A second entrance to Ogof Draenen?

[Peter Burgess]

Graham you have a PM.

Andy - my initial contribution was just a genuine query seeking what the owner might think. I didn't expect it to be taken as the starting point for yet another stupid unnecessary and diversionary argument. THAT'S what pissed me off. And that's what I call b******x. There are a number of sensible, constructive and useful points I might have made in this discussion, but if this is the way the subject gets treated then you can both go to Hell in a Handcart for all I care.

I have first-hand experience of how remote parts of underground systems change when subjected to easier access, so I do have sensible points to make.

 

[ChrisJC]

Back on topic  ,

My preference is for 2 entrances. I much favour underground trips that are through-trips. e.g.
Lancaster hole to Wretched Rabbit
Croesor to Rhosydd
Caplecleugh to Nentsberry Haggs
Even Great Douk or Upper Long Churn or Porth Yr Ogof

It makes it a proper journey as there's a beginning & end , rather than just a beginning.

Chris.

 

[Rob]

I have very little experience of the cave and the politics, but i think that now more than ever we should be thinking more about encouraging good, fun caving. If another entrance may help this then that's worth trying for.

 

[Peter Burgess]

For me, there are only two points worth discussion (setting aside permissions etc) - rescue access, and conservation. Both have to be considered on a case by case basis. The potential reduction in traffic at one entrance should not be ignored. Neither should the risk of serious damage of any pristine cave features. Any discusion of it spoiling a trip that is only fit for super-cavers is elitism. There is nothing preventing those who wish to prove something about themselves from ignoring the new entrance if they so wish. 

 

[dunc]

but i think that now more than ever we should be thinking more about encouraging good, fun caving. If another entrance may help this then that's worth trying for.

There's plenty of fun caving to be had already, if encouraging fun means a greater increase in traffic as a result then conservation issues become a problem. Take Easegill with all its entrances - fun it may be but take a long hard look at the damage and lack of consideration by some parties - mud splats on the walls, damaged formations etc..

 

[dunc]

I much favour underground trips that are through-trips.
It makes it a proper journey as there's a beginning & end , rather than just a beginning.

I'll admit trips such as this are good, but;
In one entrance, round trip, out same entrance (with perhaps only a small overlap on passages) - also makes for a good days outing IMO. Draenen, Ireby, Agen Allwedd - a couple of examples of one entrance with a good round trip available.

 

[Andy Sparrow]

If Top Entrance was not open only a handful of cavers would be able to appreciate and enjoy all it has to offer

Taking a random example here (and nothing to do with Draenen itself); should we widen Strans Gill or try and create a bottom entrance so that more cavers can appreciate The Passage of Time?

Make access easier to one cave - where would it end though??

I think you are on the wrong track here.  This is not about creating a new entrance to make a cave easier.  This is about denying the use of an exisiting entrance to keep a cave more difficult.

 

[Huge]

The worst thing you can do to affect the conservation of a cave is to open up an entrance into it, i.e. discover it in the first place. The next worst thing is to open up additional entrances. In general the most abused caves are the multi entrance caves (OFD included) and the best conserved are single entrance caves. I'm mainly talking about larger cave systems here.

If Top Entrance was not open only a handful of cavers would be able to appreciate and enjoy all it has to offer

Taking a random example here (and nothing to do with Draenen itself); should we widen Strans Gill or try and create a bottom entrance so that more cavers can appreciate The Passage of Time?

Make access easier to one cave - where would it end though??

I think you are on the wrong track here.  This is not about creating a new entrance to make a cave easier.  This is about denying the use of an exisiting entrance to keep a cave more difficult.

I think you are on the wrong track there Andy. Draenen's second entrance was opened up specifically to make trips to the further reaches easier. The entrance only exists because someone created it. It was only capped after the view of all the relevant interested parties was canvased. The overwhelming opinion was against a second entrance on conservation grounds. If peoples opinion had been sort before the digging commenced, then hopefully there would have been no need to block it up again because there wouldn't have been anything to block.

 

[Huge]

I do not think [making] remote parts of the cave easier to reach is bad in terms of cave conservation as that part of the cave between both entrances would receive less traffic, so it all balances out in the end.

Back on topic  ,

My preference is for 2 entrances. I much favour underground trips that are through-trips. e.g.
Lancaster hole to Wretched Rabbit
Croesor to Rhosydd
Caplecleugh to Nentsberry Haggs
Even Great Douk or Upper Long Churn or Porth Yr Ogof

It makes it a proper journey as there's a beginning & end , rather than just a beginning.

Chris.

Reduce traffic in the passages between the entrances? I don't think so!

If traffic was reduced, would these previously well used routes revert to their pristine condition? No.

Would currently little travelled passages far from the current entrance but closer to the second entrance get more traffic and therefore suffer? Yes.

 

[graham]

There is a small amount of evidence that cave passages will "repair" if left untravelled, but it is equivocal and based on anecdote rather than on a systematic study, naturally so as the examples available for study are few and far between. It also depends, of course, on the passage itself. To take a slightly hypothetical example, had Top Entrance opened directly out from the OFD streamway rather than from the fossil stuff far above, then the conservation problems in OFD II would be much reduced. The passage of many cavers through the streamway inputs less energy to the system than the winter floods, whereas the same cavers have a much larger relative input on the fossil stuff closer to Top Entrance.

In the case of long single-entrance caves like Draenen and, indeed, Daren Cilau there is a further conservation issue to take into account and that is the impact of the establishment of semi-permanent camps within the caves. The basic tasks of living require the carriage in (and sometimes out) of very large amounts of essential (to the campers) supplies and the utilisation of those supplies in an environment where the usual energy inputs are much lower. Any detailed study of how a second entrance might affect a cave such as Draenen needs to take this into account. I have a strange feeling that British cavers on their home turf do not practise the minimal impact techniques that our transatlantic cousins do in caves like Lechuguilla (the "not one crumb" philosophy of underground camping).

Oh and hello Peter

no I don't have a PM.

 

[caving_fox]

Is this a good point to say why don't we have a survey available so that I can see whether or not I'd want to travel through a proposed 2nd entrance?  :tease:

 

[Ali Garman]

Hi all,

First post....how exciting.

From a factual perspective, since the current land owner purchased the land from the Coal Authority it has been his stated intention that the cave have a single entrance. As recently as last September the landowner re-iterated this position and was EXTREMELY annoyed by the actions of two individuals who were trying to re-open the exact entrance mentioned in this thread. This incident is now resolved, but it wasted a lot of people's time repairing the situation.

Any opening of a second entrance, particularly this one due to its wholly unsuitable surface location, will seriously jeopardise relations with the landowner and therefore ultimately our access.

In other words the attempt to gain 'better' access for cavers to Draenen by opening a second entrance might result in zero entrances and no access.

There are a whole heap of counter arguments, for why the cave is better off with a single entrance, but I'm struggling for hours in the day at the moment.

I hope this helps, cheers

Ali (PDCMG Sec.)

 

[Peter Burgess]

Ali's post (welcome Ali) explains perfectly why I asked originally about what the owner's wishes are. Now I know, I don't see any need to continue the debate. What would it achieve?

 

[slippery_matt]

Ali's post (welcome Ali) explains perfectly why I asked originally about what the owner's wishes are. Now I know, I don't see any need to continue the debate. What would it achieve?

Perhaps another topic for a hypothetical situation then?  I think some of the arguments raised are quite interesting, particularly Grahams RE setting up camps. 
As far as that point goes, I'd personally be more in favour of setting up camps than opening new entrances.  I've been fortunate enough to be to the Blue Greenies, for example, and they would not be nearly as pristine if there was another entrance closer by.  Then again, Peter is right that that is rather elitist! 

Similarly, how do people feel about opening up new entrances past sumps - such as at Wigmore..? 

 

[old-timer]

this is a well-worn subject, it was old and controversial past any useful agreement when I was most active, 30 years ago... the consensus at that time, was that it was a good thing for a limited number of caves to be super-difficult. This was at a time when to bottom Gaping Ghyll, say, was a major exercise involving tackle-carrying parties and all the attendant palaver. Most people who did the full trip, did so by invitation because they were reckoned to be of a sufficient standard, and there didn't seem to be any great dissent that this was 'as it should be' .

this was at a time when the multiple drownings in a major Dales system, and a particularly awful fatality where a caver was trapped and fully conscious while would-be rescuers attempted to reach him for over 24 hours, were still relatively fresh in people's minds, and I think it focussed a lot of people's thinking.

plus, there was no internet, and people expressing the kind of sentiments in the earlier part of this thread would be told to their faces to shut up and/or bugger off, preferably both, which I think is much the best way of dealing with that kind of childish nonsense.

so a vote for one entrance only, on general principles.

 

[langcliffe]

...when I was most active, 30 years ago... the consensus at that time, was that it was a good thing for a limited number of caves to be super-difficult. This was at a time when to bottom Gaping Ghyll, say, was a major exercise involving tackle-carrying parties and all the attendant palaver. Most people who did the full trip, did so by invitation because they were reckoned to be of a sufficient standard, and there didn't seem to be any great dissent that this was 'as it should be' .

so a vote for one entrance only, on general principles.

That doesn't coincide with my memory of caving in 1979. If by Gaping Gill, you include the other main entrances, we were having two-man SRT trips down GG by 1979. As far as one entrance per hard cave being the ethic of the day, ULSA opened up Mistral in 1974!

 

[lil.dent]

As someone fairly new to caving and to this argument I'd like to add another point. Although having a second entrance can make visiting pretties more convinent and grant access to the cave to more cavers it somewhat lessens the reward of reaching them. I find the whole elitist argument to be rather silly. As long as there is not someone deciding who is good enough to be allowed access then its fine. Yes the far reaches of Draenen are only going to be reached by experienced cavers, but that gives newbies like me something to aim for. I find that most cavers i know well want to improve their ability so they can do better trips, see nicer formations and go to more challenging caves, what would be the point if there was another entrance that made it all easy?

 

[old-timer]

...when I was most active, 30 years ago... the consensus at that time, was that it was a good thing for a limited number of caves to be super-difficult. This was at a time when to bottom Gaping Ghyll, say, was a major exercise involving tackle-carrying parties and all the attendant palaver. Most people who did the full trip, did so by invitation because they were reckoned to be of a sufficient standard, and there didn't seem to be any great dissent that this was 'as it should be' .

so a vote for one entrance only, on general principles.

That doesn't coincide with my memory of caving in 1979. If by Gaping Gill, you include the other main entrances, we were having two-man SRT trips down GG by 1979. As far as one entrance per hard cave being the ethic of the day, ULSA opened up Mistral in 1974!

oh ok, old men forget... 1979 would be a bit late for me. I first went down GG in about 1970 and I had largely stopped in the Dales by about 1974-5. Plus, there were quite a few people who never did get to grips with SRT, and dropped out or moved on rather than attempt it. I never learnt it.

It would also be a fair comment that the SRT people were a new generation in a number of ways, certainly the club I was then with ( 4C's from Cambridge ) were divided between themselves and for quite some time, the club would not buy SRT kit including ropes, on the grounds that it was a major investment which a lot of the members would never use - and this wasn't unusual. I think that as a general comment, University clubs were more go-ahead than 'town' clubs, because they had a constant turnover of young members, most of whom had few family constraints on their leisure time, and very few 'old heads' counselling caution 

 

[graham]

ULSA opened up Mistral in 1974!

Yeah but it were bloody tight in them days; it was a long time later that some fuckwits kind people made it a lot bigger.

 

[old-timer]

I wasn't going to mention that side of life  :-\.. there were some highly dubious approaches around at the time...