RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
The answer to any disharmony, is of course..
ahhh...
ahhh...
R
restingcaver
Guest
Uncomfortable truths in caving No.1 Once a cave has been discovered it is damaged by access.
The management of the rate of damage is what Conservation is concerned with. Ogof Draenen is too valuable to not consider every possible way of slowing down the damage we are all causing every time we visit. Is it wrong that someone should manage access to the cave with the principle intention of managing the damage inevitably caused by that access? If there is a lack of conservation in the Management Policy then the Group should address that quickly.
The first of the PDCMG aims are stated on their website as being:
"To promote the conservation, management, scientific study and exploration of the caves of the area and access to them. Conservation is the prime objective." There are 3 other aims but the subject of this thread is Conservation.
I suspect everyone has their own view as what constitutes an acceptable level of damage as far as the cave environment is concerned. If we take the lowest common denominator as the guide, then the rate of damage might be seen to be excessive and unacceptable to a majority of us. If we apply the highest standard of conservation, then no one will ever visit the cave again. No access equals no damage (earth quakes and other external factors excepted!).
If access to the cave is seen as being necessary, then the question arises as to how to manage this access to minimise the damage. Free access for all without control? Or a form of group decision making properly authorised by the one person who has a say in this; the owner of the cave. The Landowner. None of us except that person has the right to cross their land and to access the cave.
If any of us have concerns that the management of access to or conservation of Ogof Draenen is failing then we should get involved in the Group. Once there though, promote your view, but accept that change in the way things happen is through concensus and persuasion. The Group has a Constitution and a form of democratic management to guide its actions. If we consider that a particular view is not the best or most acceptable one then promote change to the better one we wish to see in place. The alternative free thinking approach for individuals to take unilateral action may be the right way to achieve the conservation of Ogof Draenen, but experience usually suggests that cooperation and common cause is a better approach with more effective results.
At the end of all this thinking and debating, we should all be working practically to conserve the cave, whilst exploring more of it, and setting the highest conservation standards as we go.
No replies necessary.
Tim
The management of the rate of damage is what Conservation is concerned with. Ogof Draenen is too valuable to not consider every possible way of slowing down the damage we are all causing every time we visit. Is it wrong that someone should manage access to the cave with the principle intention of managing the damage inevitably caused by that access? If there is a lack of conservation in the Management Policy then the Group should address that quickly.
The first of the PDCMG aims are stated on their website as being:
"To promote the conservation, management, scientific study and exploration of the caves of the area and access to them. Conservation is the prime objective." There are 3 other aims but the subject of this thread is Conservation.
I suspect everyone has their own view as what constitutes an acceptable level of damage as far as the cave environment is concerned. If we take the lowest common denominator as the guide, then the rate of damage might be seen to be excessive and unacceptable to a majority of us. If we apply the highest standard of conservation, then no one will ever visit the cave again. No access equals no damage (earth quakes and other external factors excepted!).
If access to the cave is seen as being necessary, then the question arises as to how to manage this access to minimise the damage. Free access for all without control? Or a form of group decision making properly authorised by the one person who has a say in this; the owner of the cave. The Landowner. None of us except that person has the right to cross their land and to access the cave.
If any of us have concerns that the management of access to or conservation of Ogof Draenen is failing then we should get involved in the Group. Once there though, promote your view, but accept that change in the way things happen is through concensus and persuasion. The Group has a Constitution and a form of democratic management to guide its actions. If we consider that a particular view is not the best or most acceptable one then promote change to the better one we wish to see in place. The alternative free thinking approach for individuals to take unilateral action may be the right way to achieve the conservation of Ogof Draenen, but experience usually suggests that cooperation and common cause is a better approach with more effective results.
At the end of all this thinking and debating, we should all be working practically to conserve the cave, whilst exploring more of it, and setting the highest conservation standards as we go.
No replies necessary.
Tim
whitelackington
New member
No cave has consciousness.
There is nothing that cavers do that can actually damage a cave.
Everything is transitory.
There is nothing that cavers do that can actually damage a cave.
Everything is transitory.
restingcaver said:
Everyone has the right to cross public access land, not just the landowner.
restingcaver said:
Is this why the PDCMG do not want anyone else to contact the landowner and why the landowner has been told not to speak to other cavers directly?
restingcaver said:
Recent events have suggested that there may soon be an attempt made to seal the Drws Cefn entrance. This statement tends to give creedance to that possibility.
restingcaver said:
Tell that to Densham and his Concrete Crew.
Peter Burgess
New member
NigR said:
I suspect this might be preparation for a grand re-opening ceremony at which it will be renamed the "Handbags at Dawn Entrance".
It will, of course, give access to the Handbags At Dawn Entrance Series, otherwise known as HADES.
graham said:
These are the facts. The landowner was given a key for Drws Cefn. The landowner contacted the PDCMG and enquired as to whether it was OK to speak further to the person who had given him the key. He was told by the PDCMG Secretary that it was not. The PDCMG Secretary has also told another person (who has had contact with the landowner in the past) that they should not attempt to speak to the landowner directly again.
graham said:
That is not the landowner's decision. It is what the Secretary of the PDCMG wanted (and expected) him to say when she went running to him to reveal the existence of another entrance but fortunately he is an intelligent man and did not do so. Any unilateral attempts to concrete the entrance will be made in the full knowledge that they are not in accordance with the landowner's wishes and will be done without the official backing of the PDCMG.
graham
New member
NigR said:
Typical NigR spin bollox
To say
gives a very peculiar view of the relationship between a landowner and an access body where a written agreement exists. Speaking as someone in a very similar position, I would regard it as my duty to inform the relevant landowner were new entrances to appear on their land and would be bloody embarrassed if they were telling me instead of the other way around.
Ian Adams
Well-known member
Tim,
Some of what you have said is a matter of opinion and it is precisely ?opinions? that have divided cavers on this thread about Draenen and the PDCMG.
You are quite right when you say;
However, you then go on to say ?.
?..and this is one of the main problems in this debate. It is easy to argue semantics but the bigger questions begs itself ? who has the right to overlord or command dominion over their peers ?
In this case the PDCMG do precisely that and they are not a democratic organisation albeit they have a pseudo democratic internal process. This has lead to conflict with some cavers (notably diggers) without whom such discoveries would not even be made. In these cases of conflict there is no remedy by participating within the pseudo-democratic process and because of the very nature of the constitution, there could virtually never be either.
You also made a most interesting comment;
I personally agree with you and I suspect the vast majority of other cavers would too (even the diggers). The use of the word ?highest? in terms of the level of conservation is very interesting too; It is easy to agree with you but it does seem that this is again open to interpretation. As an example, there are some very nice and delicate formations in ?Indiana Highway? which are not taped off (I think it would be impossible to do so as the passageway is narrow at that section) and yet, despite all the traffic that passes (including diggers) they remain undisturbed ? I think that is a testament to the care that we all, as cavers, afford the cave.
However, if the rear entrance were opened then the traffic past these rather nice and delicate formations would reduce and the risk would drop accordingly.
I am not suggesting that this should be done, I am suggesting that ?conservation? per se is subjective.
Ian
Some of what you have said is a matter of opinion and it is precisely ?opinions? that have divided cavers on this thread about Draenen and the PDCMG.
You are quite right when you say;
However, you then go on to say ?.
?..and this is one of the main problems in this debate. It is easy to argue semantics but the bigger questions begs itself ? who has the right to overlord or command dominion over their peers ?
In this case the PDCMG do precisely that and they are not a democratic organisation albeit they have a pseudo democratic internal process. This has lead to conflict with some cavers (notably diggers) without whom such discoveries would not even be made. In these cases of conflict there is no remedy by participating within the pseudo-democratic process and because of the very nature of the constitution, there could virtually never be either.
You also made a most interesting comment;
I personally agree with you and I suspect the vast majority of other cavers would too (even the diggers). The use of the word ?highest? in terms of the level of conservation is very interesting too; It is easy to agree with you but it does seem that this is again open to interpretation. As an example, there are some very nice and delicate formations in ?Indiana Highway? which are not taped off (I think it would be impossible to do so as the passageway is narrow at that section) and yet, despite all the traffic that passes (including diggers) they remain undisturbed ? I think that is a testament to the care that we all, as cavers, afford the cave.
However, if the rear entrance were opened then the traffic past these rather nice and delicate formations would reduce and the risk would drop accordingly.
I am not suggesting that this should be done, I am suggesting that ?conservation? per se is subjective.
Ian
SpeleoTrog
Member
whitelackington said:
WTF?
I hope that post was supposed to be a piss take! Otherwise it's the biggest load of bollox since NigRs latest post! What has consciousness got to do with damage?
graham
New member
Jackalpup said:
In this case it's the organisation that has a fecking agreement (on paper, nicely legal and doubtless subject to interpretation by the courts under contract law) with the guys who own the land (doubtless held in fee simple absolute - though I haven't checked with the Land Registry).
Where do you think you're going with this silly-arse political theorizing for feck's sake?
NigR said:
What is wrong with informing a landowner of new entrances into the system on his land? You make it sound as if she was betraying a trust, but that is not the case is it? Someone had to tell the landowner and that person should be the PDCMG secretary. You obviously have no respect for Fleur, given how you want to get the boot in whenever you can, it doesn't make nice reading.
graham said:
Otherwise known as the truth.
graham said:
Perhaps this agreement ('on paper' as Graham says) could be read out at the forthcoming meeting on 12 December?
Imo said:
Correct, given the devious way in which she deliberately misled the landowners concerning the fitting of the gate on Drws Cefn (making them think it was the PDCMG who were actually organising things and were putting it in place) and her latest attempts to effectively prevent anyone other than the PDCMG from communicating with the landowners. There was no need for either of these moves, particularly at a time when 'discussions' between the Drws Cefn Diggers and the PDCMG are supposedly still 'ongoing'.
NigR said:
If Fleur told the land owners that she and Ben(?) from PDCMG had met with you and the diggers and you'd all agreed the best way forward was to put a gate on Drews Cefn and then she'd reported that back to the landowner, its only logical that the landowner will think that PDCMG had sorted it out. Would you have bothered putting a gate on it if the PDCMG hadn't suggested it was what was wanted?
I just don't understand why you feel the need to post such charactor assasinations of Fluer which I personally don't think are true. Fleur is not a devious person and she doesn't aim to mislead people. Its a difficult situation for Fleur, she has to represent the PDCMG.
As for communicating with the landowner. You only need to go in the pub and have a beer and you'll be chatting to the landowner, so what communication do you mean? I know Fluer is always trying to get more people to visit the pub to help the landowners business out! The only thing I can think is that she is wanting the meeting of the 12th Dec to take place until any formal discussions regarding access happen with the landowner, and she is trying to manage that side of things (which is her job as secretary!)
To be honest why you would publicly launch an attack on Fleur's charactor online, and expect to be able to continue cordial discussions with her, is beyond me.
Imo said:
Yes, because Cambrian Caving Council's Conservation Officer had already suggested that we do so as it was the wishes of the landowner that the entrance be gated. We were responding to this suggestion, not the one later put forward by the PDCMG. Everything was planned and organised well before the meeting with Ben and Fleur even took place.
Imo said:
I mean communication with the other landowner (the pub was closed on the day in question). As I have already stated, the key was delivered in person. The landowner then contacted the PDCMG Secretary and (to quote Stuart France) 'all hell broke loose' as a result. The following is taken from an e-mail from Stuart to the PDCMG Secretary later in the week:
Elsie asked me to get a gate key to the landowner because she found herself unable to do this personally, as she had intended. So I did deliver a key to him for emergency/landowner use last Saturday afternoon. I felt it was best to do this in person. The landowner said he'd heard about me, and that he was pleased to receive the key, but that's about as far as our brief conversation went. I'm happy to respect your wishes not to talk to the landowners again for the time being. But I would like to meet them eventually, if only to clear the air and be able to answer any questions and indicate our hopes for the future. You will appreciate that the landowner has only got PDCMG's opinion of me, and has not had the opportunity to form his own ideas. But if PDCMG wants a gagging order then I and everyone else will understand.
It doesn't tell the whole story by any means but it does give some indication as to what is going on.
Imo said:
No discussions, 'cordial' or otherwise, have taken place between the PDCMG and the Drws Cefn Diggers since the meeting at Whitewalls on 10 November other than what has been mentioned above.
