All,

I am posting the following notification in my capacity as Secretary of the PDCMG:

"At the AGM of the PDCMG on the 4th July 2009, a motion for the opening of the currently blocked second entrance to Ogof Draenen was discussed and a majority were not in favour. However, it became clear that a wider review of the group?s entrance(s) policy was required. This policy currently states a preference for a single entrance system and was originally adopted on the grounds of conservation and protection of the concept of remote wilderness, including recognition that easing access to the further reaches could affect fragile calcite, gypsum and mud formations.

"However, views were brought to the AGM that easier/multiple access is now desirable, while others in the Group retained their opinion that a single entrance preserves the unique feel for caving here. This is an important issue that may impact the nature of the cave forever. Consequently, the wider caving world is now being consulted for their opinions on a possible amendment to the entrance(s) policy in advance of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the PDCMG at the end of October.

"Cavers belonging to clubs which are members of the PDCMG should provide their feedback to their club representative. Alternatively comments can be sent to the secretary of the PDCMG for compilation (pdcmg_sec <at> hotmail.co.uk). Further details of the EGM will be made available in due course.

"Fleur Loveridge, Secretary, PDCMG"

This information has also been provided to Descent in order to cover both old and new media. Looking forward to recieving your thoughts. Fleur.

The agenda has two items to discuss.

The first is the survey policy, which may also impact on the access conditions.
The other item which will be given more time is the 2nd, 3rd,... entrance policy.

Both these items could be discussed at greater length to get some feedback as to what the general concensus may be.

So each item can be discussed as a separately, I will start of a thread on the survey policy and leave if for someone else to continue the entrances discussion.

John S said:

I will start off a thread on the survey policy ...

Click to expand...

For the benefit of the great unwashed, it would be helpful if you could, in starting that thread, outline what the current policy actually is.

Thank you.

My tuppance worth is to be against a second entrance for this cave.

A second entrance will create a trade route, and that would be detrimental in this case IMHO.

Its nice for cavers, bad for the cave...

Hi ya,

This is personal opinion based on conversations with different people:

Ogof Draenen is the second largest cave in Britain, one day it could be the largest.
So far, thank God, there have been mercifully few rescue call outs to Draenen.
Gwent Cave Rescue is being wound up because there simply isn't the infrastructure to make it a viable organisation.
West Brecon Cave Rescue will inevitably wind up with responsibility for the area covered up to now by Gwent Cave Rescue.
West Brecon Cave Rescue are shaking in their wellington boots because they are inheriting responsibility for some massive caves - not just Draenen but OFD, Aggy, Carno etc, etc etc.  They do not feel they have enough experience or knowledge of caves in this area to provide addequate cover at this time (this will change but it will take considerable time).

I completely agree that for 'normal' caving purposes there should be no second entrance to Draenen.  However,  if a second entrance can knock off a couple of hours search/rescue time from the furthest reaches of Draenen then such an entrance is necessary - but only for rescue purposes.

Could anyone seriously stand up in the coroners court and defend a single entrance policy on the grounds of cave conservation when a life could have been saved by using a quicker route?

The other huge problem with Draenen is land owner relations.  There is no God given rule saying cavers can have access to Draenen.  At this time the landowner allows access.  I have heard it said (this is second hand so treat it as you will) that when the landowner changes (person in question is old) access permission is likely to be taken away ---- unless something happens to greatly improve landowner/caver relations.    The land owner MUST be kept well informed in advance of any planned changes to the single entrance policy.  And it must be remembered that the landowner has a right to veto any such changes.

Chris

Alkapton said:

Gwent Cave Rescue is being wound up because there simply isn't the infrastructure to make it a viable organisation.
West Brecon Cave Rescue will inevitably wind up with responsibility for the area covered up to now by Gwent Cave Rescue.
West Brecon Cave Rescue are shaking in their wellington boots

Click to expand...

The demise of the GCRT isn't official yet (goes to the vote on August 3rd) and at the WBCRT exec meeting a couple of weeks ago I didn't get the feeling we were shaking in our boots

As for opening the second entrance for rescue, my personal opinion is that it should only done for rescue.  It wouldn't take long and could be resealed after the rescue.

cheers,

Pete

Why is nobody campaigning for a second entrance to Aggy for rescue purposes?

Alkapton said:

The other huge problem with Draenen is land owner relations.   There is no God given rule saying cavers can have access to Draenen.   At this time the landowner allows access.   I have heard it said (this is second hand so treat it as you will) that when the landowner changes (person in question is old) access permission is likely to be taken away ---- unless something happens to greatly improve landowner/caver relations.   

Click to expand...

Sorry Chris, but this is dangerous misinformation. Landowner relations is not a 'huge' problem at all, although there are certain people spreading malicious gossip in order to further their own interests who would have you think otherwise. It would appear that you have fallen into the trap of believing their lies. If you had bothered to attend the recent PDCMG meeting and listened to what the Conservation and Access Officer for Cambrian Caving Council had to say on this matter then you would have been better informed.

Hi ya,

I think I was at that meeting but had to leave early.

My memory is that landowner had been very upset by someone using one of his sheds or place nearby as a toilet. 
This correlates very well with what a friend of the landowners son has said to me. 

I'm not repeating what was said because it is second hand - The person I spoke to has no reason to be malisiouse.

Also, from the meeting I'm not completely clear who the landowner(s) is / are.  There is the landlord of the pub and there is a holding company in Herwain (however it is spelt - sorry).    I have no idea how the two fit together.

My point is really what I said - cavers do not have a God given right of access to Draenen.  The landowner(s) needs to be respected.  OK I had to leave the meeting early but I got the impression the reason no decision on a second entrance could be made was precisly because the landowner(s) had not been consulted and it is in the constitution that they have to be consulted is any change is to be concidered.

Chris

graham said:

Why is nobody campaigning for a second entrance to Aggy for rescue purposes?

Click to expand...

I think you already know the answer to that one...

Because there is a rescue entrance already - Ogof Gam - which is used by all cavers to get in and out of the cave.  The original entrance - Agen Allwedd - is rather awkward and not easy to get a stretcher through.  There aren't yet any further entrances to Aggy because there aren't many parts of the cave conveniently close to the surface.

One could argue for opening an alternative entrance to Ogof Draenen and closing the current one or perhaps closing the second entrance to LRNC.

Duncan Price said:

I think you already know the answer to that one...

Click to expand...

OK, yes. I was rather hoping that someone with less historical knowledge would bite on that. However, I would argue as to the validity of an argument such as that made by Alkapton about negligence, when no-one at all is arguing that Southern Stream passage should be enlarged throughout its length because we know that it takes a huge effort to get an accident victim out of there.

Duncan Price said:

One could argue for opening an alternative entrance to Ogof Draenen and closing the current one or perhaps closing the second entrance to LRNC.

Click to expand...

But what about the third and fourth entrances to LNRC?

Hi,

I would just like to pick up on a couple of items that have been mentioned here recently.

Firstly, with respect to rescue, the existing second entrance to Draenen was deliberately capped (with concrete) in such a way that it can be opened easily within the timescale of a major rescue, but not so easily (eg gated with key) that it could be open to abuse.

Secondly, to clarify a few matters with respect to landowner relations.  ?The? landowner is actually a consortium of a couple of individuals and a private company. Arising from the meeting of the PDCMG earlier this month was an action to consult with the landowner with respect to access and entrances and this will no doubt be fed back to the forthcoming EGM.  The current access agreement with the landowner is very specific in relating to one entrance only and to not creating further entrances without the landowner?s written permission. Clearly, this does not mean that the access agreement cannot be changed in this respect in the future if agreed between the relevant parties. However, first appropriate discussions within the caving community and with the landowner need to be carried out, and this is what is happening now.

Nig is correct that landowner relations are not a huge problem.  However, a number of issues have arisen lately and it is worth reminding cavers that:
1. There have been complaints from the landowner about caver?s inappropriate toilet habits.
2. Parking at the Lamb and Fox is for patron?s only. The landlord has recently been very seriously ill, and although now significantly recovered, his son and daughter in-law who are now running the pub day to day have made it clear that they are not happy with cavers? cars filling up the car park without cavers filling up the pub.
3. A condition of access to the cave is maintaining a record of those persons entering it. Therefore all parties are required to complete the trip logbook currently stored in the amo can on the wall outside the Lamb and Fox.  Please note however, that as an outcome of the last meeting of the PCDMG, this logbook will soon be moved to cairn junction within the cave.  I?ll let you know when this has happened.

Access to Draenen is a privilege; so please can everyone be considerate and help comply with the current access agreement so that we can maintain access now and for cavers in the future. Oh, and drink beer and eat curry in the pub, its good value for money and good for landowner relations.

Thanks, Fleur.

graham said:

OK, yes. I was rather hoping that someone with less historical knowledge would bite on that. However, I would argue as to the validity of an argument such as that made by Alkapton about negligence, when no-one at all is arguing that Southern Stream passage should be enlarged throughout its length because we know that it takes a huge effort to get an accident victim out of there.

Click to expand...

To save "someone with less historical knowledge" getting bitten I would like to point out that Southern Stream Passage (in Agen Allwedd) has already been enlarged in some of the more difficult places specifically for the purpose of evacuating a casulaty (at the time of the rescue).

Nice try Graham! 8)

If someone were to dig a dry way in to the New World Series then I think that everyone would be pleased - in the same way that bypassing the sumps in Ogof Capel was a jolly good idea. :-\

BTW I pretty much agree with Fleur and I'm sure that if the caving community agreed that more entrances to Ogof Draenen were disirable then the landowners could be talked around.

graham said:

But what about the third and fourth entrances to LNRC?

Click to expand...

Just out of interest, Graham, why do only two of these entrances show up on your survex file?

NigR said:

graham said:

But what about the third and fourth entrances to LNRC?

Click to expand...

Just out of interest, Graham, why do only two of these entrances show up on your survex file?

Click to expand...

'cos the other two didn't happen (both naturally, I hasten to add) until after that data was collected. One of them will be picked up - if it's still open - when we get the chance, the other's a bit tight for me and may well also have closed again by now.

Duncan Price said:

There aren't yet any further entrances to Aggy because there aren't many parts of the cave conveniently close to the surface.

Click to expand...

Duncan,

A couple of questions as you know the cave a lot better than me.

Do you think there would be any problems or complaints from anyone (cavers or divers) if a back way (directly from the surface) was discovered leading into the passages beyond the Turkey sumps (Remembrance Series)?

In your opinion, would such an entrance enable further exploration to take place?

Duncan Price said:

If someone were to dig a dry way in to the New World Series then I think that everyone would be pleased.....

Click to expand...

Again, not being familiar with that part of the cave, I am interested as to whether such an entrance would help in future exploration. What do you think?

Perhaps Graham would like to put forward his opinions on this as he has a long-standing interest in LNRC. Would he be opposed to another way into the passages beyond the sumps for non-divers and if one were to be pushed through what would he do about it?

NigR said:

Perhaps Graham would like to put forward his opinions on this as he has a long-standing interest in LNRC. Would he be opposed to another way into the passages beyond the sumps for non-divers and if one were to be pushed through what would he do about it?

Click to expand...

Given that it is perfectly possible for a diver to reach Sump 8 and return with no more than a single sherpa to Sump 2 and out, I'd say that the standard of hard caving in this country had sadly deteriorated if it was felt to be necessary.

If someone had dug the obvious way in to New World, then I'd be happy at the kilometre of new exploration that would have been done to reach that point and impressed at their skill in passing the intervening boulder choke.

Were that to happen I might proffer some advice on suitable conservation measures, but what would I do? Nothing. I have no locus standi, so to speak.

NigR said:

Duncan Price said:

There aren't yet any further entrances to Aggy because there aren't many parts of the cave conveniently close to the surface.

Click to expand...

....
Do you think there would be any problems or complaints from anyone (cavers or divers) if a back way (directly from the surface) was discovered leading into the passages beyond the Turkey sumps (Remembrance Series)?

In your opinion, would such an entrance enable further exploration to take place?

Click to expand...

All the trips I have done to the Remembrance Series have been for the purpose of either bypassing the sumps or finding a dry way out to the surface.  The former has had partial success with the bypassing of Sump 2 and there is an aven beyond Sump 6 which has not been fully climbed into a promising stream inlet.  There is still a long way to go to the surface in a direct line from the most promising points (a radiolocation exercise was carried out to confirm one spot) but there is not much more passage to be found.  It would however make a rewarding through trip from Blaen Onneu to Craig ar Ffynnon.

graham said:

NigR said:

Perhaps Graham would like to put forward his opinions on this as he has a long-standing interest in LNRC. Would he be opposed to another way into the passages beyond the sumps for non-divers and if one were to be pushed through what would he do about it?

Click to expand...

Given that it is perfectly possible for a diver to reach Sump 8 and return with no more than a single sherpa to Sump 2 and out, I'd say that the standard of hard caving in this country had sadly deteriorated if it was felt to be necessary.

Click to expand...

Cave divers still regularly reach (and dive) Sump 8 with no sherpas.  It would be up to non-divers if they wanted to engineer a dry way in.  I don't care as I can get there myself.

Thanks to Graham and Duncan for the prompt response to my queries.

It is always interesting to note and compare attitudes towards potential routes, be they further entrances or sump bypasses, into the (currently) more remote sections of caves other than Draenen.

Anybody else got any opinions on the two caves already mentioned - i.e. Little Neath and Aggy?

NigR said:

Anybody else got any opinions on the two caves already mentioned - i.e. Little Neath and Aggy?

Click to expand...

Not quite the same thing, but there are a(t least a) couple of cases in the Llangattock caves where the ends of two passages are in close proximity - in one case the survey has been deliberately misrepresented to make the connection appear less likely, another link would cut at least a couple of hours (and a flood prone passage) off a trip to the far reaches - this has not been pushed on the wishes of the pincipal explorers not to remove the "remoteness" of this part of the cave whereas the former has long been done for "conservation" purposes.

A related thread on UKcaving discusses aparently yet another entrance to Notts 2.

My point is that the subject of creating alternative routes into known cave (either from the surface or just underground links) is different and each case must be judged largely on its own merits.