So there's this thread about which rock hammer to use.......and another one about the damage inside giants hole .......and the one about preserving everything in the water icicle extensions  (yes, so I look to cave in Derbyshire)  (and all the others about conservation.......) ssoOOOO ........YOU'RE digging and you excavate under a calcite floor and the only way to break through...........is to break through.....the calcite floor...............what's effective?.....a car jack.............and this smashes through the calcite floor and discharges a reservoir of water that's been dammed for 20,000 years (or more - I am only a cave newbie).....(what scientific analysis could that be subjected to....?) but that's the only way to move on and progress the exploration.........

So....what's your views on the balance of exploration against  conservation here..............

pc

big-palooka said:

So....what's your views on the balance of exploration against  conservation here..............

Click to expand...

At least subtly different to everyone else's...!

People will never agree, every situation is different, every person is different. Experience makes some people think they know, makes others know that they don't know.

One has to do a cost/benefit analysis every time. Sometimes it's obvious - one way or the other - sometimes it needs more careful thought.

EIS C&A Protocols etc.  Same old.

graham said:

One has to do a cost/benefit analysis every time. Sometimes it's obvious - one way or the other - sometimes it needs more careful thought.

Click to expand...

But unlike above ground development it may be impossible to know the benefit without first incurring the "cost"

khakipuce said:

graham said:

One has to do a cost/benefit analysis every time. Sometimes it's obvious - one way or the other - sometimes it needs more careful thought.

Click to expand...

But unlike above ground development it may be impossible to know the benefit without first incurring the "cost"

Click to expand...

So you have to balance the cost against the possibility of minimal benefit. I have walked down a narrow path in a large cave passage, in France and seen the possibility of open passage off to one side. However the owners do not consider that possibility as being the worth the risk to their pristine floor, untouched since it was first discovered a long time ago. I respect that decision, I am not sure that some who have posted in the Water Icicle thread would do. I do know, though, that they won't get anywhere near that passage.

Many digs are in the arse end of nowhere so if you don't push it to somewhere new then very few people will go there anyway. I smashed a small stall in one dig to enable progress, which resulted in a link to another area of the system. I am fairly confident that nobody has been through it since the connection was made, so what is the problem with removing this obstruction (which was not visable before digging commenced anyway).

The stals are not just there to be seen and if no one can see them then they can go. If this attitude was applied to other areas of conservation then the world would be a much poorer place.

Suppose that stal was unique in it's chemical composition or lead to a ground breaking development in our understanding of cave formation.  It really needs experts in the field to examine each decision, and probably several experts each with different skill sets.

I know... I know... it's not practical, but just supposing this one can go because there are plenty of others is why there are now no trees on Easter Island and a civilisation died out.

khakipuce said:

... there are now no trees on Easter Island and a civilisation died out.

Click to expand...

Remember, someone intentionally cut down the last tree on Easter Island.

Or it died or was blown down. Possibly.

khakipuce said:

The stals are not just there to be seen and if no one can see them then they can go. If this attitude was applied to other areas of conservation then the world would be a much poorer place.

Click to expand...

Are you saying this shouldn't have been removed? The piece in question was a column about 1 foot in length that was blocking the passage. For progress it had to go. If it had been possible to progress and leave it in one piece then I would have. I'm not advocating the destruction of any calcite you find. Like I said nobody will have been there since.

smollett said:

Like I said nobody will have been there since.

Click to expand...

Pointless, then.

From the facts presented, it sounds to me like a totally pointless bit of destruction to link two bits of known cave.

It wasn't known where it would come out at the time. The survey in this area is complex and the potential for extension is still there. The point is should a scrappy bit of stal prevent progress into uncharted territory? You have to weigh up the benefits of each case. In this case I believe we made the right decision at the time. I know of many far worse cases of calcite removal to get progress.

The only reason I'm entertaining myself on this thread is cos I'm very bored at work.

smollett said:

It wasn't known where it would come out at the time. The survey in this area is complex and the potential for extension is still there. The point is should a scrappy bit of stal prevent progress into uncharted territory? You have to weigh up the benefits of each case.

Click to expand...

With a bit more info, your decision now sounds more reasonable!

Rhys