Extreme Conservation?

[Ian Adams]

The issue of (extreme) conservation having become topical, I would be interested in views on this very real scenario;

A cave, in North Wales exists.

The entrance is roughly 10 feet wide by 6 feet high but it is filled with glacial sediment in its entirety.

In the 1970?s there was an exploratory dig undertaken which only looked at the material in the sediment at the mouth of the cave (no attempt to gain entry was made). The dig revealed many things including broken formations within the sediment. Some detail was recorded. One of the people involved is a noted published author of caves and mines. Additionally, he is a researcher (and historian?) and he has suggested that this particular cave may well be of significant interest/importance.

The lack of (landowner) permission to dig has meant that the cave has been undisturbed since the 1970?s (and obviously for the time prior to that) and it does not seem likely that permission will be granted any time in the near future.

With regards to conservation;

1) The face of rock that the cave sits in is known to have receded by several hundred metres at least due to natural geological changes over time (before humans could record anything).
2) The existence of broken formations within the glacial sediment suggests that (significant) damage has already occurred to the cave system by natural means.
3) The geological evidence suggests a cave system exists within that may well be substantial.
4) In other nearby caves, evidence has been found of animals using the cave(s) as shelter. In fact, the oldest known recorded human tooth (I think it was a ?human? tooth but am happy to stand corrected) was found in a nearby cave which may well be part of the same system.

The questions then beg themselves (accepting landowner wishes are paramount);

A) Given that ?nature? has already caused (significant) damage, is the need for conservation mitigated?
B) Is the scientific importance of exploration increased because of the (increasing) natural destruction?
C) Is the scientific importance of exploration increased because of the nearby findings of the ancient historical use of such caves?
D) Does conservation trump exploration/science in this instance?
E) What other factors should be considered in this scenario?

Obviously I am aiming the question at our friend in the USA but it would be interesting to get a wider view from people already engaged (or not engaged) in the other similar forum topics.



Ian

 

[Alex]

I would say until it is discovered you have nothing to conserve. I think its rather pointless conserving something that no one is ever going to see or examine, because who are you conserving it for?

 

[langcliffe]

I would say until it is discovered you have nothing to conserve. I think its rather pointless conserving something that no one is ever going to see or examine, because who are you conserving it for?

For the scholars of the future. It is common to leave large areas of archaeological sites unexcavated to allow future generations a go who will benefit from better equipment and more sophisticated science. A generation ago, a human tooth was just a tooth - now oxygen isotope analysis of dental enamel can assist in determining the individual's place of origin, and DNA analysis can tell us a lot about the individual.

 

[royfellows]

I would say until it is discovered you have nothing to conserve. I think its rather pointless conserving something that no one is ever going to see or examine, because who are you conserving it for?

For the scholars of the future. It is common to leave large areas of archaeological sites unexcavated to allow future generations a go who will benefit from better equipment and more sophisticated science. A generation ago, a human tooth was just a tooth - now oxygen isotope analysis of dental enamel can assist in determining the individual's place of origin, and DNA analysis can tell us a lot about the individual.

With respect I question this view straight away because it appears to me that we have an indeterminate time span?
When will we know 'when the time is right'?

 

[langcliffe]

With respect I question this view straight away because it appears to me that we have an indeterminate time span? When will we know 'when the time is right'?

With equal respect, the view I put forward didn't raise the issue of a "right" or "wrong" time. I assume that if knowledge of a site can be enhanced as a result of a scientific break-through, then further limited  excavation / destruction of the site would be merited.

 

[andrewmcleod]

With respect I question this view straight away because it appears to me that we have an indeterminate time span?
When will we know 'when the time is right'?

That's why archaeologists do digs now even though they know they are probably destroying evidence they could obtain in the future. They only leave some stuff for the future.

 

[caver.adam@outlook.com]

I think the question goes back to what the goals are.

What is the goal of the conservation? What is the goal(s) of keeping people out? Does keeping people out meet the goals of the conservation? What are the larger community benefits of the conservation? Owner benefits? Project member benefits?

What are the goals of the exploration/"science"? What are the larger community benefits for the exploration? Owner benefits? Project member benefits (these come last on purpose)? Does having people explore the cave have more worth to the community at large and the owner than keeping people out of the cave does?

You have to add up all the relative worths. If you want the owner to let you into the cave the first place to start is by asking what they want. For the first several conversations don't even think about what you want. You'll learn a lot that may be used in a negotiation later. Many people are so busy thinking about what they want that they push the owners away. When everyone believes that the relative worth of having people explore the cave is higher than keeping people out it will change the situation.

 

[alastairgott]

Ian Adams, clearly your going to have to leave a bigger bone outside the kennel to tempt this worthy individual to join in this earnest and real world example.

 

[NewStuff]

Ian Adams, clearly your going to have to leave a bigger bone outside the kennel to tempt this worthy individual to join in this earnest and real world example.

He's a Yank, probably hasn't woken up yet... or is searching for a new keyboard after wearing his existing one out.

 

[droid]

With respect I question this view straight away because it appears to me that we have an indeterminate time span?
When will we know 'when the time is right'?

That's why archaeologists do digs now even though they know they are probably destroying evidence they could obtain in the future. They only leave some stuff for the future.

I think the vast majority of modern archaeological excavations are 'rescue', where the site is going to be destroyed/damaged anyway by eg quarrying or development.
Laser scanning and curating seem to be sufficiently developed that useful scientific data can later be obtained.
Bear in mind that excavation itself involves the destruction of the *original* site, and what you see afterwards is a modern 'restoration', in sites that are not destroyed by development.....

 

[cavemanmike]

Bear in mind that excavation itself involves the destruction of the *original* site, and what you see afterwards is a modern 'restoration', in sites that are not destroyed by development.....

so what your saying is don't go caving and it won't get destroyed

 

[droid]

I'm writing about archaeology not caving.

 

[cavemanmike]

I'm writing about archaeology not caving.

maybe you should go on a "archaeology " forum if your going to use it as a point of ref.
be a bit more constructive about the thread and you won't get hit with a big stick (so to speak )

 

[droid]

I was replying to Andrewmc...take a chill pill big man

 

[cavemanmike]

I was replying to Andrewmc...take a chill pill big man

 

[Kenilworth]

Obviously I am aiming the question at our friend in the USA 

Ian,
We both know that I am not qualified to answer these questions, except perhaps A: Of course not!
The effects of nature will have dictated what is available to use, value, or conserve, but damage to one thing does not permit needless damage to another thing. Or a measure of damage by nature does not permit further needless damage by us. If a tornado demolishes acres of virgin timber, for example, does this indicate that a clear-cut of the surrounding acres is justifiable?

The rest of your questions must obviously be answered by those personally involved. If they care about conservation, they will have to weigh carefully the potential results of any course of action, and try to pick the one that will be the least damaging to the resources involved, which as you outline are several. I cannot know what that would mean in this case, but the questions are at least interesting, and similar ones ought to part of all of our decisions involving land and cave use.

Now, I can give an uninformed guess as to what I would do in this situation. This seems like a site with enormous archeological, and possibly exploratory, potential. It also seems like a site with limited (at present) aesthetic value, and zero (at present) exploratory value. So, if the site is as special as it sounds, I would make archaeology first priority. If afterward I was free to do so, I may progress with exploration using the same conservation values that I apply to every other cave that I dig open and explore.

Out of interest, what are the preferences of the cavers involved in this particular site? What would they do, if granted freedom by the owner?

 

[Ian Adams]

The scenario is completely real and I have portrayed the circumstances accurately.

There is no permission to dig so the debate is philosophical rather than a discussion which might lead to a course of action.

There is no requirement to be "qualified" (that would lead to a arguments as to the value of such a qualification and whether it bestows any standing over peers).

There are no other cavers (or other parties involved) since no permission has been (or is likely to be) given.

In the previous threads, value was placed on scientific advancement and educational research by some. Your position was to favour conservation over both of those. In this (real) scenario, there is substantial reason to believe that we may learn a great deal about both the geological history as well as fauna and human habitation. Since there is a real basis for this, I was questioning whether the conservation/science balance had shifted. Your answer (with an exclamation mark) suggests that, in your opinion, it does not (fair enough).

I am particularly interested in opinions.

It was suggested elsewhere (words to the effect) what is the point of conservation if you cannot see it?  I could re-word and ask, is there beauty in something you cannot see?

Furthermore, in this real scenario, we already know that formations and beauty has been lost to glacial effects. How much longer should we wait before we explore and record that which is left? (or should we not?)

Where is the line in the sand?

Ultimately, I do not think there is a definable answer and I believe that we each hold a value at a different point (some closer than others). It is these differences I am interested in (you appear to be at the further end of the proverbial spectrum).

To address a couple of your quotes;

"but damage to one thing does not permit needless damage to another" (in the context of nature having already damaged the cave). I would suggest you do not need "permission" (except the landowner of course) nor is it "needless". I see it as a "choice". The question (in my mind) is whether the balance of conservations Vs. Science has been tipped over to Science (or whether we are now on the other side of the proverbial line in the sand). That, I think, falls to "opinion" (and is why I value it here).

"If a tornado demolishes acres of virgin timber, for example, does this indicate that a clear-cut of the surrounding acres is justifiable?"
I don't think that is a reasonable analogy. There is no suggestion of "clear-cutting" the cave. The (philosophical) reality would be to remove sufficient glacial sediment to create entry then to assess as progress is made. To examine the sediment for historical evidence and examine the cave for history evidence of it being used as a shelter. To examine (so far as is practical - another "opinion") the extent of the cave and the formations therein, To record those formations and to seek knowledge and science from them. Would that really be "damaging"?

Assuming you argue that any human interaction causes some damage (which I would be willing to accept), does the cost outweigh the gain?

Again, I see that answer as an opinion and, again, it is precisely this I am interested in (from all parts of the spectrum).

Ian

 

[cavemanmike]

mr kenilworth HAS dug in caves to explore/investigate cave systems . so in his own opinion he has damaged caves, to what extent only he know's

 

[royfellows]

I am particularly interested in opinions.

I like, too many people around who are only interested in their own.

Meant generally so not pertinent in particular to the thread, sorry.

 

[Kenilworth]

You are absolutely correct that there is no definable line, but I think that our personal lines are nearer than you realize.

The (philosophical) reality would be to remove sufficient glacial sediment to create entry then to assess as progress is made. To examine the sediment for historical evidence and examine the cave for history evidence of it being used as a shelter. To examine (so far as is practical - another "opinion") the extent of the cave and the formations therein, To record those formations and to seek knowledge and science from them.

This sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Maybe damage is not the best word to use at all. Maybe it is only damage when it is needless, that is when our choice uses something up without providing any benefit to anyone, or when the benefits are far too small to justify the costs. If this is the case, then cavemanmike is partly correct. I have dug in many caves. I have done damage. But not all of my digging has been damage.

Part of the reason that I do not give "scientific advancement and educational research" priority when deciding how to manage a cave is that very few caves will ever be the sites of such work. There are tens of thousands of caves within a day's drive of my home, and only a tiny fraction will be used scientifically. If I had some reason to believe that a particular cave was scientifically significant, then obviously its "resources" would change, and priorities would rightly swing toward investigation of these resources. I do not believe that there is any such thing as "conservation vs. science". Science can be practiced as carefully as anything else.

In speaking about permission, I only refer to the permission of a healthy conscience, based on fidelity to the land and to other humans.