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

[Peter Burgess]

Aloud? You want to bang it then do you? 

No just wondering. What is an acceptable obstacle to most can be a total bar to others.

As with any serious modification to a cave, surely it all depends on the permission of either the owner or whatever management body has been set up to look after it. If you wanted to enlarge somewhere to make somewhere easier to reach or safer, then just get permission. This discussion is more about whether such enlargements should be encouraged, rather than whether we are allowed to do them. Permission is in the hands of owners etc, whether we should ask for that permission is for us to decide as individuals, clubs, or rescue teams.

Sorry wrong choice of wards  I know Permission is in the hands of owners etc. Perhaps I should have said (so if I can't get past an obstacle to get to the rest of the cave would it then be acceptable to remove it.)  :-\ assuming I have permission from the owners.

Well, this is a poll. Vote, and tell us what you think.

 

[paul]

As with any serious modification to a cave, surely it all depends on the permission of either the owner or whatever management body has been set up to look after it.

Out of interest, who does own caves (in the UK at least)? Does the land owner own the cave below their land? Or does this come under mineral rights? Who owns the mineral rights for land where a claim has not been specifically entered?

With the usual caveat "I am not a lawyer", etc I have often seen it quoted that under British law land ownership is considered to extend to the centre of the earth. However, mineral rights do not necessarily follow with land ownership.

 

[paul]

The diggers/explorers should get the right to widen a slot/squeeze when exploring - if they choose to leave it just big enough for them (or the largest member of their team) to fit through then others shouldn't go and make it even larger.

If they decide to make it nice and big to make exploration safer and the obstacle easier for them then that is fine.

I would put this decision in the hands of the original explorers/diggers rather than 'owners'. Once a cave is 'opened' and is not an active project I think it is very bad ettiquette for a tourist caver to visit it and make it easier for them to pass when all the exploration has been done with the obstacle in place.

Basically I think we need to justify modifying a cave - exploration or rescue is justification - not because you want to make it easy to have a good rubber neck.  

Sorry. I do not agree. If you are to make any modifications in order to pass a constriction or obstruction, of course there must abe a sensible limit to the amount of modification carried out, otherwise you may as well make the entire cave a walking size passage. But choosing an arbitrary size depending on the largest member of the digging team as the criterion to use is pretty illogical. After all, unless all digging teams have members some standard size then the size of the constriction will vary widely from location to location.

The logical conclusion to your argument (that "tourist" cavers should be subject to the same difficulties and challenges as the original explorers) is that you should also use the same equipment and techniques as the original explorers as well.

 

[potholer]

I say, pass the plus-fours, old chap, I'm off to Alum Pot.

Practically speaking, there are few people/circumstances which would result in the removal of extra bedrock post-digging just to allow tourist access.

If a rift/squeeze was widened when digging from a couple of inches wide to just-wide-enough for a particularly skinny caver to get through, that could easily be looked at as someone deliberately manufacturing an obstacle, quite possibly for selfish reasons.
If someone later decided to make it wide enough for an average caver to be able to squeeze past, I'm not sure there'd be too many people complaining, apart maybe from the people who just like to have something to whine about.

 

[Chris J]

But choosing an arbitrary size depending on the largest member of the digging team as the criterion to use is pretty illogical. After all, unless all digging teams have members some standard size then the size of the constriction will vary widely from location to location.

Ehh?? have you never been in a cave which was dug out? they are all different sizes and shapes!! Are you suggesting we have a 'standard' size for dug passages - are you going to go around inspecting people's digs to make sure they are the correct size!!

The point about this method of modification is that it is self policing - I can't think of any diggers who are going to waste their time making their passage walking size when they could keep it to a crawl and make more forward progress. Similarly people will dig past a constriction, cap it or bang it to make it a suitable size for them and their team so that they can carry on exploring - which is the priority - not making the constriction bigger. So yes the result is that we got constrictions of various different sizes and varieties - and doesn't variety make caving interesting! Not everyone can fit down every bit of cave but that is just life!

The logical conclusion to your argument (that "tourist" cavers should be subject to the same difficulties and challenges as the original explorers) is that you should also use the same equipment and techniques as the original explorers as well.

Nope do anything you want to make the caving trip easier (like wearing modern gear) - just don't modify the cave! 

 

[Chris J]

If a rift/squeeze was widened when digging from a couple of inches wide to just-wide-enough for a particularly skinny caver to get through, that could easily be looked at as someone deliberately manufacturing an obstacle, quite possibly for selfish reasons.

The point is that unless there is a whole team of your particularly skinny cavers or that said person has done all of this on their own - it will be widened for the 'average' caver - the rest of the explorers.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It isn't just tight places that might make rescues challenging. Sumps, and 'small' places come to mind. By small, I don't mean tight, I mean somewhere that a normal-sized caver might easily fit, but try to put a stretcher and its bearers in the same place and the difficulties multiply. The permutations are endless, so I suspect it is never really possible to know if a rescue is going to encounter problems untill there is either an exercise or an incident to focus minds.

 

[potholer]

The point is that unless there is a whole team of your particularly skinny cavers or that said person has done all of this on their own - it will be widened for the 'average' caver - the rest of the explorers.

I did also say it was fairly unlikely that bedrock features would get altered post-digging.

 

[Bob G]

Nobody has bothered to ask this, so here goes:

In the history of UK caving, how many injured cavers have died as a direct result of delays due to constrictions which could have been removed prior to the rescue?

I suspect it's not many - the Sunset Hole incident is the only candidate I've found on this thread, and this cave is no Quaking Pot; as an easy tourist trip it would be near the bottom of the list of caves which might be considered for pre-emptive modification.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I suspect the problem is self-limiting. The sort of caver most likely to have problems is the sort of caver least likely to enter such caves or parts of caves.

 

[Brains]

Modify as in bolt (alternative) pitches for drier hangs and hauling points and traverse lines? Possibly / probably as this allows correct placement and fine tuning without pressure, as well as wet weather alternatives.... As in solid rock removal - no, if needed there will be time on the night, or if not it will be charlie delta anyway?

 

[Brendan]

From what I understand of the Sunset rescue, the casualty suffered severe internal injuries, and short of the cave being made into a easily walkable tunnel allowing quick stretcher carrying, modification would have made little difference, particularly when you factor in travelling time to hospital as well.

 

[Rhys]

Following what Brendan said... Usually, if you're going to die in a cave, you're probably dead before the rescue team arrive.

 

[docfunk]

I have voted no because caving has its risks, if we all started to modify them as a just in case then it would ruin the whole appeal of it,on the way to our dig there is one squeeze i find hard and ive lost count how many times i have done it and said i am going to remove it to make it easyer to get through but i never will(i just like bitching about it) it just adds to the whole fun of it all. If we had a rock fall etc and someone got very badley injured in our dig it would be game over, there is no way we could drag a incapasitated body out in time and even less chance on a body board but i would never modify the route "just in case". If one of us gets very badly injured down there obiously I/we would try our hardest to get them out, but at the end of the day if you are gonna die, you are gonna die shit happens.
I know some people will look at this post and think what a prat, but i cave to try and push as hard as i can and will try to untill the end of my days.

 

[paul]

But choosing an arbitrary size depending on the largest member of the digging team as the criterion to use is pretty illogical. After all, unless all digging teams have members some standard size then the size of the constriction will vary widely from location to location.

Ehh?? have you never been in a cave which was dug out? they are all different sizes and shapes!! Are you suggesting we have a 'standard' size for dug passages - are you going to go around inspecting people's digs to make sure they are the correct size!!

Not only have I been in many caves which others have dug out (of course), I've been in a cave after we dug it out!

No - of course I am not saying there should be a 'standard' size. You originally said:

The diggers/explorers should get the right to widen a slot/squeeze when exploring - if they choose to leave it just big enough for them (or the largest member of their team) to fit through then others shouldn't go and make it even larger.

My point is that this is a bogus argument.  For example: if the original diggers managed to pass a squeeze without causing damage, then fine, if you cannot also pass the squeeze without damaging the cave, just accept it and move on. If the original digging team find an obstacle preventing them further progress and they decide to remove the obstacle (incidentally causing some damage) - fine, this is accepted during a dig provided there is ongoing passage beyond. If it so happens that subsequent visiting cavers cannot pass the already damaged obstacle because they are slightly larger than the members of the digging team, I see no reason why some amount of further damage to allow them to also pass the obstacle is worse than the original act of damage.  I am not talking about enlargement "because you want to make it easy to have a good rubber neck", I'm referring to slight enlargement to allow a larger caver than the original digging team to gain access as well if it is required - we are not all a 'standard' size either.

You also said:

I would put this decision in the hands of the original explorers/diggers rather than 'owners'. Once a cave is 'opened' and is not an active project I think it is very bad ettiquette for a tourist caver to visit it and make it easier for them to pass when all the exploration has been done with the obstacle in place.

Basically I think we need to justify modifying a cave - exploration or rescue is justification - not because you want to make it easy to have a good rubber neck.

This seems to me to imply that the original team to dig a cave have more of a right to be there (even above the wishes of the 'owner') and any subsequent cavers are simply "rubber-necking tourists".  An interesting point of view. 

 

[Chris J]

I'm referring to slight enlargement to allow a larger caver than the original digging team to gain access as well if it is required - we are not all a 'standard' size either.
quote]

Why? Why would it be 'required'?

How can you justify that and what right does that 'slightly larger' caver have to get through that bit of cave?

If you carry this to its logical end then at what point do you stop - a big caver who can't fit through many squeezes could go around making everything big enough for themself.

The point about this method of determining the size of a dug constriction is that you do end up with a limit to the modification. Yes it is arbitrary but it is a way to limit people modifying caves for the sake of ease. Without that limit what would stop someone making nice easy boreholes for themselves?

And actually I'm not suggesting a new approach here - but reflecting the way it is generally done and trying to explain the logic of why it's done this way. 

 

[whitelackington]

I am not sure why larger cavers must be excluded from caves, are they worse people or
less conscious of our environment.
SIZEST BARSTADS 

 

[Peter Burgess]

I am not sure why larger cavers must be excluded from caves, are they worse people or
less conscious of our environment.
SIZEST BARSTADS 

Thus speaks someone who can't get into the new bits of Upper Flood Swallet. 

 

[potholer]

If you carry this to its logical end then at what point do you stop - a big caver who can't fit through many squeezes could go around making everything big enough for themself.

The point about this method of determining the size of a dug constriction is that you do end up with a limit to the modification. Yes it is arbitrary but it is a way to limit people modifying caves for the sake of ease. Without that limit what would stop someone making nice easy boreholes for themselves?

Because in the limit, it's unlikely anyone would be bothered to do that. Even in a less extreme case, very few larger people would be bothered to take the necessary kit along to make minor bedrock modifications, or to go away and return with it, even if they might wish they could fit through.

And actually I'm not suggesting a new approach here - but reflecting the way it is generally done and trying to explain the logic of why it's done this way. 

A major reason that post-digging modification is rare is that there are few ultraskinny digging teams mining their way into (and publicising) places that anyone else subsequently wants to get to.
Even without any idea/assumption of shared ethics, post-dig widening would seem likely not to be too common.

 

[Les W]

A major reason that post-digging modification is rare is that there are few ultraskinny digging teams mining their way into (and publicising) places that anyone else subsequently wants to get to.

UFS digging  team  :-\
Charterhouse Cave digging team  :-\ :-\