What should be brought out?

[Simon Wilson]

Someone might have doubt about whether or not to remove the rotting remains of a back-yard gate because somebody on here said it might be home to animals. It won't be native wood and it should never have got into the cave in the first place to interfere with the cave ecosystem. Have no doubt that the wood and the animals should not be in the cave - bring it out.

.....
Rhys

Simon - Doesn't matter if the wood is "native" or not. Because... Rhys - Humans being natural, they have a natural right to impact their surroundings, same as animals and plants do. Pretending that all human effect on the Earth or a cave is unnatural is absurd. If humans have a desire to explore and to learn, then it is natural that they do so. If they impact the cave ecosystem in the process, this is ok since they are themselves a natural part of that ecosystem.

It does matter if wood is left in a cave is non-native. Native wood and vegetable matter is washed into caves  naturally. If you take in foreign wood you are also taking in lots of foreign microorganisms.
Kenilwoth's understanding of environmental management is (how should I put this diplomatically?) - less than adequate. He trotted out a fairly standard argument used by extreme anti-environmentalists. I won't repeat the word he used - "infantile" (oh dear I just did).  Here's a brief introduction to Sustainable Development.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development

Theres the fairly well known slogan "Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints",

I've also seen this as:

Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but shadows

Both of these slogans (as are most slogans) are infantile. They do nothing to educate, and therefore nothing to incentivize care. Also, the former is alternately unrealistic and inadequate (there being cases where much more than photos can be rightly taken, and cases where footprints are much too much to leave), while the latter is regular old silly.

And "kill nothing but time".
That slogan has been repeated very many times around the World in all sort of different contexts. There must be something about it. Was it first said by John Muir or some other environmental hero? We'll probably never know.

 

[graham]

Simon

Although we may have certain differences as to how conservation is applied in practice, I think we are generally coming from the same place. I, too, found Kenilworth's post rather difficult and for similar reasons to you. Man is, as he says, certainly part of nature but it's the part that has wrought the most damage to its own ecosystem, despite being - now - able to understand the ways in which that works.

It rather reminds me of some of the justifications that you hear for so-called 'trophy' hunting and for the ivory trade. These things cannot be regulated in the ways that their proponents claim, as is evidenced by the recent lion killing in Zimbabwe as the 'market place' is both amoral and corrupt and only regulates to its own short term benefit. See also The Tragedy of the Commons.

 

[Kenilworth]

Simon and Graham,
I'm afraid that my stance has been grossly misunderstood by the both of you. This is probably my fault (though the both of you appear to be intentional serial misinterpreters ), since I struggle to say what I mean. Right now I must head off to work, but later I'll try to better explain myself. Until then...

Simon: I am as far removed from "anti-environmentalism" as can be imagined. I don't know what their "standard arguments" are, but my own views come from what I have myself observed. I know it sounds childish to you, but that's because you have no idea what I'm talking about. I've found that most people who do are old, and have lived a long time with and for and through the Earth.

Graham: I think we understand less about our ecosystem now, in our knowledge, than we ever did in our ignorance. I am offering no justifications of wasteful use. Try to understand what I've written, especially the part that Simon has not quoted.

 

[TomTom]

Seems the entire point of my post was lost by quoting less than a quarter of it 

All I was advocating was common sense, not following something to the letter based on your interpretation of it. 

 

[Simon Wilson]

Kenilworth, please don't flood the forum. If you really feel you want to educate me send a PM and I'll read it.

Let's not get too far away from the straightforward question we were discussing. Should organic material be removed from caves?

So far nobody with sufficient expertise has put forward a robust argument as to exactly why organic matter should be left where it is.

Some caver might fall and gash their arm, that plastic bag that has been lying there for years could be used as a bandage and prevent fatal blood loss. That telephone wire that was put in forty years ago and hasn't been used since just might save somebody's life by acting as a route finding aid. That rotten lump of timber just might contain some rare lifeform that is waiting to be identified for the first time.

The plastic bag is more likely to get washed into a sump and endanger a diver. The telephone wire is more likely to cause somebody to trip and gash their arm. The rotten timber is very unlikely to be acting in any positive way in the cave ecosystem and more likely to be just a smelly mess detracting from the aesthetics of the cave. That's my opinion as a caver and not a biologist. It's all rubbish that has no place in a cave.

 

[topcat]

I apply simple, easy to understand criteria:  if its man made or man deposited and is not being used then take it out.

I know some would say that is too simple, but that's how my mind works 

Maybe once the caves aren't looking like council landfill sites we can start worrying about the finer points, if there really are any.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It's not our place to tell other members to reduce the volume of their posts - that's the admins job! Anyway, I feel Simon has the right idea, but I do feel we need to be wary of the OCD caver who won't leave the matter until everything is clinically clean. We are not taking about prize-winning flower gardens here. In mines, where obsession takes hold, you do see tidiness as a result, far in excess of anything the miners/quarrymen would seek to achieve. Victorian church restoration comes to mind as well!

 

[Bottlebank]

Kenilworth, please don't flood the forum. If you really feel you want to educate me send a PM and I'll read it.

Out of interest, as Pot and Kettle situations always amuse me  :tease:

Posts on this topic so far:

Simon 13 - Kenilworth 3

It's not our place to tell other members to reduce the volume of their posts - that's the admins job!

 

[graham]

On the whole, Simon is right, but I am arguing in favour of thinking each case  through as sometimes matters are not what they seem.

It seems to me that Kenilworth is talking airy fairy hogwash.  No time to say more until I get back to my desk.

 

[Simon Wilson]

It's not our place to tell other members to reduce the volume of their posts - that's the admins job! Anyway, I feel Simon has the right idea, but I do feel we need to be wary of the OCD caver who won't leave the matter until everything is clinically clean. We are not taking about prize-winning flower gardens here. In mines, where obsession takes hold, you do see tidiness as a result, far in excess of anything the miners/quarrymen would seek to achieve. Victorian church restoration comes to mind as well!

I think if a person starts a thread they are at a slight moral advantage if they want to keep the thread on topic.

This is UKCaving and we are absolutely not talking about mines. Obviously mines are artificial and a very different environment.

I mainly only cave in the Dales where the caves have a tendency to be clinically clean and should stay that way.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The scheme is about caves, true, but is aimed at cavers, a large number of which enjoy exploring mines. It is therefore important to make sure those who simply do so for "sport" as "cavers" do not apply the same principles to conserving them.  As has been stated above, cavers thinking that taking "old rubbish" out of them is a positive move, may well find that what they are doing is anything but.

I know of several instances where cavers' digging tools and equipment have been mistaken for original artefacts, so there is every chance that the opposite might happen.

 

[andrew]

Sticking to caves;  I see it as an obligation to bring out as much as we can of what has been taken in, whoever takes it in. There is far too much rubbish in our caves, a fair proportion of it digging related. It amazes me the number of 'active' digs that have not been touched for over a year, often many more. Sorry this is, in most cases, then rubbish. If in doubt, bring it out is very good, it puts the responsibility in the right direction. If you do not want something to be taken out, make sure there is no doubt that it is performing a function or in active use.

 

[droid]

I found Kenilworth's initial post rather difficult: a classic example of not using 5 words where 20 will do.

But man, while being a 'natural product' of a few million years of evolution, is unique in his ability to modify the environment in entirely unnatural ways. This, to me, makes the rest of his (Kenilworth's) argument somewhat specious.

Organisms don't distinguish between organic material washed in/falling in to a cave and that which is introduced deliberately by man.

 

[Chocolate fireguard]

Yes, these two scenarios are comparable: a youth in a ton of powered vehicle on a street is inputting, relatively speaking, as much energy as one entering a low energy environment such as a decorated fossil cave passage and can, potentially, do comparable amounts of damage to the environment.

I assume that is a quote from somebody else. I can't think how such a comparison can reliably be made so it sounds a bit dodgy to me, but I am always willing to learn.
Will you tell me where it comes from so I can check the figures? Thanks.

 

[cap n chris]

Agree with Andrew 

 

[Kenilworth]

Simon, I respect and agree with your opinion as a caver that crap needs to cleaned out of caves. And I answer your "straightforward" question in much the same way as Graham. It depends. There is no need to make rules. It sounds like you guys have a real problem with junked up caves and I guess you are most bright enough to deal with it without rules or slogans or drawn-out discussions like this. Just go clean it up, with care, as you see fit. 

My point in earlier rambling on so ( I apologize, and Droid is right, I truly struggle to be concise) was only to try and make the point that if we are to truly conserve, we need to understand our place in the natural order of things. I agree with, and in fact said basically the same thing as Graham:

  Man is... certainly part of nature but it's the part that has wrought the most damage to its own ecosystem

and Droid

But man, while being a 'natural product'... is unique in his ability to modify the environment in entirely unnatural ways. 

When I said:

Having unique ability to destroy, we have unique responsibility to practice care, and to learn. We can learn from nature how much we are honorably free to impact, to take, and to use. So far, humans in general have ignored completely these lessons, and you and I live in cultures opposed to nature and its care, and therefore to opposed to ourselves and the care of ourselves. 

It seems silly to me to live in a way that shows no concern for the health of the earth, while making a hobby of "conserving" caves. That's why I'm speaking so broadly, not in attempt to change the topic of conversation. I believe that if we would truly care for the earth and all of the things in it, including caves, we must, as a whole, change our relationship with it. Until that can happen, all conservation will be left up to a few who care, and who find themselves at odds with the majority who don't. This may be a "permanent" reality, and Graham may know so, and thus rightly judge my views as hogwash. For what it's worth (nothing) I find myself agreeing with the spirit behind many of Grahams' posts on the topic of conservation. Restraint is the only thing that can conserve cave resources in our time. Since we haven't enough self-restraint, someone had better do it for us.

But I can dream about better, if impractical on a large scale, solutions. Can't I? Airy-fairy... could be, but I am trying to apply these principles to my own behavior, and that's at least a little bit meaningful and fulfilling.

Simon - Dunno if your reference to Muir was an attempt to portray me as at odds with "environmentalists", but "kill nothing but time" is a silly phrase too. It is first of all impossible to obey, and second of all implies that our time spent in nature (or in Muir's case, "wilderness") is a waste of time, or at best a strictly spiritual or recreational pursuit. I want to live in the world, to care for it, to take from and give to it, in the honorable ways taught me by its non-human life.

Pitlamp - Maybe the word infantile sounds too insulting, but think about your own argument: It is indeed only the "newcomers to our pastime", the "infants", that will benefit from slogans. And hopefully they quickly learn to think beyond such things. Your example of the "if in doubt..." slogan illustrates the danger of any slogan, including "...leave nothing but footprints." If this as much as a new caver is taught, they may feel justified in destroying beautiful things with their muddy feet.

 

[bograt]

Kenilworth-- a step too far I consider--

 

[AR]

This is UKCaving and we are absolutely not talking about mines. Obviously mines are artificial and a very different environment.

I mainly only cave in the Dales where the caves have a tendency to be clinically clean and should stay that way.

The difference is not necessarily obvious and there are a lot of systems where natural and man-made are intermingled. Please do not assume that just because most of what you do is in clean-washed active stream systems, the conservation principles that are appropriate for them can be universally applied. It's quite common here in the Peak for there to have been mining activity within naturally-formed voids; which brings in the potential for a variety of archaeological remains that as has already been mentioned, could look like the remants of an abandoned cavers dig. I would be extremely upset if such a site on my patch was damaged through a combination of ignorance and over-enthusiam....

 

[Kenilworth]

Kenilworth-- a step too far I consider--

See there, I can put myself at odds with everybody!
Which bit, by the way? Not that it much matters. I haven't a darned clue whether I'm on the right track half the time. To save you folks the trouble of responding to foreign and ignorant unorthodoxy, I suppose I'll do as Simon so wisely requested, and keep out.

 

[Simon Wilson]

This is UKCaving and we are absolutely not talking about mines. Obviously mines are artificial and a very different environment.

I mainly only cave in the Dales where the caves have a tendency to be clinically clean and should stay that way.

The difference is not necessarily obvious and there are a lot of systems where natural and man-made are intermingled. Please do not assume that just because most of what you do is in clean-washed active stream systems, the conservation principles that are appropriate for them can be universally applied. It's quite common here in the Peak for there to have been mining activity within naturally-formed voids; which brings in the potential for a variety of archaeological remains that as has already been mentioned, could look like the remants of an abandoned cavers dig. I would be extremely upset if such a site on my patch was damaged through a combination of ignorance and over-enthusiam....

OK, Point taken. I admit that I have a Dales and Alpine cave mindset and that my knowledge of mines and other UK regions is very limited. Everything I said about always bringing out organic rubbish relates to pure caves and I don't have any strong opinion on mines or mine/caves. However, I do have enough knowledge of mines to understand and appreciate what has been said about it being a much more complicated issue.