceptions, that mine exploring is generally very secretive.
Caving on the other hand is generally anything but secretive. We publish our discoveries, we publish guide books, we arrange official access, we get changed and walk across the fells if full caving gear, happily stopping to talk to walkers about where we are going and what we are doing.
Since cavers tend to be so much more open about what we are doing, it is not surprising that we descend to bickering easier. We have more access agreements to argue about, we know where all the cave sitess are to argue about and we know who is controlling access to those sites, from within our own comunity. And when we disagree, everything is in the public domain.
If there was nothing published and there were no access agreements, besides not getting caught or shot at by the land owner, there would be far fewer arguments, but I don't think that would be an improvement on the current situation...
From my experience (caving all over the country and mine exploring in the north east/ north of England), access to mines is very often prohibited by the land owner. Mine explorers therefore make discrete trips in small groups. Many sites are well known to those in the know, but nothing is published about them for those not in the know. I have found with few exceptions, that mine exploring is generally very secretive.
Caving on the other hand is generally anything but secretive. We publish our discoveries, we publish guide books, we arrange official access, we get changed and walk across the fells if full caving gear, happily stopping to talk to walkers about where we are going and what we are doing.
Since cavers tend to be so much more open about what we are doing, it is not surprising that we descend to bickering easier. We have more access agreements to argue about, we know where all the cave sitess are to argue about and we know who is controlling access to those sites, from within our own comunity. And when we disagree, everything is in the public domain.
If there was nothing published and there were no access agreements, besides not getting caught or shot at by the land owner, there would be far fewer arguments, but I don't think that would be an improvement on the current situation...
royfellows
Well-known member
PeteHall said:
Beam me up Mr Spock
cap n chris
Well-known member
Badlad said:
On Mendip it's probably historical, insofar as most of the caves there have been a result of dedication and hard effort, quote from Willie Stanton:
"The Mendip caves are hidden. Twelve out of the fourteen major systems were nameless hollows in the ground before digging revealed their existence. The importance of digging to Mendip cavers may be judged by the fact that, in the year 1900, only four of these systems were known, and one of them, Wookey Hole, had always been open. Their total passage length was 2.5 km."
Club diggers have found the caves and therefore wish to look after them; this gets misinterpreted as access control whereas it's conservation. It's easy to skew motives.
bograt
Active member
PeteHall said:
Now here is an example of general lack of knowledge about what happens in other areas, Pete is obviously not aware of the situation in the rest of the nation, perhaps this is an indication of where the problem arises? UKC tries to cover a generality, whereas A.N. focuses on a speciality?, maybe Pete et-al should check out AN and NAMHO?
ZombieCake
Well-known member
Maybe we need a new national body to replace all the feudal and feuding organisations we have now. Could call it "Society for Promotion and Exploration of Caves, Training, Research and Ecology", or 'SPECTRE' for short. Can sort out access by buying land via 'voluntary subscriptions' from members, or by becoming major shareholders or board members in landowning organisations. Of course rule transgressions could be very effectively dealt with, given a single managing organisation! Also collective bargaining would be easier too.
Suppose the next questions are who would, and who is best suited to run it? <light blue touch paper and retire>
I suppose that those with a fetish for dinner jackets and Aston Martins need not apply.
Suppose the next questions are who would, and who is best suited to run it? <light blue touch paper and retire>
I suppose that those with a fetish for dinner jackets and Aston Martins need not apply.
ZombieCake
Well-known member
Not to mention which region is 'Number 2', Number 3', etc. Tremendous debating potential there :read: 
I suppose I take the blame for this thread as well.
Been away for a while and don't spend much of my time with my thumbs stuck to a mobile keyboard and almost never read AN.
Never mind. At least some of the contributors to this thread made me laugh out loud but you will just have to guess who.
Jopo
Been away for a while and don't spend much of my time with my thumbs stuck to a mobile keyboard and almost never read AN.
Never mind. At least some of the contributors to this thread made me laugh out loud but you will just have to guess who.
Jopo
PeteHall
Moderator
bograt said:
I'm sorry Bograt, but I have clearly stated the limits of my experience that has brought me to these conclusions, drawing attention to this fact to highlight that it is not neccesarily representative of other areas.
I haven't used AN for many years since I left the north east and have been down a mine once since, for the 5 hour drive, I'd sooner go caving in the Dales.
I do think however, that you will find a large number of "sensitive sites" are missing up to date information on the AN database. Sensitive cave sites tend to be recorded, published and protected, rather than just not talked about.
The ethos may well be different in other areas where access is more readily permitted (Peak district perhaps?), but as I understand it access in other areas is much worse (Cornwall?). Never been down a mine in these areas, so not speaking from personal experience here.
Anyhow, I stand by my point that the level of publicity or secrecy affects the way people interact.
PeteHall said:
Mine access in Cornwall is "interesting".
There is little "official" access, what there is tends to be based on ad hoc agreements negotiated between individual explorers and landowners. Most land /mineral owners look on abandoned mines as a liability and mine explorers as an accident waiting to happen, hence much access is clandestine. Because most access is clandestine protecting sensitive sites from mineral collectors and artefact thieves is a real problem hence the need for secrecy. Similarly if sites became publicised there is the perception that they would be secured by the land / mineral owner and what access there was would be lost. If you want to go down a mine you either need to be in the loop or be prepared to do a lot of research and leg work.
Whilst theoretically Devon and Cornwall Underground Council covers Cornwall in reality its writ tends not to run west of the Tamar (although I believe this is slowly improving). There is a perception that it is dominated by the long established Devon Clubs (DSS & PCG) and that "we" ( the Cornish) don't want "them" (Devonians) telling "us" what to do.
In darkest Cornwall (west of Truro) the problem is further complicated by the bad blood between various groups which exists as ongoing fall out from the mines rescue saga (I won't bore you).
All in all the access situation in Cornwall is pretty f**ked up, however on the whole it seems to work and most mine explorers in the Duchy seem happy enough with the status quo.
MarkS
Moderator
An impression I get in general, but also particularly on this forum, is that the inevitable grey area of conservation seems to be big a source of bickering. We inevtiably all have views somewhere between no access(=maximum conservation) and free access (=minimum conservation), which may vary for different sites and circumstances. I know that's a real simplification, but it seems to me that it's the source of a lot of debate.
As to why that should be very different to views on mines, I'm not so sure. Perhaps it's because, relatively speaking, mines are somewhat transient? I suspect conservation views are typically very different for artificial environments than natural environments.
As to why that should be very different to views on mines, I'm not so sure. Perhaps it's because, relatively speaking, mines are somewhat transient? I suspect conservation views are typically very different for artificial environments than natural environments.
Peter Burgess
New member
I also believe there is a significant difference in mindset between mine-explorers and cavers. On the whole, the former tend to be focussed on the mine for what it is - a place with history, and worthy of research, both by physical exploration and by documentary means. I suggest that the majority of cavers see their activities as sport - physical exercise, and challenges being the main aspects of what they do. Whether this difference causes more friction I wouldn't like to say. However, I do think that mine-explorers on the whole tend to share more easily what they know, places they visit, and are generally more helpful to each other. Cavers can sometimes be very insular and protective.
Perhaps the more academic nature of learning about mines and their history means that when things get debated at a fairly elevated intellectual level on AN, that descending into the pit of silly arguments is much less acceptable. Willy-waving seems to be "a bit of fun" in some circles - it's not something I have seen much of in the mining world, except perhaps from cavers who treat mines as caves, if you see what I mean.
Perhaps the more academic nature of learning about mines and their history means that when things get debated at a fairly elevated intellectual level on AN, that descending into the pit of silly arguments is much less acceptable. Willy-waving seems to be "a bit of fun" in some circles - it's not something I have seen much of in the mining world, except perhaps from cavers who treat mines as caves, if you see what I mean.
Peter Burgess
New member
It's something I was chatting with Graham about today. Mines are on a one way trip to ultimate oblivion. Caves, if left alone, will continue to grow, change, develop, and even things that cavers mess up - SOME things - do recover up to a point. Caves seem to be far more robust places, so perhaps, mistakenly, we see them as less deserving of conservation in some instances. In a mine, once the things worth preserving have gone - the artefacts, archaeology, mineral exposures - that's it - so conservation is much more in the forefront of the mine- explorers' thinking, notwithstanding a good number of idiots who don't give a damn what they do or where they do it.MarkS said:
From my own background, I like to think I have brought my own conservation mindset from my primary interest in old mines and quarries into the caves I visit.
