Conservation priorities

[Kenilworth]

As I labor over the building of a complete and communicable foundation for my convictions, I may as well go ahead and say plainly what some of my preferred strategies might be. I reckon it will then be clear that I have much more work, probably many years of it, left to do. I will need lots of good help too.

1. The elimination of recreational caving organizations as they now exist. These are both damaging and unnecessary.

2. The promotion of show caves and of wild recreational caves with completely open access. These would be, in effect, "sacrificial caves," in that they would cease to be pristine or even ecologically intact (this will happen, is happening, has happened, anyway). However these caves would be well-maintained, and the place where well-developed cave restoration techniques would best be applied.

3. The gating of exceptionally fragile caves, with strict access controls to be administered by those in the best position to know/care what is best for the cave. Ideally, to avoid monopoly, this would be, not a conservation group or any formal body, but the legal owner. The owner, then, must be well and fairly educated on the nature and significance of his holdings.

4. The removal, as far as possible, of cave location information from the public domain, including the internet and guidebooks. This is impossible to control, and it is much too late to be immediately effective in the UK. Here in the US confidentiality is currently the most effective conservation measure.

5. If any legislative remedies are sought by cavers who care about conservation, they should involve, not "rights of access," but prosecution of vandals. This would include (as much as I agree with the spirit of some posts from the CBC Hacksaw Officer) gate/lock choppers. Importantly, for this to be just, gate placement must also be just.

These big steps would make access more difficult. They would require more commitment from cavers. They would condense traffic into fewer, well-suited caves. They would all but eliminate traffic in select caves. There would then be a decrease in cavers and a decrease in total cave traffic while still allowing everyone complete freedom to work, to explore, to learn the land, locate caves, negotiate with owners if needed, develop relationships with owners, neighbors, communities and cavers, locate caves, go caving, and responsibly and carefully share information. The qualifier would be passion, not "membership." The net conservation effect would be positive.

This would not solve all of the problems. We cannot, obviously, solve the societal dilemma that has come from our divorce from nature. Discussing the solutions to those problems would be much more uncomfortable and divisive than any of the CROW battles. So I probably wrote myself into a corner when I criticized Chris for merely trying to control symptoms. That is all any of us can do. But we should try to cut as close to the root as we can.

There are also smaller, individual acts of care that I am practicing or trying to practice:
-Giving priority to photography over survey. This is hard. I like survey more than photography.
-Removing flagging tape wherever appropriate.
-Educating landowners, if possible by showing them. It is very rewarding to see owners develop an understanding and active care of caves on their property.
-Practicing discipline by avoiding unnecessary trips into fragile caves, or repeated aimless tours through the same fragile passage.
-Making survey trips long, thus reducing their total number.
-Maintaining secrecy. This sounds snobbish, but I see no dishonor in asking that visitors to a cave find and explore it on the same terms and through the same hard work that I did.
-Careful observation and careful travel.
-Self-education and meditation on the relative significance and value of cave features. Appropriately, everyone will arrive at different conclusions. Sincerity is the key.

I believe that this approach to conservation, if it is possible, would be hugely superior to "conservation codes" printed on a card (impossible!), or the implementation of a formal vetting process (also impossible), or the preaching of hard and fast rules about mud sculptures, carbide lamps, feces and urine, breaking formations, etc. etc., all of which can at times be rightly broken by the most conscientious caver.

 

[NewStuff]

As I labor over the building of a complete and communicable foundation for my convictions, I may as well go ahead and say plainly what some of my preferred strategies might be. I reckon it will then be clear that I have much more work, probably many years of it, left to do. I will need lots of good help too.

1. The elimination of recreational caving organizations as they now exist. These are both damaging and unnecessary.

Name some organisations... this is a bit wishy-washy. Why are they damaging?

2. The promotion of show caves and of wild recreational caves with completely open access. These would be, in effect, "sacrificial caves," in that they would cease to be pristine or even ecologically intact (this will happen, is happening, has happened, anyway). However these caves would be well-maintained, and the place where well-developed cave restoration techniques would best be applied.

So, who decides which caves are sacrificial? What if people don't agree with that decision? Who is paying for and doing the maintenance?

3. The gating of exceptionally fragile caves, with strict access controls to be administered by those in the best position to know/care what is best for the cave. Ideally, to avoid monopoly, this would be, not a conservation group or any formal body, but the legal owner. The owner, then, must be well and fairly educated on the nature and significance of his holdings.

What about if/when the legal owner changes? New one doesn't give 2 stuffs. Gets sick of dealing with those annoying cavers, concretes it or just rips the gate off?

4. The removal, as far as possible, of cave location information from the public domain, including the internet and guidebooks. This is impossible to control, and it is much too late to be immediately effective in the UK. Here in the US confidentiality is currently the most effective conservation measure.

Security by obscurity *doesn't* work. I visited/very nearly visited places I didn't know I wasn't meant to because people were so desperate to keep it off the radar.  In one case I nearly visited because I had seen pictures from someone who *had* visited, and the total uproar on here, and things they were wrongly accused of (damaging locks, gates, formations) on her means they want nothing to do with a lot of organised caving.  It will never work in the UK, because there are (thankfully) too many resources about. There is no such thing as a secret location, unless you have a government's weight to throw behind enforcing that secrecy.

5. If any legislative remedies are sought by cavers who care about conservation, they should involve, not "rights of access," but prosecution of vandals. This would include (as much as I agree with the spirit of some posts from the CBC Hacksaw Officer) gate/lock choppers. Importantly, for this to be just, gate placement must also be just.

Chances of someone *catching* a lock chopper, other than a spur of the moment/fit of rage type incident, are pretty much non-existent. Thyey know full well that although it may well be justified, it may not be legal, and if they are caught but it's legal (no landowners permission etc), you'll be talking to a nice policeman until the legality of it is established.

 

[Kenilworth]

Newstuff,

Recreational caving organizations are damaging because they have the ability to draw large numbers of members without the ability (or even the motivation) to create a culture of care among those members. As I said before, if any natural feature is approached from a solely recreational standpoint, it will be misunderstood, disrespected, and damaged. The NSS was the primary inspiration for this idea, but it seems that BCA also fits the bill.

Good question on #2. This is already being inadvertently answered on a tiny scale within the US by groups like SCCi, who are creating the conditions I've described with the intention of preserving access for cavers.

#3 Then life goes on. All we can do is to try to be good to people. If we do, there's a good chance that we can gain some measure of reciprocal respect.

Security by obscurity *doesn't* work. I visited/very nearly visited places I didn't know I wasn't meant to because people were so desperate to keep it off the radar.  In one case I nearly visited because I had seen pictures from someone who *had* visited, and the total uproar on here, and things they were wrongly accused of (damaging locks, gates, formations) on her means they want nothing to do with a lot of organised caving.  It will never work in the UK, because there are (thankfully) too many resources about. There is no such thing as a secret location, unless you have a government's weight to throw behind enforcing that secrecy. 

I don't agree. I too have visited "secret" caves by accident, and I have visited many "secret" caves and passages on purpose through tenacious detective work and long, stubborn, search. That's not the point. The point is that, if cave locations were to be (or remain) depublicized as much as possible, total traffic would decrease (not be eliminated). Most people these days do not have the gumption to hunt for things.

You are right about the impracticality of legal action against vandals. That was a pretty marginal idea. I am aware of a couple of successful prosecutions, but those are pretty meaningless in the big picture.

 

[NewStuff]

If there is an apathy towards being careful/respectful of your surroundings in a cave, then surely it's a lack of education. If you remove formal groups from caving... who is doing the education now? Surely it will exacerbate the situation, not remedy it.

As for your SCCi granting access- Over here that would, in very short order, lead to mass lock chopping. Who on earth decided that *they* get to decide if we can/cannot access a cave. If that should ever happen, than I will happily, and publicly, remove any locks they place.

As for your Security through Obscurity, we'll agree to differ, but would you not, by making it difficult/impossible to find places unless you know the right people, make further barriers for people new to the pastime? Given the already dwindling number of cavers, this seems wholly counter-productive.

A lot of us go caving to get away from bureaucracy, and you want to add more.

 

[Kenilworth]

If there is an apathy towards being careful/respectful of your surroundings in a cave, then surely it's a lack of education. If you remove formal groups from caving... who is doing the education now?

Formal groups are NOT doing it now.

As for your SCCi granting access- Over here that would, in very short order, lead to mass lock chopping. Who on earth decided that *they* get to decide if we can/cannot access a cave. If that should ever happen, than I will happily, and publicly, remove any locks they place.

I think you missed my point. I'm using SCCi as an example to show that securing open access to recreationally significant caves will lead to decreased traffic in other caves. This is not the purpose of SCCi, but it is a serendipitous plus that can be learned from.

As for your Security through Obscurity, we'll agree to differ, but would you not, by making it difficult/impossible to find places unless you know the right people, make further barriers for people new to the pastime?

Yes, of course. That's the point. How is this counterproductive?

A lot of us go caving to get away from bureaucracy, and you want to add more.

Quite the opposite.

I must not be making myself very well understood

 

[NewStuff]

If there is an apathy towards being careful/respectful of your surroundings in a cave, then surely it's a lack of education. If you remove formal groups from caving... who is doing the education now?

Formal groups are NOT doing it now.

We (My club) do, all clubs I have been in contact or had dealings with do as well. It's one of, if not the, first thing people are taught. It must be different over there.

As for your SCCi granting access- Over here that would, in very short order, lead to mass lock chopping. Who on earth decided that *they* get to decide if we can/cannot access a cave. If that should ever happen, than I will happily, and publicly, remove any locks they place.

I think you missed my point. I'm using SCCi as an example to show that securing open access to recreationally significant caves will lead to decreased traffic in other caves. This is not the purpose of SCCi, but it is a serendipitous plus that can be learned from.

No, I didn't. In your 'masterplan' a nebulous body decides what caves I can and cannot go in. That does not, and never will, sit well with me and *many* others over here.

As for your Security through Obscurity, we'll agree to differ, but would you not, by making it difficult/impossible to find places unless you know the right people, make further barriers for people new to the pastime?

Yes, of course. That's the point. How is this counterproductive?

Caving as a pastime will pretty much die out? If you can only do the same few "sacrificial" caves, what's the point in carrying on? It seems so counterproductive that I'll assume you are Trolling

A lot of us go caving to get away from bureaucracy, and you want to add more.

Quite the opposite.

How so? I want to do anything more than visit a few sacrifical caves, I can guarantee you that the setup you describe will have me jumping through hoops, ringing around, probably filling in forms... maybe a test?

I must not be making myself very well understood

I either understand you perfectly, and you have woefully misjudged caving and cavers in the UK, or your you are making a point that is murkier than wading through ochre.

 

[AR]

If there is an apathy towards being careful/respectful of your surroundings in a cave, then surely it's a lack of education. If you remove formal groups from caving... who is doing the education now?

Formal groups are NOT doing it now.

This statement does not take into account any of the informal, peer-to-peer education that takes place within groups; something you wouldn't know was happening unless you were there to witness it. Take for example Alastairgott's recent post about having rail and sleeper impressions pointed out to him in a mine level as something to avoid treading on, practical advice for that particular place but also the wider lesson of paying attention to what's on the floor that you're treading on. Furthermore, those people with specific conservation roles in organised groups/societies are volunteers often with limited time to spend on that role and can't do as much proactive education as they'd like to do; I'd love to do more planned educational work on underground industrial archaeology on my own patch but the time for sorting out such sessions just ain't there until someone gifts me with 36-hour days!

Also, from my own experience I can say this: if you need to deal with governmental/statutory bodies in relation to underground conservation matters you are far more likely to be taken seriously as the representative of an established society or organisation than an individual. An individual would have to spend a lot of time and effort building up their bona fides in order to get the same level of attention.

As for your SCCi granting access- Over here that would, in very short order, lead to mass lock chopping. Who on earth decided that *they* get to decide if we can/cannot access a cave. If that should ever happen, than I will happily, and publicly, remove any locks they place.

I think you missed my point. I'm using SCCi as an example to show that securing open access to recreationally significant caves will lead to decreased traffic in other caves. This is not the purpose of SCCi, but it is a serendipitous plus that can be learned from.

Who decides which caves shall be sacrificed thus, and by what right do they make that decision? As for keeping everything else hidden, I can only see that working short-term until the people who have got pissed off by what they see as a clique trying to exclude anyone not seen as "one of us" from a lot of sites start finding out where they are and making it as public as possible, I can see echoes of some of the UK's past history there. Omerta may be the best option for a while  but once broken, it offers no protection so you have to plan for that eventuality.

As for your Security through Obscurity, we'll agree to differ, but would you not, by making it difficult/impossible to find places unless you know the right people, make further barriers for people new to the pastime?

Yes, of course. That's the point. How is this counterproductive?

Well, helping to ensure the slow death of caving by making all but a few caves accessible only to a self-selected "elite" sounds pretty counterproductive to me, though from a purely conservation perspective, no-one going ever going underground will preserve them perfectly -  but preserve them for what?

A lot of us go caving to get away from bureaucracy, and you want to add more.

Quite the opposite.

I must not be making myself very well understood

Well, my understanding is that you want to replace  the current organisations with all their flaws, politicking and  bureacracy with an idealistic free-for-all (or at least for the "chosen few"), but as far as I'm concerned, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater and replacing it with a fool's paradise. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong in the opinion I've come to based on your statements so far then please provide sound evidence, not broad sweeping statements.

 

[bograt]

As I see this, Kenilworth is applying the American aspect, I would be interested in knowing if he has looked into the development of the BCA, including the CRG/BSA amalgamation, which formed the BCRA, and then led to the forming of regional bodies, and then the NCA, then ultimately the present BCA, which includes the ideologies of all regional and speciality bodies, BCA is not a 'recreational cavers' group, the reason we bicker so much about conservation and access is an indicator of this.

 

[Kenilworth]

Who decides which caves shall be sacrificed thus, and by what right do they make that decision?

People willing to spend money, by right of their legal ownership. This is already happening, as mentioned. And again, this is not a decision to spoil a cave. They are already being spoiled. This is a decision to turn some of these damaged caves into easy and attractive destinations with the goal of diverting traffic from elsewhere.

Well, helping to ensure the slow death of caving by making all but a few caves accessible only to a self-selected "elite" sounds pretty counterproductive to me, though from a purely conservation perspective, no-one going ever going underground will preserve them perfectly -  but preserve them for what?

AR - This seems to be an intentional misconstruction. Have you read my posts? Have you noticed my repeated references to allowing everyone freedom to cave wherever they like as long as they are willing to put in the work? Terms like "self-elected elite" are ridiculous. Quit whining, elect yourself, and carry on.

Well, my understanding is that you want to replace  the current organisations with all their flaws, politicking and  bureacracy with an idealistic free-for-all (or at least for the "chosen few"), but as far as I'm concerned, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater and replacing it with a fool's paradise. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong in the opinion I've come to based on your statements so far then please provide sound evidence, not broad sweeping statements.

What do I want with a baby? It is fair to accuse me of being unrealistic, sentimental, idealistic, and foolish (Graham Mullan used the nice term "airy-fairy nonsense," with which I was previously unfamiliar, in reference to my earlier comments on conservation). It is not fair to do so after the most shallow of possible readings of what I have written. Furthermore, I prefaced my comments by stating that there are years of hard work between my current state and any sort of finality on this subject, and so broad statements are what I have to work with at present.

Listen, I have no interest in cliques, or in excluding people. This should be abundantly obvious. I'm not a "caver" in the usual sense, and am not a member of any club or organization. Everything I've written is based on my observations as a former member of the NSS, on comparisons between places where caving clubs are active and places where they are not, on voracious reading of this and other caver forums, and on common sense untainted by sentiment for established culture.
Moreover, I am one person, acting singly or among a tiny group of acquaintances. While I am active in applying what I believe to be the best practices in my own caving, I am no threat to anyone's freedom.

I started this thread to try and understand more clearly the mindset of cavers as a group, what they value, why, how they mean to protect it, and if they may be of any use in efforts to improve the current standard of care. It appears that they care primarily about their freedom to play, and that any improvements made will be in spite of them, not because of them.

Lastly, I do not want to seem to be ignoring anyone's posts to this thread, but to reply to every misinterpretation posted is a pearls before swine proposition. My goal is to see possible ways forward. If anyone has anything pertinent to say, send me a PM.

 

[droid]

Yet another 'I'm right, you're wrong' essay.

Try abbreviating your posts to the bare essentials and leave out the personal justification and people might even agree with you.

As it is, I strongly suspect most will speed-read and maybe miss what you are *trying* to say.