PeteHall said:From my experience (caving all over the country and mine exploring in the north east/ north of England), access to mines is very often prohibited by the land owner. Mine explorers therefore make discrete trips in small groups. Many sites are well known to those in the know, but nothing is published about them for those not in the know. I have found with few exceptions, that mine exploring is generally very secretive.
bograt said:Apology accepted, now how about one from Droid who deleted the word 'no' from his quote?
Badlad said:"Having had a foot in both camps my perspective is that the caving scene is dominated by clubs....."
Any truth in this? Why do we bicker so much about access?
PeteHall said:I would say the issue at the heart of this is slightly more subtle than just cavers do clubs, miners don't do clubs.
From my experience (caving all over the country and mine exploring in the north east/ north of England), access to mines is very often prohibited by the land owner. Mine explorers therefore make discrete trips in small groups. Many sites are well known to those in the know, but nothing is published about them for those not in the know. I have found with few exceptions, that mine exploring is generally very secretive.
Caving on the other hand is generally anything but secretive. We publish our discoveries, we publish guide books, we arrange official access, we get changed and walk across the fells if full caving gear, happily stopping to talk to walkers about where we are going and what we are doing.
Since cavers tend to be so much more open about what we are doing, it is not surprising that we descend to bickering easier. We have more access agreements to argue about, we know where all the cave sitess are to argue about and we know who is controlling access to those sites, from within our own comunity. And when we disagree, everything is in the public domain.
If there was nothing published and there were no access agreements, besides not getting caught or shot at by the land owner, there would be far fewer arguments, but I don't think that would be an improvement on the current situation...
bograt said:Now here is an example of general lack of knowledge about what happens in other areas, Pete is obviously not aware of the situation in the rest of the nation, perhaps this is an indication of where the problem arises? UKC tries to cover a generality, whereas A.N. focuses on a speciality?, maybe Pete et-al should check out AN and NAMHO?
PeteHall said:bograt said:Now here is an example of general lack of knowledge about what happens in other areas, Pete is obviously not aware of the situation in the rest of the nation, perhaps this is an indication of where the problem arises? UKC tries to cover a generality, whereas A.N. focuses on a speciality?, maybe Pete et-al should check out AN and NAMHO?
I'm sorry Bograt, but I have clearly stated the limits of my experience that has brought me to these conclusions, drawing attention to this fact to highlight that it is not neccesarily representative of other areas.
I haven't used AN for many years since I left the north east and have been down a mine once since, for the 5 hour drive, I'd sooner go caving in the Dales.
I do think however, that you will find a large number of "sensitive sites" are missing up to date information on the AN database. Sensitive cave sites tend to be recorded, published and protected, rather than just not talked about.
The ethos may well be different in other areas where access is more readily permitted (Peak district perhaps?), but as I understand it access in other areas is much worse (Cornwall?). Never been down a mine in these areas, so not speaking from personal experience here.
Anyhow, I stand by my point that the level of publicity or secrecy affects the way people interact.
It's something I was chatting with Graham about today. Mines are on a one way trip to ultimate oblivion. Caves, if left alone, will continue to grow, change, develop, and even things that cavers mess up - SOME things - do recover up to a point. Caves seem to be far more robust places, so perhaps, mistakenly, we see them as less deserving of conservation in some instances. In a mine, once the things worth preserving have gone - the artefacts, archaeology, mineral exposures - that's it - so conservation is much more in the forefront of the mine- explorers' thinking, notwithstanding a good number of idiots who don't give a damn what they do or where they do it.MarkS said:An impression I get in general, but also particularly on this forum, is that the inevitable grey area of conservation seems to be big a source of bickering. We inevtiably all have views somewhere between no access(=maximum conservation) and free access (=minimum conservation), which may vary for different sites and circumstances. I know that's a real simplification, but it seems to me that it's the source of a lot of debate.
As to why that should be very different to views on mines, I'm not so sure. Perhaps it's because, relatively speaking, mines are somewhat transient? I suspect conservation views are typically very different for artificial environments than natural environments.