Commercial caving

[NewStuff]

No one, or almost no one, uses it anymore. I assume that Facebook or other social media (which I don't use) are more exciting.

You mean no-one puts up with your inane rambling's perhaps?

You must have... missed... my question above.
Who teaches noobs the qualities that you yourself say they need, in a cave environment, when the clubs and national bodies are disbanded as you are so eagerly working towards.

 

[aricooperdavis]

Although not explicitly stated, I'm going to interpret the previous post about the desecration of certain caves in the US by experienced cavers as a reply to me. The net-loss that you're implying there is a net loss of natural cave and formations (due to destruction by cavers).

This is an interesting point, because it's almost certainly true that the amount of destruction occuring in caves is proportional to the number of cavers using them. However I believe that this may be a bit of a necessary evil - is there any value to cave conservation for the sake of cave conservation alone? If we prevent cave exploration for fear of damage then we can never exploit that value of the caves that we've protected.

For example I've recently read the description of a cave in the UK that read (and I'm paraphrasing) "two potential ways on from this passage are obstructed by fine formations". This highlights the difficult decision that has to be made - at what point does conservation of existing cave outweigh the discovery and enjoyment of new cave? The answer, presumably, is when the new cave that could be found is of more or equal value (aesthetically and scientifically etc) to that which must be destroyed or damaged to access it.

I believe that the same thing applies to access - restricting it is only valuable whilst the restriction will result in greater overall enjoyment of the cave due to preservation of the pretties, but not when so few people are allowed access that the preservation of the pretties is no longer valuable since nobody can see them anyway. I hope that's not too unclear...

I'm also unconvinced that caving is not aggressively marketed. It is obviously not marketed in the mainstream, in the same way as most other commercial products, but it is marketed by university clubs, and by a large number of individual cavers, who are constantly encouraged by NSS to "grow the sport", and who spread tales of their exploits on the internet and in person with something approaching evangelistic fervor.

And this kind of links with my point above; I don't believe that this is a problem, if it's done in a way that promotes good practices.

 

[Kenilworth]

No one, or almost no one, uses it anymore. I assume that Facebook or other social media (which I don't use) are more exciting.

You mean no-one puts up with your inane rambling's perhaps?

You must have... missed... my question above.
Who teaches noobs the qualities that you yourself say they need, in a cave environment, when the clubs and national bodies are disbanded as you are so eagerly working towards.

Sigh. No, I mean that almost no one uses it.

Who teaches new cavers initiative, patience, and commitment? That's a bizarre question, as I don't know that those are the focus of caving club education.  I learned those things from my parents, and applied them to caving all by myself. In the US there are many non-affiliated cave explorer, or spelunkers as some egomaniacs like to call them. Maybe more than there are Cavers, no one really knows. Many of these are good explorers and good conservationists despite being unaware of the NSS or caving clubs.

Newstuff, it's been nice having you as my little muse for a while, but I simply can't keep up with you and still have time to think about the other comments on these threads. So you'll have to forgive me if I "miss" all of your comments from now on. Sorry, and I do appreciate, I mean this honestly, the fact that you bothered to even look at what I've posted.

 

[Kenilworth]

Aricooperdavis
I'm still working on my response to you 
But your first point is a solid one, and a standard one. And it follows that the next must be as well.
More later

 

[aricooperdavis]

Haha, sorry Kenilworth I'm getting ahead of myself, I'll excercise a bit of patience!

 

[kay]

I believe that the same thing applies to access - restricting it is only valuable whilst the restriction will result in greater overall enjoyment of the cave due to preservation of the pretties, but not when so few people are allowed access that the preservation of the pretties is no longer valuable since nobody can see them anyway. I hope that's not too unclear...

That's an interesting point - pretties are only pretties if there is someone to look at them and perceive that they are pretty. So what is the point of preserving pretties by completely banning access?

But is that the only purpose of conservation? Is there also a purpose in conserving the cave as a habitat for living organisms?

Is there a purpose in conserving a cave for a future generation who may have better techniques for understanding the geology than we do?

 

[Pitlamp]

Aricooperdavis - you wrote:

" it's almost certainly true that the amount of destruction occuring in caves is proportional to the number of cavers using them."

You post really valuable and well thought out contributions on here but I have to disagree with this particular comment. It's too simplistic and I would not want anyone in a position of authority to make use of this sentiment without it having been challenged.

It depends on - well, loads of variables. I hesitate to provide a list because it'd soon become political (and I have no appetite to participate in ongoing discussion about it). But many readers will certainly understand what I mean.

I merely raise the issue because I would not want anyone from outside our community to seize on that sentiment and (mis)use it in a way which would act against cavers' interests generally.

 

[royfellows]

Aricooperdavis - you wrote:

" it's almost certainly true that the amount of destruction occuring in caves is proportional to the number of cavers using them."

You post really valuable and well thought out contributions on here but I have to disagree with this particular comment. It's too simplistic and I would not want anyone in a position of authority to make use of this sentiment without it having been challenged.

It depends on - well, loads of variables. I hesitate to provide a list because it'd soon become political (and I have no appetite to participate in ongoing discussion about it). But many readers will certainly understand what I mean.

I merely raise the issue because I would not want anyone from outside our community to seize on that sentiment and (mis)use it in a way which would act against cavers' interests generally.

I endorse this view 100%

 

[droid]

I'd agree with Pitlamp and Roy.

I expect the amount of *extra* damage to decrease as the number of visitors increases, i.e. each additional visitor does less damage than the one before.

 

[Fulk]

So what are you saying Droid; that when the 'obvious' line through a cave gets fucked up by the first visitors, then the 'less obvious' route, being ? well, less obvious ? suffers less, and you have to go 'off-track', as it were, to f*** it up? As in Easter Grotto (for your information, Kenilworth, a beautiful grotto that was discovered in 1946 [I think] but has since been not quite trashed, but severely damaged), where the straight line through the grotto is shorn of stals, but on either side the passage retains some hints of its former splendour.

Incidentally, Easter Grotto lies deep within a complex cave system and could only be accessed by people who know what they are doing, or are taken there by someone who knows what they are doing.

 

[aricooperdavis]

Kay, that was what I was getting at, but as you say it can't be overgeneralised but is probably a question of balance. For example it may be prudent to think most about access in areas that are likely to have particular scientific or ecological value, whilst still enabling access and enjoyment in less delicate areas. I suspect this is how most access bodies currently operate.

Pitlamp, royfellows, and droid - you make an excellent point, I take it back What I was getting at is that in general each caver has the potential to cause damage, and that this should be taken into account when thinking about protecting vulnerable areas.

 

[andrewmcleod]

What we can probably say is that damage is (probably) positively correlated to cave traffic for any given cave.
(having wrote this, I am not even convinced this is totally true)
This is assuming all other factors are held constant, of course.

Incidentally saying x is proportional to y doesn't mean that y doesn't depend on anything other than x, just that as x goes up (while holding everything else constant), y goes up by a proportional amount. The reason it isn't proportional is only because the increase in cave damage decreases per person as the traffic goes up (probably), not because there are other factors.

There could be some confounding factors - caves that are rarely visited are likely to have fewer conservation efforts while more popular caves might actually end up tidier as people decide to tidy them up (particularly once they are already so polished they can't really get any more polished). Actually I suspect this might be quite important for a lot of caves... for example caves that have been P-bolted (and old anchors removed and holes filled) have fewer holes in them than caves with half a dozen rusty spits at every belay.

I know Ari understands all this, at least!

 

[Disgusted from Cornwall.]

The fact of the matter is, that even if you a fortunate enough to leave a good fossil, it will ultimately be melted by the expanding sun. Everything we do is futile.

Stop caring so much, stop worrying about climate change, the delicate habitat of polar bears. Get yourself on XHamster, find out who Valentina Nappi is and turn your bollox inside out, tell racist jokes, laugh at things you shouldn't. Celebrate your friends and people who are on the same page. Enjoy yourself.

Today my daughter did her first laugh. It was amazing. Before she gets stoned to death in her Britainistan future by the calipate, I allowed myself to enjoy it. Let's face it, everything we do, the people we seek to impress and all of our values are utterly meaningless.

Let's just have a nice time and enjoy each other's company, eh?



Maaaaaaaan

 

[royfellows]

So stop worrying about the future because there may not be one, mmmmm.

Anyway, I have been giving quite a lot of thought over time to conservation issues and have come to the conclusion that the ultimate is no access at all. Well my thinking here is that unless people have the opportunity to actually see something, it may as well not be there at all. I think in a way this is what DFC is implying in his rather 'interesting' posting.

I think that if we carefully consider matters we have to come to the conclusion that the earth itself will not be around for ever.

EDIT (An afterthought)
Stu (DFC)
Congratulations on your new addition to the family. You will be an interesting role model.

 

[cavemanmike]

i wonder if (dfc) will soften over the year's. i know i did when i had kids. changed my view of a lot of things over night. not as aggressive, more patient, more tolerant of others etc etc etc 

 

[royfellows]

i wonder if (dfc) will soften over the year's. i know i did when i had kids. changed my view of a lot of things over night. not as aggressive, more patient, more tolerant of others etc etc etc

Its the world that needs to take your thoughts on board, not just cavers.

 

[Disgusted from Cornwall.]

My internet persona is only a loose approximation of my real life one and nothing to do with my work one at all!

 

[cavemanmike]

My internet persona is only a loose approximation of my real life one and nothing to do with my work one at all!

so bit of a keyboard warrior then 

 

[pwhole]

I recently had to make the decision whether to slightly enlarge a pristine arch over flowstone and clean gours in a new passage, so I could get through, knowing that chisel-marks there would never disappear. However, a draught, echo and just-visible formations eventually gave me the push to do it. The chamber entered was found to be choked with flowstone curtains after 3m, and was beautiful, but definitely no way on. So I knew then I'd damaged the arch for 'nothing'. But if there had been a small squeeze into a new series in the chamber, then obviously it would have been considered 'worth it', as long as what was found would supersede the entrance - which would invariably get more damage in future as people visited. But you don't know that until you're through, by which time it's too late...again...

 

[Hughie]

I recently had to make the decision whether to slightly enlarge a pristine arch over flowstone and clean gours in a new passage, so I could get through, knowing that chisel-marks there would never disappear. However, a draught, echo and just-visible formations eventually gave me the push to do it. The chamber entered was found to be choked with flowstone curtains after 3m, and was beautiful, but definitely no way on. So I knew then I'd damaged the arch for 'nothing'. But if there had been a small squeeze into a new series in the chamber, then obviously it would have been considered 'worth it', as long as what was found would supersede the entrance - which would invariably get more damage in future as people visited. But you don't know that until you're through, by which time it's too late...again...

Apologies if this comes across as judgemental, as a cave digger it's genuinely not intended to be. Had you not considered "a camera on a stick"? 3 metres is no distance and you can get them further with a little ingenuity. a go pro lookalike will even take video footage of your journey.

As I said, I'm not judging in anyway, but I can see how Kenilworth sort of has a point.......