A conservation dilemma

[Badlad]

Split from the story in another thread - What would you do? 

Here is the conservation dilemma.  In a newly discovered cave there's a well decorated passage less than a metre wide.  The higher formations are fine but those on the floor do not stand a chance.  All explorers, surveyors, photographers and visitors are already muddy by the time they get to this point and there are no opportunities to get clean.  There are swamps of liquid mud between formations and the passage is on the main route to further and bigger cave.  The Apostles (see photo below) are taped now with a spray gun cleaning station nearby but there is no chance of taping or avoiding some of the other pretties.  The floor formations were unavoidably muddied from the very first trip and are lost forever.  There are lots of rich formations in the cave many which can be and are protected. 

Is it ok to sacrifice some formations in the name of cave exploration and sport?  Should all formations be preserved?  Where is the balance?

Here are some of the more vulnerable sort of locations. 

 

[pwhole]

I think if it's the only access route and all the other formations in the system can be protected then you've done your best and just have to write off the 1% or whatever it is. I had to break into a small decorated passage once that could have gone much further but in the end only went three metres - but the damage to gain entry was minimal, and I spent another trip cleaning everything down with fresh water and scrubbing brushes, so apart from some 14mm drill holes and a bit of broken (blank) limestone there wasn't much damage. I did feel bad about it for a while, but if it had gone into more and more passage the ethical situation would have only got worse! So I felt like I got off lightly, conscience-wise

Would thick plastic sheeting or membrane be sufficient strength to cover the floor formations without getting trashed? One option I used (albeit probably expensive in large quantities) were these perforated rubber doormats from B&Q - though they were only ?6 two years ago, which may be Brexit-related. But I cable-tied several of these together and bolted them to the wall to stop them moving, and they work a treat - though they were more to protect some rockmesh underneath pinning back loose rocks than formations:

https://www.diy.com/departments/diall-black-rubber-door-mat-l-0-7m-w-0-4m/262197_BQ.prd

 

[TheBitterEnd]

We obviously should protect as much as possible but IMHO getting overly concerned about "pretties" whilst damaging other formations such as mud, the passage walls, etc. is akin to going out of our way to  protect iconic mammal species whilst largely failing to conserve fish and insects.

 

[Pitlamp]

Couple of thoughts - just in case it helps.

Are the formations in question anything unique? If there are similar examples eslewhere in the cave (or in other caves) then I guess the priority may be considered lower.

Second thought; if the problem is mainly mud smearing then the formations will still be there in case speleothem dating studies are needed in the future. If that's the case the problem might be argued to be largely aesthetic rather than genuinely destructive. (It will affect continued growth though, of course.)

I think the important thing is you've sought to gain a consensus, rather than just damaging stuff indiscriminately, without caring. Full marks for that.

 

[PeteHall]

the formations will still be there in case speleothem dating studies are needed in the future.

Genuine question, how many speleothem dating studies are needed or are undertaken? Does such a study need access to every single speleothem in a cave?

My suspicion is that the vast, vast majority of speleothems will never be subjected to any scientific analysis. Where scientific analysis does occur, I doubt that they are analysing every stal in a cave. I suspect that the oft-repeated idea that muddying stal (or damaging mud deposits) is somehow destroying valuable scientific data is actually a complete misrepresentation of reality, but a convenient excuse to make us sound more intellectual and like we care about stal for the right reasons.

If that's the case the problem might be argued to be largely aesthetic

And here is the real reason we make such a big thing out if conservation. We like to look at the pretty stuff and we don't want to spoil that, either for ourselves, or for future visitors.

Conservation above ground is generally about preserving habitats and quite frankly, there are very few underground habitats that are going to be damaged or lost because a stal gets muddied or broken.

Changing draughts by digging is much more damaging to the underground habitats for bats, but it's rare to hear cavers worrying about opening up a passage, such that the draught increases.

I'm not suggesting that conservation isn't a good thing,  we just ought to be honest about the reasons and then it's much easier to decide what the priorities should be.

Before you found that cave Badlad, nobody could enjoy looking at the pretties. No scientist is ever likely to analyse them. Your pleasure of looking at them is dwarfed by your pleasure of finding more cave beyond. So sure, do what you can to preserve what you can, as it will bring you and others pleasure to see it in the future, but don't beat yourself up about trashing what you need to. Record it if you want, and some people will get upset about losing it, or keep it quiet and no-one will be upset, but you won't be able to show off to your mates what a cracking bit of cave you found! 

 

[topcat]

How's about moving them?  If you can find a place where they'd look ok.....quite a bit of work to do it well, and of course not all your examples in the photos are portable, but do what you can?

 

[Pitlamp]

Pete Hall makes some useful points above.

To answer your question - no, it's unlikely many datings will be done from any particular cave. One reason is it's expensive. The value of them depends on various factors. Nowadays only a tiny sample is needed, obtained by drilling. The point is that the small proportion of stals which may get coated in mud, in comparison with all the others in the cave, will be unlikely to cause problems for cave scientists in future.

I'm sure the team has done everything they can to minimise damage.

 

[Steve Clark]

I?ve got no direct experience of this, but have had some involvement in archeology digs, prior to building construction. Following the ground rules of that, the idea is to ensure things are documented as well as technology allows and their importance/?uniqueness? is assessed by an ?expert? prior to destruction. For really important stuff, buildings have been changed to retain or incorporate archeology.

In your case, I guess you?d need to figure out if what you have is sufficiently unique/important to retain. Beyond that, it?s about making a judgement if the loss of some is worth the potential access to more/better/interesting things.

I?m also assuming there?s the possibility that even if you could find a way to float through the passage perfectly, the very act of digging anywhere may change the hydrology, water routes, mud content in the water, air draught routes and do totally unknown ?damage? in the unexplored system.

I basically think it?s about awareness. If you know what you?ve got and choose to change it or destroy it, that could be ok if you?ve got all the facts. It would be a great shame for someone with far less experience to destroy something out of ignorance of its uniqueness.

(We did ask Frank a similar ethical question at the talk he did for our club last week. The justification was poetic and hilarious.)

 

[mrodoc]

I have been to sites in the USA and Australia where you strip off all your clothing then carry it over the muddy bit. No reason why you couldn't do that in the UK really. Also building a bridge over formations might help. What concerns me is the creeping degradation that occurs when you sacrifice formations.  You can end up with a muddy featureless cave. Parts of Otter Hole ended up that way.  I am currently cleaning sections of Pridhamsleigh Cavern in Devon usually described as a sh*t pit but in fact containing fine formations that have been coated with mud. The walls of the passage are similar brown but in fact are white to marbled grey when clean.  It is worth making the effort to protect the stal for the above reasons.

 

[Leclused]

I have been to sites in the USA and Australia where you strip off all your clothing then carry it over the muddy bit. No reason why you couldn't do that in the UK really. Also building a bridge over formations might help. What concerns me is the creeping degradation that occurs when you sacrifice formations.  You can end up with a muddy featureless cave. Parts of Otter Hole ended up that way.  I am currently cleaning sections of Pridhamsleigh Cavern in Devon usually described as a sh*t pit but in fact containing fine formations that have been coated with mud. The walls of the passage are similar brown but in fact are white to marbled grey when clean.  It is worth making the effort to protect the stal for the above reasons.

Changing clothes and transporting dirty stuff in clean bags is something we (SC Avalon) do in several caves in Belgium / France. Also during guided trips in these caves people will have to change clothes and transport their dirty stuff. If you want some information about how to please check Paul's guidelines about conservation and much more on the avalon website.

http://www.scavalon.be/avalonuk/av06.htm

Direct link http://www.scavalon.be/downloads/Cave%20Protection%20English.pdf

Last Friday I was exploring in a cave in France and had to strip down to my neopreen undersuit and change footwear from boots to slippers with non-marking sole. That last is important !! My friend was also wearing slippers but the sole left small black dots behind. So she had to continue on her socks and we removed the few marks she made. Ok it hurt a bit, walking around on her socks 

 

[PeteHall]

I have been to sites in the USA and Australia where you strip off all your clothing then carry it over the muddy bit. No reason why you couldn't do that in the UK really.

This isn't always a practical option. You obviously need enough space to take your muddy kit off, without muddying the rest of yourself. Try repeating that a few times in a narrow passage and you'll be just as muddy under your oversuit as outside of it.

 

[mikem]

Other caves have mined a bypass route to avoid the section.

 

[Leclused]

I have been to sites in the USA and Australia where you strip off all your clothing then carry it over the muddy bit. No reason why you couldn't do that in the UK really.

This isn't always a practical option. You obviously need enough space to take your muddy kit off, without muddying the rest of yourself. Try repeating that a few times in a narrow passage and you'll be just as muddy under your oversuit as outside of it.

With a bit of training it is possible to change clothes on very limited space, one square metre is enough 

 

[mikem]

It is possible, but limited space will often end up just as muddy as the section you're trying to avoid, or people may cause more damage whilst changing. It's impossible to keep a cave pristine, but you have to look at what's practical - formations aren't actually any more important than the rest of the cave, we just think they look pretty.

 

[JohnMCooper]

Other caves have mined a bypass route to avoid the section.

I've assisted in 2 of these.
In Charterhouse Cave a route was mined to bypass the Frozen Cascade and in Upper Flood a route was mined called the Neverland Bypass. Both required quite a few trips.

 

[Badlad]

I appreciate the thoughts and ideas.  Neither changing clothes nor mining a bypass is possible in this location.  We're talking multiple areas of mud/sludge between fairly limited areas of floor formations.

One of the more extensive areas of 'pretties' is up some bolted climbs to a higher level.  These are now mostly taped although several delicate formations, straws particularly, are vulnerable despite the tape.  When we have finished our exploration work, photography etc we are thinking of derigging the climbs so that the only access is to reclimb bolt routes.  What do people think of this as a conservation measure.  Will it work long term?

 

[Leclused]

I appreciate the thoughts and ideas.  Neither changing clothes nor mining a bypass is possible in this location.  We're talking multiple areas of mud/sludge between fairly limited areas of floor formations.

One of the more extensive areas of 'pretties' is up some bolted climbs to a higher level.  These are now mostly taped although several delicate formations, straws particularly, are vulnerable despite the tape.  When we have finished our exploration work, photography etc we are thinking of derigging the climbs so that the only access is to reclimb bolt routes.  What do people think of this as a conservation measure.  Will it work long term?

The last thing you can do in such a case is sealing it after your work is completed. We've done that twice 

 

[pwhole]

When we have finished our exploration work, photography etc we are thinking of derigging the climbs so that the only access is to reclimb bolt routes.  What do people think of this as a conservation measure.  Will it work long term?

That could work, as I have to do this soon after a 30-year hiatus on visiting one particular high-level passage. Not 30 years for me, I should add - for anyone

 

[mikem]

Yes, removing ropes is fine (especially if it's just more of the same but endangered)

 

[PeteHall]

One of the more extensive areas of 'pretties' is up some bolted climbs to a higher level.  These are now mostly taped although several delicate formations, straws particularly, are vulnerable despite the tape.  When we have finished our exploration work, photography etc we are thinking of derigging the climbs so that the only access is to reclimb bolt routes.  What do people think of this as a conservation measure.  Will it work long term?

Depends what you are trying to achieve.

If you want to conserve caves entirely, don't go into them.

If you want to conserve caves as they are pretty, that value only exists if they are seen. The idea of a "forbidden passage" sealed up to preserve it is completely counter-productive. Why preserve something pretty if by doing so, nobody can see it? What would you be conserving it for?

limiting the number of visits any person can make, or insisting on a certain level of commitment/ experience before visiting a vulnerable area makes sense, that way, the most (most deserving?) people possible can see it, with the lowest rate of damage. I believe a system like this operates for The China Shop in Boreham, but what on Earth is the point of sealing something off forever?

Edit: In my mind, there is only one reason for blocking access entirely to pretties, and that is to preserve it for our own memory. It's a case of "I've seen it and I don't want to spoil my memory, even if it means nobody else can ever see it".