Is it acceptable to modify a cave to make a potential rescue easier?

[kay]

If you are designing an Underground station, or a new mine working, then of course every opportunity should be taken to reduce the risk of accidents and improve rescue facilities and so on. People don't visit such places to face dangers and challenges. But in caves, by and large, that is precisely what we are choosing to do for pleasure. Remove the risks, and you lose an element of the challenge that makes caving such an unusual pastime.

Not everyone is visiting caves for the enjoyment of taking risks. I visit them for the pleasure of seeing a different world. And the fact that there are risks involved is a bit of a bugger, frankly, just as when I go walking I go for the beauty of nature, not to challenge myself against the possibilities of getting lost, breaking my ankle in a remote place, or running into the Ilkley Moor rapist.

And yes, I do fit my caving around my personal competence level. I except that there are vast tracts of beautifully decorated caves that I will never ever see. And I don't want anyone to modify caves to make them more accessible for me, any more than I want them to stick up signposts in the Dales (although I would like them to catch the Ilkley Moor rapist)

 

[kay]

risk is good, its normal and to be encouraged! More importantly in the young.

Why the young? You trying to kill them all off?  :tease:
What's young? Under 5? Under 20? Under 50?

Calculated risk is good. Blind, ignorant risk isn't, when you're doing something way outside your capability level and you haven't a clue what the risks that you're undertaking.

 

[Peter Burgess]

If you are designing an Underground station, or a new mine working, then of course every opportunity should be taken to reduce the risk of accidents and improve rescue facilities and so on. People don't visit such places to face dangers and challenges. But in caves, by and large, that is precisely what we are choosing to do for pleasure. Remove the risks, and you lose an element of the challenge that makes caving such an unusual pastime.

Not everyone is visiting caves for the enjoyment of taking risks. I visit them for the pleasure of seeing a different world. And the fact that there are risks involved is a bit of a bugger, frankly, just as when I go walking I go for the beauty of nature, not to challenge myself against the possibilities of getting lost, breaking my ankle in a remote place, or running into the Ilkley Moor rapist.

And yes, I do fit my caving around my personal competence level. I except that there are vast tracts of beautifully decorated caves that I will never ever see. And I don't want anyone to modify caves to make them more accessible for me, any more than I want them to stick up signposts in the Dales (although I would like them to catch the Ilkley Moor rapist)

Very true, of course. But you choose the caves to visit that you know you will enjoy the most, and which will not be spoilt by having to take risks that are unacceptable to you personally, I suspect.

 

[langcliffe]

There was part of Dowber Gill Passage that was modified. At the time there a large number of rescues from the place, and this particular area was a major bottleneck which added considerable time to the rescues, and stress to the rescued. The original routes were left intact, and a bypass to the obstacle manufactured.

Speaking from personal experience of rescues before and after, I am convinced that it was the right thing to do.

 

[kay]

Very true, of course. But you choose the caves to visit that you know you will enjoy the most, and which will not be spoilt by having to take risks that are unacceptable to you personally, I suspect.

I think the difference is in what is unacceptable. I know from what people have said that, for many people, being scared and coming out of it safely adds to the enjoyment of the trip. For me it doesn't, and I doubt whether I'm the only one who feels that way. But this is straying from topic!

 

[Peter Burgess]

I think my interpretation is just to explain why so many negative answers have been given to this question. It's not so far off topic at all. 

 

[darren]

What about modifying a cave during a practice rescue?

Does this count as pre-emptive? or part of the exercise?

 

[Subterranean]

What about modifying a cave during a practice rescue?

Does this count as pre-emptive? or part of the exercise?

I think this is pre-emptive too; though a good method of finding areas of cave that would need to be modified during a rescue. The areas could simply be recorded so that in the event of a real emergency deemed severe enough, the modifications could take place immediately.

 

[darkplaces]

Or other routes found depending on the severity.

 

[Hatstand]

I'm quite interested to hear the opinions of the 5 who have thus far votes YES 

 

[paul]

Don't forget that any rescue involving a stretcher-born casualty is bound to take an long time and while the casualty is being assessed, loaded into the stretcher and starts being brought out of the cave, others will be rigging pitches and removing obstacles wherever needed.

 

[Rachel]

I don't think it's possible, even if it were acceptable.

If the most popular, say top 10, inaccessible, awkward caves were modified for this reason, then the people who enjoy doing them for the physical challenge/risk will go somewhere else. So the new top 10 get modified and the people caving in them move on again. So the new top 10 get modified...

There will always be people who are not just willing to take the risk of going beyond the point of rescue, but those who positively relish it (me not included, I have to add), who will always find somewhere to do what they want to do. There are far too many caves in the uk to go down this route, plus all the obscure little holes, unnamed digs, etc.

 

[whitelackington]

Something else to consider

If this hypothetical caver with a damaged spine could not be rescued through the very tight, multiple squeeze section,
even though this pre-conditioning had been previously discussed but not allowed,
in the case of this caver dieing, massive news coverage would be given.
It may follow that the landowner would then close access to any cave on his land.

 

[Otter]

I have voted 'NO' but I have some reservations.

I believe that if a practice rescue showed that a real rescue of a severly injured person would be delayed by leaving the obstacle(s) in place, then minimum action could be taken in advance to remove this possibility. If there would be time to remove the obstacle without delaying the rescue, then leave them alone.

 

[Elaine]

Something else to consider

If this hypothetical caver with a damaged spine could not be rescued through the very tight, multiple squeeze section,
even though this pre-conditioning had been previously discussed but not allowed,
in the case of this caver dieing, massive news coverage would be given.
It may follow that the landowner would then close access to any cave on his land.

It doesn't have to be a spinal injury - it could be anything where quick removal from the cave is paramount to the casualties survival. So then Whitelackington, do you then support the removal of all awkward sections of caves to ensure that this does not happen? Do you see most people's points? Where do you stop? Making caves stretcher friendly is a monumentous task.

 

[Rhys]

It was done ... to the Long Crawl in DYO as well.

As I understand it, that modification was done by individuals without consulting with any rescue organisations or landowners. I believe they cited possible rescue benefits as a justification.

Rhys

 

[Rob]

By voting "NO" it means that in no circumstances should it be allowed. I voted "YES" because in some very unique circumstances maybe it should be.

For example, if a popular cave for novices (Giants, Goatchurch, etc) had just one flake near the beginning that restricted a stretcher (maybe proved during a rescue training), but did not add much to the enjoyment/aesthetics of the cave, then i could understand if someone altered it just enough to allow a stretcher through, either on the training or afterwards. Not saying that i would do it myself as i have much better things to be doing with my time!

 

[whitelackington]

Something else to consider

If this hypothetical caver with a damaged spine could not be rescued through the very tight, multiple squeeze section,
even though this pre-conditioning had been previously discussed but not allowed,
in the case of this caver dieing, massive news coverage would be given.
It may follow that the landowner would then close access to any cave on his land.

It doesn't have to be a spinal injury - it could be anything where quick removal from the cave is paramount to the casualties survival. So then n someWhitelackington, do you then support the removal of all awkward sections of caves to ensure that this does not happen? Do you see most people's points? Where do you stop? Making caves stretcher friendly is a monumentous task.

I am certainly not advocating that all squeezes should be removed.

If a group of cavers thought there was a good reason for doing this and they made their case to the relevant person (group)
and were prepared to undertake the work,
if permission for the work was refused,
then some poor sod died,
I hope at least, those refusing would then review their opinions.

 

[gus horsley]

It was done ... to the Long Crawl in DYO as well.

As I understand it, that modification was done by individuals without consulting with any rescue organisations or landowners. I believe they cited possible rescue benefits as a justification.

Rhys

I'm fairly certain you're right Rhys.  I was on a rescue practice (about 1980) where we attempted to get a spinal injury "victim" through the Long Crawl.  Certain corners were noted to be impassable but there was no mention of modifying them at the time.  Perhaps a few people there took it upon themselves to do the pre-emptive modifications.  If so, I don't think it was sanctioned by the WBCRT. 

This thread has reminded me of a rescue from Sunset Hole in the early 1960's when someone fell down the big pitch (no lifeline) and sustained spinal injuries.  He was removed from the cave strapped to a pub door and various corners were lumphammered away to enable him to be extracted.  Unfortunately he died within sight of the entrance.

 

[paul]

Something else to consider

If this hypothetical caver with a damaged spine could not be rescued through the very tight, multiple squeeze section,
even though this pre-conditioning had been previously discussed but not allowed,
in the case of this caver dieing, massive news coverage would be given.
It may follow that the landowner would then close access to any cave on his land.

It doesn't have to be a spinal injury - it could be anything where quick removal from the cave is paramount to the casualties survival. So then Whitelackington, do you then support the removal of all awkward sections of caves to ensure that this does not happen? Do you see most people's points? Where do you stop? Making caves stretcher friendly is a monumentous task.

As I already pointed out: the concept of "quick removal" doesn't exist once a casualty has been loaded into a stretcher.

For example, just take the case of the rescue at P8 last summer when a caver slipped and dislocated his knee near the bottom of the cave. It took a bit over 25 minutes for his companions to exit the cave and raise the alarm at around 15:15.

It was 20:00 before the casualty started making his way out. While the casualty was being examined by the Doctor and Paramedics and prepared to begin evacuation, others were fixing bolts on the wet traverse and rigging pitches and traverses.

He was wearing a full-body harness for hauling on pitches, etc. and with assistance from rescue team members - not in a stretcher - it was 02:00 when the casualty reached the surface. This was 6 hours for the casualty to reach the surface from the same point as his companions which only took under half an hour.

If the casualty had been in a stretcher, and there had been any obstacles which required removal then there would have been plenty of time to carry out this procedure prior to the stretcher arriving at that point. 

If the obstacles were so major as to require longer time than that available (often several hours), it may also be possible to temporarily remove the casualty from the stretcher and assist them through the obstacle and then replace them in the stretcher. Prior removal of such major obstacles "just in case" would probably be deemed as unacceptable by the caving communuty at large due to the large amount of damage to the cave it would entail.

Of course in a rescue situation, evacuation of the casualty would override any conservation issues - but that doesn't mean the modifications need to be done in advance of a possible rescue some time in the future. There will usually be time enough "on the night".