Kenilworth
New member
As I labor over the building of a complete and communicable foundation for my convictions, I may as well go ahead and say plainly what some of my preferred strategies might be. I reckon it will then be clear that I have much more work, probably many years of it, left to do. I will need lots of good help too.
1. The elimination of recreational caving organizations as they now exist. These are both damaging and unnecessary.
2. The promotion of show caves and of wild recreational caves with completely open access. These would be, in effect, "sacrificial caves," in that they would cease to be pristine or even ecologically intact (this will happen, is happening, has happened, anyway). However these caves would be well-maintained, and the place where well-developed cave restoration techniques would best be applied.
3. The gating of exceptionally fragile caves, with strict access controls to be administered by those in the best position to know/care what is best for the cave. Ideally, to avoid monopoly, this would be, not a conservation group or any formal body, but the legal owner. The owner, then, must be well and fairly educated on the nature and significance of his holdings.
4. The removal, as far as possible, of cave location information from the public domain, including the internet and guidebooks. This is impossible to control, and it is much too late to be immediately effective in the UK. Here in the US confidentiality is currently the most effective conservation measure.
5. If any legislative remedies are sought by cavers who care about conservation, they should involve, not "rights of access," but prosecution of vandals. This would include (as much as I agree with the spirit of some posts from the CBC Hacksaw Officer) gate/lock choppers. Importantly, for this to be just, gate placement must also be just.
These big steps would make access more difficult. They would require more commitment from cavers. They would condense traffic into fewer, well-suited caves. They would all but eliminate traffic in select caves. There would then be a decrease in cavers and a decrease in total cave traffic while still allowing everyone complete freedom to work, to explore, to learn the land, locate caves, negotiate with owners if needed, develop relationships with owners, neighbors, communities and cavers, locate caves, go caving, and responsibly and carefully share information. The qualifier would be passion, not "membership." The net conservation effect would be positive.
This would not solve all of the problems. We cannot, obviously, solve the societal dilemma that has come from our divorce from nature. Discussing the solutions to those problems would be much more uncomfortable and divisive than any of the CROW battles. So I probably wrote myself into a corner when I criticized Chris for merely trying to control symptoms. That is all any of us can do. But we should try to cut as close to the root as we can.
There are also smaller, individual acts of care that I am practicing or trying to practice:
-Giving priority to photography over survey. This is hard. I like survey more than photography.
-Removing flagging tape wherever appropriate.
-Educating landowners, if possible by showing them. It is very rewarding to see owners develop an understanding and active care of caves on their property.
-Practicing discipline by avoiding unnecessary trips into fragile caves, or repeated aimless tours through the same fragile passage.
-Making survey trips long, thus reducing their total number.
-Maintaining secrecy. This sounds snobbish, but I see no dishonor in asking that visitors to a cave find and explore it on the same terms and through the same hard work that I did.
-Careful observation and careful travel.
-Self-education and meditation on the relative significance and value of cave features. Appropriately, everyone will arrive at different conclusions. Sincerity is the key.
I believe that this approach to conservation, if it is possible, would be hugely superior to "conservation codes" printed on a card (impossible!), or the implementation of a formal vetting process (also impossible), or the preaching of hard and fast rules about mud sculptures, carbide lamps, feces and urine, breaking formations, etc. etc., all of which can at times be rightly broken by the most conscientious caver.
1. The elimination of recreational caving organizations as they now exist. These are both damaging and unnecessary.
2. The promotion of show caves and of wild recreational caves with completely open access. These would be, in effect, "sacrificial caves," in that they would cease to be pristine or even ecologically intact (this will happen, is happening, has happened, anyway). However these caves would be well-maintained, and the place where well-developed cave restoration techniques would best be applied.
3. The gating of exceptionally fragile caves, with strict access controls to be administered by those in the best position to know/care what is best for the cave. Ideally, to avoid monopoly, this would be, not a conservation group or any formal body, but the legal owner. The owner, then, must be well and fairly educated on the nature and significance of his holdings.
4. The removal, as far as possible, of cave location information from the public domain, including the internet and guidebooks. This is impossible to control, and it is much too late to be immediately effective in the UK. Here in the US confidentiality is currently the most effective conservation measure.
5. If any legislative remedies are sought by cavers who care about conservation, they should involve, not "rights of access," but prosecution of vandals. This would include (as much as I agree with the spirit of some posts from the CBC Hacksaw Officer) gate/lock choppers. Importantly, for this to be just, gate placement must also be just.
These big steps would make access more difficult. They would require more commitment from cavers. They would condense traffic into fewer, well-suited caves. They would all but eliminate traffic in select caves. There would then be a decrease in cavers and a decrease in total cave traffic while still allowing everyone complete freedom to work, to explore, to learn the land, locate caves, negotiate with owners if needed, develop relationships with owners, neighbors, communities and cavers, locate caves, go caving, and responsibly and carefully share information. The qualifier would be passion, not "membership." The net conservation effect would be positive.
This would not solve all of the problems. We cannot, obviously, solve the societal dilemma that has come from our divorce from nature. Discussing the solutions to those problems would be much more uncomfortable and divisive than any of the CROW battles. So I probably wrote myself into a corner when I criticized Chris for merely trying to control symptoms. That is all any of us can do. But we should try to cut as close to the root as we can.
There are also smaller, individual acts of care that I am practicing or trying to practice:
-Giving priority to photography over survey. This is hard. I like survey more than photography.
-Removing flagging tape wherever appropriate.
-Educating landowners, if possible by showing them. It is very rewarding to see owners develop an understanding and active care of caves on their property.
-Practicing discipline by avoiding unnecessary trips into fragile caves, or repeated aimless tours through the same fragile passage.
-Making survey trips long, thus reducing their total number.
-Maintaining secrecy. This sounds snobbish, but I see no dishonor in asking that visitors to a cave find and explore it on the same terms and through the same hard work that I did.
-Careful observation and careful travel.
-Self-education and meditation on the relative significance and value of cave features. Appropriately, everyone will arrive at different conclusions. Sincerity is the key.
I believe that this approach to conservation, if it is possible, would be hugely superior to "conservation codes" printed on a card (impossible!), or the implementation of a formal vetting process (also impossible), or the preaching of hard and fast rules about mud sculptures, carbide lamps, feces and urine, breaking formations, etc. etc., all of which can at times be rightly broken by the most conscientious caver.