s_allshorn
Active member
In terms of the instu rope, I have contacted the rope owner and they are still being used. They were last used on Wednesday, please leave them alone.
Deaths Head Tree
- Thread starter Steve Clark
- Start date
rm128
Active member
That's useful information. Thanks. These in situ ropes have been the subject of much debate on this forum, with no-one ever claiming ownership. On that basis, I have personally been on the verge of derigging them myself on more than one occasion, believing that they had been abandoned (presumably after the 3C traverse). I tried to get CNCC on board with doing this, to no avail, which is why I ultimately did not derig.
I have no doubt that the owner is much more of a caver than I will ever be and that he/she no doubt puts much more effort into exploration than I will ever do. But, is it too much to ask that anyone who is going to leave such popular caves rigged for a prolonged period finds some way of letting the wider caving community know that there is an ongoing project and, if possible, try to give some sort of estimate of how long it is likely to take (i.e. weeks vs months vs years)? One possible way of disseminating such information could be via this forum. Another way could be to leave a laminated note fixed near the top, which could be done completely anonymously if desired.
This is just the opinion of a very average recreational caver.
MJenkinson
Member
Glad I am not the only one.
Samouse1
Well-known member
Seconded! The laminated note works really well for Aquamole, but there are several caves which have rigging in (notably some left over from the 3CGT) which seem abandoned. Popular routes that could have two groups on them are limited to only having one group at a time because of insitu ropes. If there’s no way of finding out whose ropes they are and if the project is ongoing, I think it shouldn’t be surprising if someone calls for the removal or actually removes it…
Pie Muncher
Member
I believe this "stake" to be the marker for the GPS exercise Kevin Dixon undertook several years ago. I would definately NOT rely on it as an SRT back up.
kay
Well-known member
What about reducing its size to reduce wind rock, removing dead wood, and alongside that putting in alternative belays so the tree is no longer used as an anchor?
Pitlamp
Well-known member
If anyone with special interest in this particular hazard tree would like to get more clued up, Clapham's Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust is holding an online workshop on tree health, in collaboration with the Forestry Commission, this coming Tueday afternoon,28th March:
As this is billed as a "workshop" with FC experts it may well be possible to ask questions about the specific problem at Death's Head Hole. Looks like it's necessary to email them beforehand to get the link and the passcode etc.
It would greatly help of the species of tree is known (can anyone confirm this?) as likely problems are often species-specific. If anyone can join that particular party it would be great if you could feedback anything learned via this topic on here. (I can't "attend" as I'll be otherwise engaged.) These YDMT events are usually pretty good.
Tree health online workshop | YDMT
Join members of the Forestry Commission’s Plant Health Forestry Team for a tree health workshop, explore what to look out for and biosecurity best practice.
www.ydmt.org
As this is billed as a "workshop" with FC experts it may well be possible to ask questions about the specific problem at Death's Head Hole. Looks like it's necessary to email them beforehand to get the link and the passcode etc.
It would greatly help of the species of tree is known (can anyone confirm this?) as likely problems are often species-specific. If anyone can join that particular party it would be great if you could feedback anything learned via this topic on here. (I can't "attend" as I'll be otherwise engaged.) These YDMT events are usually pretty good.
Mr Dinwiddy
Member
Pitlamp - its a Rowan tree (smooth grey bark and thick twigs)
Mark
Well-known member
As we are now well into the bird nesting season, I suggest it is left until August to avoid any conflict with bird enthusiasts, you would be surprised who is watching
www.gov.uk
Wild birds: protection and licences
What you must do to avoid harming birds and when you’ll need a licence.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Ta, in which case if someone attends and refers to it as a "Sorbus aucuparia" the experts will think they have at least some idea what they're on about! ;-)
Goydenman
Well-known member
No need to start using that language Pitlamp, let's keep it clean.
HardenClimber3
Member
kay
Well-known member
Already in hand
CNCC
Well-known member
Thank you to everyone for a great, and really well-informed discussion above.
We have listened to lots of opinions and ideas for dealing with this situation. On one hand, clearly we need to encourage cavers away from using the hollow tree trunk as a belay, while also providing a suitable alternative, and avoiding complete removal of the tree to maintain the stabilising benefits of the roots.
This has been a great example of CNCC's conservation teams (led by Kay) and anchor teams (in this situation, led by Ian) working together, pulling together advice from numerous contributors.
Over the last few weeks, work has been performed to prune, but not remove the affected tree, and two ground-spike anchors installed to provide alternative surface belays. Two more anchors have been added, one near the bottom of the gully for added protection (so that you are on a proper anchor once you reach the actual pitch head), and one to supplement the single-anchor take-off on the first pitch to make this into a Y-hang (as would be standard practice today when anchoring such a location). The topo has been updated this evening.
There are plans in place to plant new trees near the entrance in due course.
Full report and some photos here (well worth a read):
cncc.org.uk
Thank you to everyone involved.
We have listened to lots of opinions and ideas for dealing with this situation. On one hand, clearly we need to encourage cavers away from using the hollow tree trunk as a belay, while also providing a suitable alternative, and avoiding complete removal of the tree to maintain the stabilising benefits of the roots.
This has been a great example of CNCC's conservation teams (led by Kay) and anchor teams (in this situation, led by Ian) working together, pulling together advice from numerous contributors.
Over the last few weeks, work has been performed to prune, but not remove the affected tree, and two ground-spike anchors installed to provide alternative surface belays. Two more anchors have been added, one near the bottom of the gully for added protection (so that you are on a proper anchor once you reach the actual pitch head), and one to supplement the single-anchor take-off on the first pitch to make this into a Y-hang (as would be standard practice today when anchoring such a location). The topo has been updated this evening.
There are plans in place to plant new trees near the entrance in due course.
Full report and some photos here (well worth a read):
New anchors for Death's Head Hole
Following death of the rigging tree at Death's Head Hole, CNCC have now pruned the dead tree and installed new ground spike belays for the descent from the surface and a few additional resin bonded anchors near the top of the first pitch. Overall a much safer approach than we had before. Great...
cncc.org.uk
Thank you to everyone involved.
Steve Clark
Well-known member
Fantastic work.
I thought I’d opened a right can of worms by mentioning this but the solution looks far better. Well done and thanks.
I thought I’d opened a right can of worms by mentioning this but the solution looks far better. Well done and thanks.
I understood the CNCC position was the only CNCC-endorsed fixed aids are resin anchors installed under the BCA scheme. Has this position changed?
Quote from https://cncc.org.uk/fixed-aids/:
The participation statement on the first page of the Deaths Head topo also states:
The news item reports that:
It is clear that the new ground spikes are CNCC installed anchors for SRT use, and that they are not resin anchors. This seems to me to be directly contradicting the CNCC's published position regarding anchors. Please could the CNCC clarify their position?
I think you'll find that CNCC have issued a caveat about those ground anchors.
On the one hand CNCC cannot be made responsible for all fixed aids/anchors (except the resin anchors) but then again cavers cannot access all caves without using some forms of fixed aids. You can't really get down Notts 2 without using the scaffold or the ladders for example. However, you can't issue a topo where the first CNCC approved anchor is half way down the entrance gully either.
It is a difficult circle to square and this has been the subject of much debate within CNCC. My understanding is that they are in the process of changing their position.
What does make it more difficult for them is when people turn up at meetings and say that if anything goes wrong with any fixed aid they include in their descriptions or topos it will make them liable for damages. It was even suggested once that individual officers and committee members could be liable and possibly lose their homes and jobs over it. These are all volunteers so naturally they have been cautious.
I should say that I am no longer part of CNCC but wanted to share my observations gained over several years. I think all those caving in the north appreciate the efforts CNCC have put into our sport over the last few years particularly but the issues surrounding fixed aids is a difficult one.
On the one hand CNCC cannot be made responsible for all fixed aids/anchors (except the resin anchors) but then again cavers cannot access all caves without using some forms of fixed aids. You can't really get down Notts 2 without using the scaffold or the ladders for example. However, you can't issue a topo where the first CNCC approved anchor is half way down the entrance gully either.
It is a difficult circle to square and this has been the subject of much debate within CNCC. My understanding is that they are in the process of changing their position.
What does make it more difficult for them is when people turn up at meetings and say that if anything goes wrong with any fixed aid they include in their descriptions or topos it will make them liable for damages. It was even suggested once that individual officers and committee members could be liable and possibly lose their homes and jobs over it. These are all volunteers so naturally they have been cautious.
I should say that I am no longer part of CNCC but wanted to share my observations gained over several years. I think all those caving in the north appreciate the efforts CNCC have put into our sport over the last few years particularly but the issues surrounding fixed aids is a difficult one.
CNCC
Well-known member
@IanWalker
You raise some very valid points, which we're pleased to say we are already aware of and working on.
Over the last six months, CNCC has moved away a little from our historic (and quite strict) participation statement in a few ways. Firstly we have done so in this recent decision to install ground spike anchors. Doing this has come about very quickly, in response to a sudden situation where a popular pothole had no satisfactory means of belay for the entrance and resin anchors were not viable.
Secondly, we are in the final stages of agreeing to display on our topos selected anchors which are not CNCC-installed/approved (which could be interpreted as supporting/endorsing them). Wording on this will be discussed and agreed at the June Committee meeting.
Therefore, for both reasons, our participation statement and fixed aid section on our website are due some review, which will also take place at the June Committee meeting.
It will remain likely that any anchor other than CNCC-approved resin bonded anchors will carry some kind of additional warning or disclaimer on the topo to emphasise the need for additional checks and care beyond those associated to approved anchors. Furthermore, our primary focus will remain on CNCC-approved resin-bonded anchors as the primary choice wherever these are feasible, but with realisation that some situations require exceptions to resin bonded anchors to be installed or alternative forms of belays to be acknowledged on our topos.
In an ideal world, we'd review our participation statement/policy wording before deviating from it... but when situations arise suddenly that require quick action, sometimes this is not possible. The end result is a short period of contradiction, which you have rightly pulled us up on.
So, yes, our participation statement may be updated in the coming months following discussions at our June meeting with our Committee.
We hope this helps explain the situation.
You raise some very valid points, which we're pleased to say we are already aware of and working on.
Over the last six months, CNCC has moved away a little from our historic (and quite strict) participation statement in a few ways. Firstly we have done so in this recent decision to install ground spike anchors. Doing this has come about very quickly, in response to a sudden situation where a popular pothole had no satisfactory means of belay for the entrance and resin anchors were not viable.
Secondly, we are in the final stages of agreeing to display on our topos selected anchors which are not CNCC-installed/approved (which could be interpreted as supporting/endorsing them). Wording on this will be discussed and agreed at the June Committee meeting.
Therefore, for both reasons, our participation statement and fixed aid section on our website are due some review, which will also take place at the June Committee meeting.
It will remain likely that any anchor other than CNCC-approved resin bonded anchors will carry some kind of additional warning or disclaimer on the topo to emphasise the need for additional checks and care beyond those associated to approved anchors. Furthermore, our primary focus will remain on CNCC-approved resin-bonded anchors as the primary choice wherever these are feasible, but with realisation that some situations require exceptions to resin bonded anchors to be installed or alternative forms of belays to be acknowledged on our topos.
In an ideal world, we'd review our participation statement/policy wording before deviating from it... but when situations arise suddenly that require quick action, sometimes this is not possible. The end result is a short period of contradiction, which you have rightly pulled us up on.
So, yes, our participation statement may be updated in the coming months following discussions at our June meeting with our Committee.
We hope this helps explain the situation.
