Lack of conservation in Dreanen and the Management Policy

[Pete Talling]

Ian,

Thank you for that reply - it was constructive and helped move the discussion forward. Perhaps a beer up in Llanberis sometime?

Perhaps we are getting near to the crux of this issue - as we agree that other caver's views matter. I now care more about how cavers go about making this decision about entrances to Draenen; than what that decision turns out to be.

My position is that the PDCMG is democratic - one club gets one vote, and any club can join. My view (and I it would be really useful to know your response here) is that we should take the majority view and go with that - this is democracy. If we can suggest compromises that even more people like (see the attempt in my first post) then this is probably is good thing.

The next issue is really then how to find out what is the majority view of cavers? 

That is what the PDCMG is trying to do; and it included not just member clubs but feedback from the forum, from Descent, from individual letters and those from other clubs in the room. If there is a better way to find the majority view can you tell me what it is?

Nig is intimidating many people from posting on the forum. I would like to hear those people's views - Nig has made hundreds of posts, let some of the other people out there make their post without Nig's immediate abuse. There should be people standing up to Nig so that the debate can become polite and constructive. This is not about views on the entrance - this is about doing things in the correct way.

I aim to carefully represent the views of my club that were arrived at democratically after significant effort. The mandate was strong with a final vote of 14-2-1 (for-against - abstentions) including letters, emails and the vote of the formal club committee). The views of those cavers matter.

Each club presented their views at the PDCMG meeting. A majority of clubs informally felt that their members had a 'preference for one entrance, but each entrance should be carefully considered and there should be strong guidelines'. My club was actually in the minority, as my mandate was for 'case by case, but with strong guidelines'. But myself and the club think that we should go with the majority vote.

Drwys Cefn is in the middle of the existing system and entirely surrounded by known passages. The surrounding passages are within a few meters vertical elevation of each other, and there seems remarkably little chance of bypassing these large areas of the known cave at a new level. This new entrance is nowhere near significant blank areas at the extremities of the known system. I need to find out what my club's view will be, and I am very interested in gauging the majority view of cavers more generally about the location of this entrance. 

The PDCMG clubs reps have now gone back to their clubs to get further clarification on what the gyuidelines are for the 'case by case' assessment of entrances - and to get a democratic mandate for what to do if an entrance is not suitable (and then we must see what the landowners think and so forth).

The key point is indeed do others cavers views count?

Should the decision be democratic and reflect the majority opinion (whatever that may be) or should a minority impose their view, and without landowner consent?

Your help in getting a constructive debate appreciated.

Pete

p.s. your discussion about taping was interesting too - I has a similar sort of discussion about taping after beers Duncan Collis in China this New Year (there were lots of beers as it was Duncan).

 

[Pete Talling]

Nig,

I would like to hear the views of all the other cavers out there, whatever those views are on entrances and how we best decide about entrances.

This is because I value their opinions and I want to know what the majority of UK cavers think. I personally will go with that majority.

Do you have a systematic tactic to abuse and bully anyone that does not share your views on the forum?

People tell me they just did not feel comfortable posting because of you.

You have made several hundred posts. Perhaps other cavers could be allowed a couple of posts without your immediate abuse.

I formally tabled a comment to the GOG representative (Martin Lverty who I respect after many expeditions together in the last few years) on behalf of myself and of UBSS in relation to your abuse and factually incorrect posts. I think someone had to.

Posting with the best intentions   

Pete

However, if the PDCMG ?got together? and then approached the landowner and said ?we can blah blah bah?.? Then it is a blatant case of empire building .......

Sounds about right to me.

I appreciate your offer of a beer and believe that you are sincere in your desire to find a remedy to Draenen.

Yes, he certainly is sincere in his desire to find a remedy - so long as that remedy consists of obliterating our entrance from the face of the earth! I wasn't at the meeting either but I have spoken tonight at great length to someone who was. Interestingly, this was a person I have never met who was attending his first ever PDCMG meeting and was unaware of any of the personalities involved. He gave me a very unbiased, outsider-based view of the proceedings. Within a short time he had correctly identified the alignments of the ruling clique. He was then taken aback by the vehemence of some of those steadfastly opposed to any form of progress and attempted to describe one club representative in particular who was exhibiting a surprising level of personal animosity towards myself. No prizes for correctly guessing who this might be.

So who is the real Mr Talling? Is it the Mr Sincerity (Let me buy you a beer) of the forum, or is it the Mr Angry (Fill it in! Concrete it!) of the meeting?

 

[Ian Adams]

Pete,

I can manage a friendly beer any time in Llanberis and would be happy to do so if you are passing through ?.

We DO agree cavers views matter (common ground). Probably (hopefully) everyone could agree with that ?

I can also agree with you that there is a pseudo-democratic process within the PDCMG but I am struggling to get any further than that and I will (of course) explain what I mean;

Firstly, there is only one constitutional mandate of the group and that is the ?conservation? of Ogof Draenen. It necessarily follows that the raison d?etre of the group is therefore precisely that, conservation.

Secondly, until I saw the ?debate? on this forum I had no idea the group even existed (and when I came to realise it existed I didn?t know what it was or what it stood for). As such, only clubs who ?know? of the existence of the group could even apply to join it.

Thirdly, (please correct me if I am wrong about this), the chairman is not elected.

It follows, therefore, that all discussions/proposals etc. are considered with regards to the effect of the ?conservation? of the cave.

If you tell me that the landowner either had (or was about to) deny access to the cave and that the group was put together to appease the landowner AND the predominant wish of the landowner (or his conditions for entry) was ?conservation? then I will throw my support behind the PDMCG.

If you tell me that NigR?s dig is on land owned by the same landowner and the above paragraph is true, then I will remove any support I have for his digging efforts.

If, however, you tell me that the PDCMG was formed by a group of like-minded caving conservationists  who then went to the land-owner and asked for the right to ?manage? the cave; then I could quote something Graham said earlier in this thread (although I would not use as strong language as he did) which was;

[quote author=graham]
no-one that is except selfish gits who believe they have the god-given right to trample over the views of others and do what they want where they want and screw the rest of you.
[/quote]

Albeit that the mandate of the PDCMG is an honourable one (I have said I agree with conservation), is it not the case that Graham?s statement is equally true against the very party he is protecting ?

No one has yet properly answered how the PDCMG came to have control of Draenen and it does make a fundamental difference.

Specifically addressing your questions;

[quote author=Pete Talling]
The key point is indeed do others cavers views count?
[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Pete Talling]
Should the decision be democratic and reflect the majority opinion (whatever that may be) or should a minority impose their view, and without landowner consent?
[/quote]

Always with landowners consent. However, I cannot accept that a single-agenda body (especially where the initial consultation with the landowner remains clandestine) could ever be democratic and neither can I accept that a group of people (however well intentioned and I do believe the PDCMG are well intentioned) have the right to overlord their peers.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from ?..

Regards,

Ian

 

[Pete Talling]

Ian,

thank you for constructive discussion of the key points. It is important that we cavers get it right with Draenen (whatever the final outcome). I do not think we will not find many more like it.

I was up climbing on the slate and in the pass a month back - lovely stuff -, and would very much appreciate a beer for cheery discussion. How do we move forward? One of my main worries is that this business on the forum is turning what I thought was a friendly caving community into something else. I used to say to climbers that the caving was better because of the people. I am now not so sure. Your post helped.

Here are some comments, and I would appreciate your thoughts (and those of other cavers) on these issues.

phew. P

I can also agree with you that there is a pseudo-democratic process within the PDCMG but I am struggling to get any further than that and I will (of course) explain what I mean;

Can you suggest a better way of being democratic? The PDCMG is one vote, one club. ANY club can join. People from non member clubs are welcome at meetings and can speak from the floor. The secretary faithfully reports the additional views of those on the forum (counting the numbers of forum individuals for/against), the feedback in Descent, personal letters and emails to the PDCMG. The only thing I can thing of that might be done is a petition(s)? What do you think?

Firstly, there is only one constitutional mandate of the group and that is the ?conservation? of Ogof Draenen. It necessarily follows that the raison d?etre of the group is therefore precisely that, conservation.

PDCMG's consitution includes aims to promote conservation, but the groups aims also include scientific study and exploration. Hopefully, something for everyone there. I think the document is on the web somewhere and I can try to find the link

Secondly, until I saw the ?debate? on this forum I had no idea the group even existed (and when I came to realise it existed I didn?t know what it was or what it stood for). As such, only clubs who ?know? of the existence of the group could even apply to join it.

Yes, I think that is a reasonable point. My own club only just joined. Perhaps the solution is a piece in descent in the club listings - or a small note in the cave entrance? These forum discussions are another way of getting the word out there. The PDCMG did sent out letters to three clubs that the log book showed to be particularly active in the cave. People spent a fair bit of effort compiling those letters and indeed maintaining the log book.

Thirdly, (please correct me if I am wrong about this), the chairman is not elected.

The chairman is independent and only votes if there is a tie and then must vote to retain the status quo.

All the other posts are elected. The honorary secretary (who does a lot of work that people seem not to appreciate just now), treasurer, access officer and conservation officer have a vote. In many (all but 2) cases they are club reps - so I got bit confused. But no one has more than one vote.

There is also an election of a biological, geological and survey recorder. These posts are also all elected but without a formal vote. Their views do matter thought to the voters, especially on their own issues. 

It follows, therefore, that all discussions/proposals etc. are considered with regards to the effect of the ?conservation? of the cave.

No - the first half of the sunday meeting was on the survey (1 or 2 hours I lost count...), other things include science, fixed aids.

If you tell me that the landowner either had (or was about to) deny access to the cave and that the group was put together to appease the landowner AND the predominant wish of the landowner (or his conditions for entry) was ?conservation? then I will throw my support behind the PDMCG.

The Group was put together when an initially small dig got a bit too obvious and there was a legal requirement to inform landowners, this involved a formal agreement of some sort. There has never been a big problem with landowners before, but now I genuinely think there is. We have spent many evenings in the pub and know both generations that run it. They are really nice people. But imagine how this will look to them. Hohum.

If you tell me that NigR?s dig is on land owned by the same landowner and the above paragraph is true, then I will remove any support I have for his digging efforts.

Yes the new entrance is on land owned by the same landowner as the original entrance.

If, however, you tell me that the PDCMG was formed by a group of like-minded caving conservationists  who then went to the land-owner and asked for the right to ?manage? the cave; then I could quote something Graham said earlier in this thread (although I would not use as strong language as he did

No this is not the case. Note that I am usually on the other side of discussions with Graham as I hate meetings and committees and the like. I do appreciate greatly Grahams support when Nig was posting at me. Graham also keeps my club UBSS running through thick and thin.

Albeit that the mandate of the PDCMG is an honourable one (I have said I agree with conservation), is it not the case that Graham?s statement is equally true against the very party he is protecting ?

I think we need to find the majority view accurately and convey it to the landowner.

No one has yet properly answered how the PDCMG came to have control of Draenen and it does make a fundamental difference.

I am a bit new to this all, but it was initially an access body to liase with landowner and sort out liability issues and such like. It was modelled on the other access groups we have, specifically the own for Llangattock. It has control in the sense that it goes with a majority vote.

hope that helps a bit - sorry bit rushed. all best. pete

Specifically addressing your questions;

[quote author=Pete Talling]
The key point is indeed do others cavers views count?

Yes.

[quote author=Pete Talling]
Should the decision be democratic and reflect the majority opinion (whatever that may be) or should a minority impose their view, and without landowner consent?
[/quote]

Always with landowners consent. However, I cannot accept that a single-agenda body (especially where the initial consultation with the landowner remains clandestine) could ever be democratic and neither can I accept that a group of people (however well intentioned and I do believe the PDCMG are well intentioned) have the right to overlord their peers.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from ?..

Regards,

Ian
[/quote] [/quote]

 

[Ian Adams]

Pete,

Thank you for your most helpful and informative post. It is clear you have a keen mind for debate and I appreciate the manner of your posting.

Incidentally (off topic) I was also climbing the slate in Llanberis a month ago (on Sunday) and was in ?Australia? (Darly?s hole was closed unless you scrambled over the fence!) Climbing in North Wales is a far less political sport than caving (which is hopelessly political in North Wales).

So to it;

Can you suggest a better way of being democratic? The PDCMG is one vote, one club. ANY club can join. People from non member clubs are welcome at meetings and can speak from the floor. The secretary faithfully reports the additional views of those on the forum (counting the numbers of forum individuals for/against), the feedback in Descent, personal letters and emails to the PDCMG. The only thing I can thing of that might be done is a petition(s)? What do you think?

The problem here is that (until I read something else you wrote later in your post which I will return to), I didn?t (perhaps still don?t) believe that such a group should exist. If it did not exist then each club would need to organise their own trips and as ?Owd Git? put it in one of his posts ?enjoy caving responsibly?. (I see nothing wrong with that ? of course, that?s my ?opinion?)

If there is a problem with the landowner (who is fed up with people traipsing across his land ?willy nilly?) then clearly ?someone? (or a club/body) would be well advised to negotiate access terms that suit the land owner and allow cavers to enjoy their activities.

That seems to have happened but with more than a strong bias to conservation.

If the local clubs (having become aware of the problem with the landowner where access was in jeopardy) had got their heads together and agreed to form a separate ?body? and they had collectively agreed the constitution (which in this case is primarily conservation) then fair enough.

Is that what happened ?

PDCMG's consitution includes aims to promote conservation, but the groups aims also include scientific study and exploration. Hopefully, something for everyone there. I think the document is on the web somewhere and I can try to find the link

There is a link which Les W kindly provided in an earlier post;

http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/begin.htm

You will see that there is more than a bias towards ?conservation? and, in fact, it is central to the entire constitution. Although I am in favour of conservation per se I think it is all too easy to go over the top and I think that the ?conservationists? responsible for looking after the mountains of Snowdonia have gone so far over the top that they have not only gone beyond their mandate but have ruined exactly what they were supposed to look after.

The chairman is independent and only votes if there is a tie and then must vote to retain the status quo.

All the other posts are elected. The honorary secretary (who does a lot of work that people seem not to appreciate just now), treasurer, access officer and conservation officer have a vote. In many (all but 2) cases they are club reps - so I got bit confused. But no one has more than one vote.

There is also an election of a biological, geological and survey recorder. These posts are also all elected but without a formal vote. Their views do matter thought to the voters, especially on their own issues.

I have no doubt that the various officers work hard and are (not least poor Fleur) under a great deal of pressure.

Notwithstanding this, there remains the fact that ?conservation? is the overriding and compelling factor in the decision making process. I have no problem with the discussion of conservation (by anyone or any group) and I have no strong feelings about certain actions being taken (like tape) but I would object if ?I? was told that I was not allowed to do something that I was lawfully otherwise able to do.

(As an example, a group of people who are ?speed? conscious form a club to look at ways of slowing down cars going through their village. They  discuss, vote and agree 15mph is safer than 20mph and then announce to the outside world that you cannot now drive at more than 15mph ? can you see where I am coming from now?)

Quote
It follows, therefore, that all discussions/proposals etc. are considered with regards to the effect of the ?conservation? of the cave.
No - the first half of the sunday meeting was on the survey (1 or 2 hours I lost count...), other things include science, fixed aids.

I accept that but ?conservation? still remains central.

The Group was put together when an initially small dig got a bit too obvious and there was a legal requirement to inform landowners, this involved a formal agreement of some sort. There has never been a big problem with landowners before, but now I genuinely think there is. We have spent many evenings in the pub and know both generations that run it. They are really nice people. But imagine how this will look to them. Hohum.

This is the part of your post that almost made me change my mind. You have made an open effort to explain the answer to a question which others either evade or skirt around (which suggests what the answer really is) and I appreciate your candidness .  The question now begs itself, was it a group of ?caving conservationists? that approached the landowner or was it a representation of the local clubs who had sat down together and worked out the best way forward to approach the land owner in the interests (primarily) of the local caving clubs as well as the caving fraternity as a whole ?

Quote
If you tell me that NigR?s dig is on land owned by the same landowner and the above paragraph is true, then I will remove any support I have for his digging efforts.

Yes the new entrance is on land owned by the same landowner as the original entrance.

Oooopsy NigR ??. 

Quote
If, however, you tell me that the PDCMG was formed by a group of like-minded caving conservationists  who then went to the land-owner and asked for the right to ?manage? the cave; then I could quote something Graham said earlier in this thread (although I would not use as strong language as he did
No this is not the case. Note that I am usually on the other side of discussions with Graham as I hate meetings and committees and the like. I do appreciate greatly Grahams support when Nig was posting at me. Graham also keeps my club UBSS running through thick and thin.

Who, then, was it that approached the landowner (as above) ?

And ?. I find Graham?s posts interesting. Clearly he has a strong mind and does manage to find the other side of the coin I have in my pocket with all to apparent ease. (I know you are reading this Graham and probably have a little smile on your face right now ??. If you didn?t just then, you have now : 


?.But without the other side of the coin we don?t see the whole picture and your post carries much more clarity than some others on here ?.

I think we need to find the majority view accurately and convey it to the landowner.

I don?t think we (cavers) need to go that far. I think it is sufficient to appease the landowner and respect his wishes. Unless the landowner demands an input (and, say, demands that the cave is preserved to whatever degree) I think that the landowner need not be troubled with our (cavers) politics. In fact, I think that involving them could be counter-productive.

hope that helps a bit - sorry bit rushed. all best. Pete

Don?t rush, this thread isn?t going anywhere. Actually, the last time I got involved in a protracted ?debate? on this forum it got moved to the sh!t heap so there might be a rush.





Ian

 

[graham]

Ian

The problem here is that (until I read something else you wrote later in your post which I will return to), I didn?t (perhaps still don?t) believe that such a group should exist. If it did not exist then each club would need to organise their own trips and as ?Owd Git? put it in one of his posts ?enjoy caving responsibly?. (I see nothing wrong with that ? of course, that?s my ?opinion?)

If there is a problem with the landowner (who is fed up with people traipsing across his land ?willy nilly?) then clearly ?someone? (or a club/body) would be well advised to negotiate access terms that suit the land owner and allow cavers to enjoy their activities.

There is a long history, in most caving areas of the UK, of landowners wishing to deal only with one body of cavers, who then are effectively delegated the task of administering the access of all cavers. There is also a long history of clubs getting annoyed when a single club negotiates an access agreement and is perceived to be acting in a non even-handed way with other cavers. Surely having groups such as the PDCMG which, as Pete notes, any interested club can join is preferable to having a less democratic body.

 

[cap n chris]

BEC/St. Cuthbert's & MCG/Upper Flood are two examples of clubs which have put the effort in to gain access to caves to which they subsequently control access - no-one has qualms about this since the diggers put the efforts in to discover the caves.

Is there any parallel with the present situation?

 

[Ian Adams]

Graham,

Yes I would agree if access was being denied or was in jeoprady (by the landowner) and the primary goal of any such group was to secure access for all.

Did you smile ?



Ian

 

[graham]

Ian

The fact that access isn't at risk at so many sites up and down the country is down to the hard work put in by many, many cavers in fostering and maintaining good relationships with landowners.

Would you prefer that they waited until problems arose and caves were closed before acting?

Did I smile? 

 

[Ian Adams]

Graham,

I love the way you responded with another leading question but I have already answered your question ....

.... and I bet you did smile though 

Ian

 

[John S]

No - the first half of the sunday meeting was on the survey (1 or 2 hours I lost count...), other things include science, fixed aids.

The first 45 minutes were actually spent on seeing if we should be able to except the minutes of the last meeting and the election that had taken place. Minutes were not discussed at the EGM because it should go to the the normal meeting. Does this mean the Secretary is not confirmed in the post even though she then insisted on voting.
The next matter was who was to vote. I suggest that only club reps should vote as this would help remove any question of cliques (did I spell it right this time). However the treasurer and Secretary refused to abstain from the voting. 

Discussing the survey was time lost?
You might like to check the history of this group. The Dreanen diggers dug without landowner permission and broke through. Many clubs became involved and Chelsea SS started surveying the cave. After a year or so the surveys Grade 2 and grade 5 became incompatible. About this exact time the group formed with the promise that the solution of the survey impass was to be the number one item on the agenda. First meeting sorting out the voting and thus Morgannwg set up the group with the committee posts, the clique was formed.
Second meeting, a grade 2 survey policy was produced complete and with discussion as to wether this was the best idea, it was past. Pressure now put on CSS and the Grade 5 to hand over the data, as this was now part of the access agreement for clubs to enter the cave.  (we didn't hand over data and waited to be excluded, we weren't)
Sale of the land by the coal board (you can see this in the PDCMG minutes if you are not too bored)
New landowner and the first access agreement with the present owners.

So in summary, group set up first then land owner informed. I hope this helps clear up some of the old questions and shows why the Dreanen survey has not been around for so  many years. The PDCMG still needs to show it has changed its spots and has become democratic, not there yet.

 

[Ian Adams]

John,

Interesting post, thank you.

The word "conservation" was not mentioned in there and your post is a little at variance with one Pete made.

Do you know at what stage the primary constitution of conservation was formed ? (or does anyone) ?

:

Ian

 

[John S]

The word "conservation" was not mentioned in there and your post is a little at variance with one Pete made.

Do you know at what stage the primary constitution of conservation was formed ? (or does anyone) ?

:

I sat through those first few meeeting even though I had no vote I said quite a bit. Firstly about surveying and later as indicated in previous post, the lack on convervation in many areas. To try and get a policy which was being implimented was a uphill task, with many people just wanting to run down the passages and leave it to someone else to conserve it.  You only have to read some of the descents to get the feeling that consevation was not high on the agenda. This changed when it suited them, just about the time the Nunnery entrance opened up, maybe??

 

[John S]

Second meeting, a grade 2 survey policy was produced complete and with discussion as to wether this was the best idea, it was past.

Meant it to say "Second meeting, a grade 2 survey policy was produced complete and with little discussion as to wether this was the best idea, it was past."

 

[Imo]

I suggest that only club reps should vote as this would help remove any question of cliques (did I spell it right this time). However the treasurer and Secretary refused to abstain from the voting. 

Yes John, BUT the main reason that the Secretary wanted to keep her vote was that she has just spent ages by the look of it collecting views from the wider caving world and compiling it so she could vote in accordance with those views. If she had not voted that work would have been for nothing. She was quite open about the fact she was voting in accordance with her position and not with her personal views. You are quite correct about the Treasurer though - he was very determined to keep his vote.

 

[fleur]

In the end the Treasurer didn't vote on anything except coopting John Stevens to the Group as he had to leave before we got to voting on the entrance policy. So I made one vote out of 12 on the entrance issue, and as Imo says I was voting from my particular perspective of Secretary of the Group, ie from my formal position of representing and balancing the interests of the caving community, the landowner, and the cave and its wildlife. That is my job, which I was elected to do earlier this year, and which I take very seriously.

 

[shortscotsman]

I think its quite reasonable and not unusual for the officers to have a vote.  And it is specifically allowed by the
constitution (which is also precise in that they can only have one vote).

I do however agree that is very unusual, approaching bizarre, that the outgoing officers have a vote in the election
of the incoming officers. 

It would make a lot less difference of course if more clubs joined the group.  From the outside, I have to say some of the
``clubs''  appear a bit funny.  Would it make sense for groups such as the PDCMG to specify some kind of minimum
requirement for a club to join - such as membership of the Cambrian Caving Council?  Also, some clubs such as SWCC
represent 200+ cavers whereas other represent very many less.

 

[pete_the_caver]

I've been quiet recently, but thought I'd make a small point here.

The style of taping needed in a passage varies depending on the type of passage.  Some passages are best left untaped, others just require sensitive area taped, while some are best protected by tape tramroads.  However,  one should consider the visual impact of the tape.  Draenen has been filled up with copious quantities of 4" red/white striped tape.  Yuck!  This tape is visual vandalism in its own right.  In cave photography yellow equipment is often considered the best because it complements the cave and likewise, non-striped yellow tape is visible but non-intrusive.

Over the years I have taped hundreds of metres if not kilometres of new passage and would be pleased to show pictures of the passages but quite frankly, most of the flagging in Draenen is a visual discrace and should be replaced by something less intrusive.

 

[John S]

Yes John, BUT the main reason that the Secretary wanted to keep her vote was that she has just spent ages by the look of it collecting views from the wider caving world and compiling it so she could vote in accordance with those views. If she had not voted that work would have been for nothing. She was quite open about the fact she was voting in accordance with her position and not with her personal views. You are quite correct about the Treasurer though - he was very determined to keep his vote.

But how many of the veiws collected by the secretary were already represented in the meeting. I have been told that all the descent letters were. (someone will now find one that wasn't, not having a copy myself) This forum has shown by its views and popularity that the online opinion seems split.
Conservation is unanimously accepted as good, its just the level we keep discusing, and this varys the split for and against.

 

[NigR]

I do however agree that is very unusual, approaching bizarre, that the outgoing officers have a vote in the election of the incoming officers. 

Glad to see that someone else finds this rather odd.

It would make a lot less difference of course if more clubs joined the group.  From the outside, I have to say some of the `clubs'' appear a bit funny.  Would it make sense for groups such as the PDCMG to specify some kind of minimum requirement for a club to join - such as membership of the Cambrian Caving Council? 

Could you be a little more precise here and say which of the clubs, other than Grwp Ogofeydd Garimpeiros of course, appear 'funny' to your eyes? Most of our members have always belonged to other clubs as well, that is one of the main reasons why we have never applied to join Cambrian Caving Council. Another is that we usually try our best to avoid senseless bureucracy and caving politics if at all possible. So if a stipulation to be a member club of Cambrian were to be introduced it would certainly be an effective way of excluding us from the PDCMG. Perhaps someone will be so bold as to take up your suggestion?

Also, some clubs such as SWCC represent 200+ cavers whereas other represent very many less.

Some form of proportional representation, such as you suggest, might appear to be a reasonable idea at first glance. As you say, SWCC is a large club, much bigger than, for example, Chelsea SS and absolutely dwarfing our humble little Garimpeiro group. However, how many members of SWCC have a real interest and commitment to exploration in Ogof Draenen? I am a member of SWCC myself  but I would be surprised if SWCC wanted to have greater influence on the PDCMG based purely upon membership size, particularly in view of Penwyllt's geographical position so far from the cave.

So if you want to go down the proportional representation route, how about considering a system based upon the total length of passage discovered by each club? I believe John Stevens has figures for this and it would be interesting if he could make them more widely known. Or, even better in my opinion, how about a system using as a yardstick how much passage has been found as a result of particular digs by individual clubs? Obviously, Morgannwg CC would come out on top here as it was their original dig that led to the eventual discovery of everything else but it could be fun to work out the figures for every other club, don't you think?