Ian Adams said:
Your ideology is interesting but very far from the practicalities of how (South Wales) caving is operated.
Kenilworth said:
do what you feel is best for all parties....
That is, perhaps, the most contentious statement you have made in all your postings. ?Parties? have wildly differing views and some have acted to the (serious) detriment of fellow cavers.
We do not have consensus in British caving.
Without a governing body anarchy would reign. Pockets of power crazed tyrants would spring up and seize control of caves, gating and sealing them off from others. Malcontent insurgents would rise up and fight the pseudo autocracies casting aside physical barriers reeking havoc and chaos. The vast majority of cavers would get ?stiffed? by the war and languish in a bitter world where the splendours of the underworld were either inaccessible or only available with a side helping of sour cream.
Actually, that all seems to ring a bell ?..
Ian
I've been away for some time but I hope a late reply is ok. You may be right. Your vision of anarchy is certainly effective rhetoric. In your last sentence you seem to insinuate though that the governing bodies currently in order aren't really doing anything. I think that is likely true.
Obviously it is impossible to always do what is "best" for all parties, so priorities are important. Personally, my first responsibility is toward my neighbors, which I fulfill in various ways ranging from hospitality to diplomacy to secrecy to surrender of claim. Next comes the land, including the cave. Next comes my own personal wishes. Lastly (if at all) comes the law of the land. This works incredibly well for me, and I have many fulfilling relationships with places and people as a result. No consensus is needed to dictate individual right behavior.
If we individually do the best we can, will there still be parties who act to our detriment? Yes. That only means that we will need to keep doing our best. I don't think we need to fight artificial authority acting in our detriment with artificial authority acting in our favor.
On a large government-owned parcel containing one of the most intense concentrations of karst in my State, I have been working on various karst studies and bio-inventories for five years. Two years ago, because of supposed ecological concerns, my permits to do this work were rescinded and I was reminded that criminal prosecution was the penalty for unpermitted cave travel. I took the ecological aspect of this development seriously, and examined my behavior to see if I was doing, or could do, any of the feared harm. The basis for my restriction was invalid. Rather than waste my time on political struggle or arguing with ignorant bureaucracy, I changed my habits. I began parking on a private road and making a longer walk so as to avoid attention. I avoided work during weekends when the land saw higher use. I avoided work during the one day a week when the land manager typically made his little round. Since my car had been reported to law enforcement as suspicious in the past, I made acquaintances with local officers and informed them of my large scale karst research in the county (meeting policemen has been extremely valuable in many areas). Then I carried on in my work, which has recently finished.
This is a tiny and imperfect example of what I'm talking about. Individual behavior. All the governance in the world will not make people do the right or the wise thing, nor will it stop them from doing so. Therefore, why prioritize governance?
