Concreting Drws Cefn

[Brains]

Well, Brains, here are the respective lists

http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/member_clubs.html

http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/com.htm

So who is at risk of suspension, by way of your suggestion? And if a club that opposes the blockage wanted to remain in CCC would they be best advised to leave PDCMG?

Be careful what you wish for!

I would imagine CCC would decide upon that - either a complete censure of the group, or those constituents that could be shown to be acting contrary the wishes and needs of the cave, the caving community, BCA and CCC would seem starting points. If the management group is not fit for purpose, why be a member and bring discredit on your club?

I wish for nothing other than on going access for my fellow cavers in as free and easy a manner as is appropriate to the nature of the cave as a whole, with either natural or artifical control as deemed best in the individual circumstance. Blocking entrances or needlessly restrictive political interference on access does our pusuit no favours at all.
As cavers and underground explorers we should all be doing our very best to facillitate and encourage people into our sport, not making life hard - the trips thelmselves do enough of that to drive away people. No new blood = death of caving = nobody to speak for the trees caves (oops - drifted into Lorax territory!)

 

[graham]

Peter: There used to be a complete spectrum of involvement in access by regional councils from the CNCC - set up exclusively to mediate access - to CCC - renouncing any involvement; the DCA seems to have been a happy medium. Meanwhile, most cavers didn't really know but, not unreasonably, probably assumed (as BCA seems to have, too) that they could all act similarly, and on any topic involving caves and cavers in their region. Anyway, back on topic...

This does, indeed, take us rather off topic, however, the understanding that different regions do things differently has been part of British Caving ever since CSCC was set up to avoid CNCC's views being presumed to apply to all back in the 1960s.

Still little discussion of the wilderness conservation concept applied to Draenen in their little-read Conservation Policy and Guidelines [ http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/plancons2003.htm ]
Graham pointed out that this seems to be largely a transatlantic import (along with the example of OFD, which is highly debateable), and Wikipedia gives a good summary of the concepts as discussed for the surface [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness ]. What is not emphasised there is the idea of remoteness, which I think is what its proponents in PDCMG espouse - their stand would have all entrances to the Three Counties system blocked except for Low Douk. Would that be reasonable?

Well, I did try. I think your example is not wholly relevant as the Three Counties system was brought about by joining up discrete caves unlike Draenen where, essentially, the entire cave was explored from the one entrance.

Another parallel some have suggested is the climbing community leaving some crags without any fixed aids - ie maintaining a psychological edge (there is an aesthetic appeal too, I suppose) - in this case through physical endurance required to get to the far reaches rather than explicit risk. Is that desirable?

Why not, at least in this case, or should we insist that, for example, any long cave has a second entrance contrived 'for safety reasons'? I'm not wholly certain that the explorers of Charterhouse Cave or Dan yr Ogof would agree with you.

But the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article perhaps sums up  (for avoidable voids like Draenen) one extreme while skewing the other when it says: "applying any control to define nature unavoidably voids the very freedom and independence of human control that defines wilderness"

This is the one that gets me on my soapbox. The fact is that nowhere on the planet is wholly free of the activities of man. Nowhere. If taken to its logical conclusion, the attitude summed up in that sentence would have us shrugging our shoulders and logging the entirety of the rain forest, just because we can. Is that an attitude that we, as cavers, wish to encourage?

 

[Peter Burgess]

We should be seeking to bring cavers and their clubs together, not driving them apart. Anything CCC can do to keep clubs working together DESPITE their differences must be the best way forward. I don't think this letter that started the whole topic goes anywhere near achieving this, although no doubt others may question that.

 

[Brains]

The letter may have started this thread, but the matter has been festering in the dark for a long time before it was written. Perhaps the light of open debate will lead people to think clearly about all the issues, and look for a workable consesus. This will no doubt have wide repercussions throughout the caving world regardless of eventual outcome for this particular issue. If nothing else the letter shows some of the gulf in empathy that exists...
Get out of the trenches and play some footie while you still can

 

[Peter Burgess]

I can here the frantic digging noise of entrenching tools from 200 miles away! 

 

[Brains]

I can here the frantic digging noise of entrenching tools from 200 miles away! 

Sadly I fear that may be the case.
But we can only live in Hope - a beautiful bit of the High Peak, handy for for some wonderful caves....

 

[graham]

Brains

What compromise is possible between a viewpoint that requires one entrance and one that requires two?

How does one fashion a cave with 1 1/2 entrances?

 

[Ian Adams]

The compromise is evidently simple;

1) The cave is currently freely open
2) The cave is concreted over

The compromise would be to gate it. Is that not precisely what was suggested by CCC ?

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

Does it work for the owner? Who is going to find out?

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Isn't there some rule or other about interfering with natural features on CRoW land?

Yes, I believe there is.

Only for people exercising their right of access under CRoW, landowners are by-and-large free to do what they want within the limits which may apply from other legislation (planning, SSSI, etc.). It is no different to getting a builder in to build a wall in your garden, CRoW does not apply to the landowner in that sense.

 

[Ian Adams]

Does it work for the owner? Who is going to find out?

It's a compromise - don't deflect from Graham's question 

Ian

 

[graham]

Does it work for the owner? Who is going to find out?

It's a compromise - don't deflect from Graham's question 

Ian

It doesn't, in the sense that my view is that cavers need to work with landowners, antagonising them is not in our best interests. Others seem to disagree with that.

 

[Ian Adams]

..... my view is that cavers need to work with landowners, antagonising them is not in our best interests.

I completely agree.



Ian

 

[Andy Sparrow]

If the landowner really feels strongly that Drws Cefn should be sealed then he should undertake the task himself.  Cavers dig caves open, they don't fill them in.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

If the landowner really feels strongly that Drws Cefn should be sealed then he should undertake the task himself.  Cavers dig caves open, they don't fill them in.

Totally agree. So if current owner sells land after PDCMG have filled it with concrete, and new owner finds out - actually this is a scientific site and shouldn't have been filled. Who's going to dig the concrete out?

 

[Martin Laverty]

Graham: Thanks for your contributions on 'wilderness'. To respond:
My example of what the PDCMG would logically want for the Three Counties is obviously somewhat contrived but I think all the entrances there have been dug open and I know at least one of the PDCMG who was of the opinion that should an entrance be opened at the northern end of Draenen, the original entrance should be abandoned in its favour to make the southern regions even more remote...

should we insist that, for example, any long cave has a second entrance contrived 'for safety reasons'

No, but where other entrances exist I think Andy Sparrow has given the appropriate response.

This is the one that gets me on my soapbox.

So I see. I don't interpret the sentence in the same way as you, it seems, but I am neither qualified nor interested in discussing here the ideals or interpretations of anarchy or [abuse of] power. As for answering ludicrously off-topic questions...

 

[bograt]

Isn't there some rule or other about interfering with natural features on CRoW land?

Yes, I believe there is.

Only for people exercising their right of access under CRoW, landowners are by-and-large free to do what they want within the limits which may apply from other legislation (planning, SSSI, etc.). It is no different to getting a builder in to build a wall in your garden, CRoW does not apply to the landowner in that sense.

So it is the landowner that should be filling it in, not "cavers?"---

 

[graham]

My example of what the PDCMG would logically want for the Three Counties is obviously somewhat contrived but I think all the entrances there have been dug open and I know at least one of the PDCMG who was of the opinion that should an entrance be opened at the northern end of Draenen, the original entrance should be abandoned in its favour to make the southern regions even more remote...

However, no such entrance has been opened and that one person's view is not PDCMG policy is it.

"should we insist that, for example, any long cave has a second entrance contrived 'for safety reasons'?" No, but where other entrances exist I think Andy Sparrow has given the appropriate response.

As well as the example of OFD Top Entrance, the opening of which is undeniably regretted by some of those involved, I can think of other examples where active decisions have been made to not connect caves. Normally this has been for straight conservation reasons, to avoid turning delicate and relatively inaccessible passages into through routes, but the effect of keeping those areas relatively remote is also present. My point is that cavers do manage caves in these ways in other places and tacit agreement exists so to do. It is only cases such as Drews Cefn where a few individuals with a sense or entitlement feel personally aggrieved that these become high profile and contentious. I'll get back to this below.

This is the one that gets me on my soapbox.

So I see. I don't interpret the sentence in the same way as you, it seems, but I am neither qualified nor interested in discussing here the ideals or interpretations of anarchy or [abuse of] power. As for answering ludicrously off-topic questions...

<shrugs>You wished to discuss the underlying philosophy of wilderness it's a bit rich to complain now that it's off topic.

Anyway, to get back to the point that I mentioned above. The famous letter states two things:

The first is that Drews Cefn has had an open connection to Draenen for five years.

The second is its talk of "Years of opportunity to complete the cave survey, undertake scientific study ..." having been lost.

So where is the survey data collected these past five years? Does it not exist, or does the right of access only apply to caves and not to data about those caves? Bit hypocritically elitist if it's the latter don't you think?

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Only for people exercising their right of access under CRoW, landowners are by-and-large free to do what they want within the limits which may apply from other legislation (planning, SSSI, etc.). It is no different to getting a builder in to build a wall in your garden, CRoW does not apply to the landowner in that sense.

So it is the landowner that should be filling it in, not "cavers?"---

Anyone to whom the landowner grants permission.

 

[martinm]

Back from doing access work in the South Peak, something I have been combining with conservation work for several years! We have several different officers in DCA besides me. We have a projects officer, an access officer and Adam from PDHMS helps out with either C or A work as required. We all contribute as do several others (Boyd, Alan, etc.) who are not DCA officers to do our bit as necessary, we are not restrained by any 'official titles' If something needs doing somewhere in the Peak we will liaise together and get it done. (Funding permitted.)

Now then back to OD and the concreted over 2nd (Nunnery) entrance, this is how it should have been sealed:-

Above: Dave Webb during the installation of the gate and surround. (Bolted shut as it's near a public footpath.) Jugholes Lower Adit Entrance near Matlock with a bat friendly gate. The hole left in the 2nd entrance of OD when it was blocked (see photo upthread) is wholly inadequate. The fact that it has been put in place shows they were aware of the fact that bats were present. See also this page:-

http://www.cavinguk.co.uk/draenen/draenen.htm#Conservation

As it says, it is a criminal offence to interfere with bats and I would say blocking the entrance of OD in this way would be most certainly have disturbed them as well as preventing them free and easy access. (Esp. given the there is a gate and several inches of concrete below the turf.) This and the Drws Cefn entrance should be dealt with in the same way. Nice bat friendly gates, bolted shut so no-one has to manage the distribution and maintenance of padlocks, keys, etc. Like I've said b4, happy bats, happy cavers. (Just leave a logbook inside each entrance so you know who's in the system and where in case of a call out.)

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer. (Who also does loadsa access work to conserve access to caves in the South Peak, dealing with landowners like the National Trust where necessary.)