Just picked up a copy of the last Descent magazine and read the article (page 19) about the taping off of various things in Ashford Black Marble mine, all in the name of conservation and safety,

Quote : the appearance of the mine has been improved,

WHAT A FUCKING MESS,

Im all for conservation but this cannot be the way to do it,

Who do these people think they are, taping off areas, which in their opinion are unsafe and should not be entered,

I think what it it safe or unsafe to do should be down to individual or group assessment, these interfering busy bodies should stop nannying us and let us make our own choices

"Everyone is entitled to have an opinion; everyone else is entitled to ignore it".

Are these mines effectively open access? If so, I would consider taping more acceptable than if there is some kind of access control. Open access implies that people who don't necessarily recognise things to be conserved or unstable features might wander about there, and put themselves or the site at risk. Controlled access would allow people to be advised what to look for before they explore, and there may be less need for taping.

Worst of both worlds really - controlled access & festooned with tape.
If you're interested in old pits Holme Bank Shirt Mine is round the corner. Controlled access but much more interesting, without all the tape - yet!

shotlighter said:

.... Holme Bank Shirt Mine  ....

Click to expand...

And there's me thinking they grew on trees (or bushes, anyway).

No definitely mined. They stopped mining not because reserves were exhausted, but because they could not compete with imported shirts from the far east.

QUOTE:

The resulting spiders web produced the appearance of a neglected building site

Kinda sez it all, I'd rather look and make up my own mind.

I've been into loadsa places that have FAR more dodgyer bits than this.

Who's to dictate where I go and what I look or even dare BREATHE on incase it all comes crashing down round my ears.

Peter Burgess said:

Are these mines effectively open access?

Click to expand...

Gated and controlled by the DCA under terms of licence agreement with Chatsworth estates

Mark, there's nothing for it; if you are "all for conservation" but have other methods in mind which differ from those of the DCA Conservation & Access approach then you really need to volunteer to become a DCA Conservation assistant; that way you can have a direct and practical involvement, implementing your ideas. I reckon they would be quite chuffed to have any offer of help.

Failing which you could fall back on just making sweeping whinging statements which achieve little.

Thanks for your comments Cap,n but take a look at page 11 of the same magazine (photo bottom left) youve got to admit it wouldnt look as good covered in tape

Our nanny state, smothered in political correctness and health and safety bollocks is surely choking the initiative out of individuals.

We will soon become a third world country with no original thinkers left,
when we are all dummed down to the lowest common denominator of personal initiative.
In my VHO

Yes, Mark, the flowstone in the picture on p.11 is gorgeous; but note that the caver has removed his overalls and boots - how many others would do so if this was a busy trade route through an unsecured cave? - it's a safe bet to guess "probably few, if any" and it wouldn't be long before the pristine nature of the passage was rendered dull and uniformly brown like many other unprotected and un-cared-for sites. (Check out the excellent conservation presentation by SpeleoAvalon, here: http://www.scavalon.be/downloads/Cave%20Protection%20English.pdf ).

Yes, tape is unsightly but ... think about it... it NEEDS to be in order to fulfill its purpose: anyone is welcome to come up with a better alternative which achieves the same result(s) but such a flash of genius hasn't occurred yet and so tape is what we are left with. Oh that all cavers actually treated delicate formations with respect but the recent problems in Swildon's Hole and elsewhere are solid examples that this simply isn't the case - it's got nothing to do with (sigh) political correctness or health and safety and everything to do with trying to preserve something once it has been found and protecting areas where levels of traffic would otherwise obliterate what's there, be it sediments, artefacts, fragile crystal formations, or.... god forbid, the cavers themselves! Arguing otherwise equates to doing away with conservation, pretty much guaranteeing the underground equivalent result of one of the following, guess which?:-

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the fact still remains these people are taking it upon themselves to go into caves or mines and declare areas unsafe and tape them off, are visitors then to assume the bits that arent taped off are safe? and could this lead to lots of legal bollocks if someone is hurt in the safe areas?

OTT

If that was the case no-one would ever warn anybody about anything on the off chance that they had a (totally unrelated) accident 3 metres away.

Now, I've never been to the place but teh article says that teh mine did look like a neglected building site but is now considerably improved. Is there an independant observer out there who has seen the before and after and would like to comment? personally, it makes me glad to think taht someone is trying to take some steps to help conserve our wonderful underground heritage.

And after all - you can always remove tape; replacing stal is a damned sight more difficult.

Congratulations graham "taht" was "teh" 2000th posting of yours...... :tease:

8)

I'm a dyslexic typist! Having had autocorrect on my word processor for yonks, I can't easily correct these bad habits.

I think tape for conservation purposes is absolutely fine.
However, I do resent areas being taped off on the grounds that somebody else has perceived it to be dangerous.
How many of us disregard the sign in Eastwater's boulder chamber that says "danger, no access" (or words to that effect)? - it's a shortcut avoiding the Upper Traverse. Many of us, I suspect. I went through there with two rescue wardens on a digging trip, and have used it periodically since.
Danger is a matter of personal perception. If it's deemed necessary for such precautions, then the people that the precautions are directed at should be discouraged from caving. IMHO. Most of us are quite capable of assessing risk and danger, and act accordingly. Hence only 4 rescues on Mendip last year (plus one surface search).

Who said it was taped off because it wasn't safe?!!  Don't make assumptions.

Who said it was taped off because it wasn't safe?!!  Don't make assumptions.

Click to expand...

 Descent 195, page 19, "distinguishing protection zones from potentially hazardous and unstable areas" or "the newly laid pathway past formations and one of the taped-off areas of potential roof falls and unstable backfill..."

Those words in the article suggest to me that it was taped off because it isn't deemed safe by 'someone'... I can understand the formations being taped off due to the fact there are people out there that don't look where they are walking but as for taping dangerous areas - why? I'm quite happy to make my own judgement thanks.. Hmm perhaps we should have tape across pitch heads because someone might fall down them.

Point taken, my bad!