Lack of conservation in Dreanen and the Management Policy

[Clive G]

So, according to NigR at 10.48 . . .

I have had the same problem - you need to go into <Profile> <Modify Profile> <Look and Layout> and reset the 'Time Offset' to 0 (viz 'auto detect') for GMT!

But, as to how to deal with the same issue in Outlook Express . . .

 

[Imo]

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.

Thats great. So the wishes of the landowner were communicated twice to you once by CCC and once by PDCMG. And you acted on those wishes. Sounds like everyone is working together to maintain access to the cave. Is Stuart France one of the Drws Cefn diggers?

 

[Peter Burgess]

So, according to NigR at 10.48, no discussions have happened since 10th November, yet at 09.19 he said that discussions were still ongoing.

Seems like NigR will say anything he wants in order to spin his little stories.

Ho Hum.

There's a trite little couplet about weaving webs. One of Sir Walter Scott's, I believe. Is that what you are implying, Graham?

 

[graham]

So, according to NigR at 10.48 . . .

I have had the same problem - you need to go into <Profile> <Modify Profile> <Look and Layout> and reset the 'Time Offset' to 0 (viz 'auto detect') for GMT!

But, as to how to deal with the same issue in Outlook Express . . .

None of my computers have had this right since the clocks changed - despite the whole "auto detect" thing. :Shrug:

Bin Outlook Express, its awful from a security POV. Either Thunderbird from Mozilla or Microsoft's OE replacement "Windows Mail" are far better.

 

[NigR]

So, according to NigR at 10.48, no discussions have happened since 10th November, yet at 09.19 he said that discussions were still ongoing.

It depends how you define 'ongoing'.

Discussions are still ongoing in so much as neither side has pulled out as yet.

In practical terms, nothing at all (other than that already mentioned) has been discussed since 10 November.

 

[restingcaver]

Hi Ian
Thanks for your comments on my early morning post. I chose this thread since I wanted to comment about cave conservation not the Drws Cefn issue, or PDMCG politics.

Just to clear up one point before continuing though - NigR's responses to my comments implied that I might know something about future intentions; I do not. My concern about Ogof Draenen is due to its unique and special nature. It has been discovered and explored in reasonably enlightened times, and so has not yet suffered the degradation that most other UK caves have.

You ask "who has the right to overlord or command dominion over their peers ?"  Well I understand that the PDCMG have the role of managing access to and conservation of the cave in what would otherwise be a free for all. The PDCMG has legitimacy since the landowner is obviously happy to have the group administer access to the cave on his land, and my point about access was that the owner is the only person entitled to cross the land to go into the cave, because open access land does not include a right of access into any cave beneath that land (or to dig on the surface of it either). I personally don't believe that a free for all access policy would result in better cave conservation (does anybody?). There is always a trade off between freedom of action and the management of a rare resource like Ogof Draenen. 

I referred to "free thinkers" earlier. Some "free thinkers" might be seen as anarchists or vandals by some, depending on how they go about their individual approach to cave digging and conservation. Subjective again. A bit like the "Freedom Fighters or Terrorists?" argument!

We cavers who have the physical ability and knowledge of how access can be easily arranged into Ogof Draenen are privileged, but that is not because we abuse others' rights to obtain that privilege. The way that we get access to this wonderful cave is very open and the limited constraints that the PDCMG place on us are a balance between that privilege and the responsibility and trust that underpins the access ethos of the Group. Is it really thought that the Group is undemocratic or more pertinently, that it is not achieving enough? To steer away from the politics, if the conservation of the cave is not meeting the highest standards, then lets get the practical side of conservation back onto the priority list as John S suggested in starting off the thread.

Conservation is a variable and sometimes indefinable concept to achieve, and is nearly always subjective. My point was (joking) that only "no access" gives the highest standards of conservation. But without digging, exploration and discovery, there would be no new knowledge, excitement and advance. The Highest standard of conservation that we can justify might be a better way of putting it - subjectively! (Oh, and I do consider access an essential part of cave conservation by the way).

It's a shame that even this strand of the discussion has been dragged back to personal attacks on individuals. Very sad that such harsh things need to be said in public, (or at all) hey?  I mean it, that if there is a better way to conserve Ogof Draenen and yet retain decent access  managed with a light touch as we have now, then we should all be seeking to make it happen.
Good to "talk". Thanks for your comments.
Cheers
Tim

 

[Ian Adams]

Tim,

Thanks for your very sensible post.

I agree with your comments almost entirely except (of course) with the position of the PDCMG.

You are correct that they are the controlling body and, in that sense, they have the ?control? over who does and does not enter the cave. What I was addressing was should they have the right to do so ?

I will not argue against conservation being an honourable goal because I believe it is.

As I understand it (and no one has said to the contrary when I have raised this a number of times previously), the origin of the group was a number of cavers whose sole or overriding main objective was to ?conserve? the cave and they approached the landowner to secure an agreement that they become the guardians to the cave. From then onwards, we (as cavers) have had to bow to them and acquiesce to their wishes regardless of whether our ideals, politics, opinions, agendas etc. were in harmony.

One such conflict is clearly the use of the back entrance for diggers. I am not a digger but I value the work they do as it enables me to see and enjoy more of the underground and I have yet to meet a digger who has denied findings to the rest of us. I also cannot understand why anyone would deny the use of this entrance to cave rescue should there be an emergency.

Since the group has a totalitarian constitution, it has obviously caused conflict with cavers who have other agendas (none of whom have suggested that they are disrespectful of conservation and none of whom (so far as I can see) have been accused of it on this thread).

In North Wales, caving and mine-exploring has become a virtual nightmare as various bodies/groups/persons/clubs etc. have sought to ?gain control? of entrances and then dictate terms as to who can or cannot enter and on what basis. This has lead to widespread rogue activity and vandalism to gated entrances which, in turn, has created the opposite effect  to that which was desired (ie. landowners have become fed up, caves/mines have become likened to thoroughfares and conservation virtually does not exist).

My original input into the Draenen issue was concern that this apparent debacle over access would deteriorate (in the same way as North Wales) to the detriment of us all.

If there were unison amongst cavers or, at least, an equitable platform for cavers to discuss and agree ways forward with the various issues that raise themselves then I believe (my opinion) that threads like these would not appear on the forum and there would be little or no exposure of ?dirty washing? to landowners, little or no 3rd party approaches to landowners and little or no rogue activity (all of which promotes conservation).

How can that be done? Well, that was asked and I saw a wonderful response which was;

A management group that has no pre-requiste for membership and whose agenda is to support and maintain (responsible) access for all cavers whilst maintaining the wishes of the landowners.

Personally, I think that this is a much better way to ?manage? the cave and it?s visitors and there is no reason why conservation shouldn?t have it?s place.

Regards,


Ian

 

[Clive G]

I see - this stuff about second entrances v conservation that many of us have had to endure for months on end has all been a smoke screen.

Go and watch the film in Studio 2 and be ashamed of yourselves.
http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,9306.0.html

John Parker had a more blunt way of putting it, but, in the face of this sort of treatment (with the modifier I've added in '[  ]'), he was right: "If you want to dig [in this fashion], go and find your own dig somewhere else!"

 

[andymorgan]

As I understand it (and no one has said to the contrary when I have raised this a number of times previously), the origin of the group was a number of cavers whose sole or overriding main objective was to ?conserve? the cave and they approached the landowner to secure an agreement that they become the guardians to the cave. From then onwards, we (as cavers) have had to bow to them and acquiesce to their wishes regardless of whether our ideals, politics, opinions, agendas etc. were in harmony.

This 'number of cavers' was the original explorers, the diggers, not just some random folks. They opened up involvement in access control to a wider range of caving groups http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/history.htm

One such conflict is clearly the use of the back entrance for diggers. I am not a digger but I value the work they do as it enables me to see and enjoy more of the underground and I have yet to meet a digger who has denied findings to the rest of us. I also cannot understand why anyone would deny the use of this entrance to cave rescue should there be an emergency.

There are also many diggers who dig regularly in Draenen who didn't want the back entrance. What about these diggers?

 

[Ian Adams]

Andy,

Thanks for your post and your link.

Unfortunately, although the ?history? shows who discovered the ?breakthrough? it does not say that it was those people who formed the PDCMG, nor does it say who the original founders were. What is known is that they (whoever ?they? actually are) had a single raison d?etre and that was conservation.

I understand your question on ?what about the other diggers views?? and this is precisely the point that I have been trying to make all along. I think that other diggers (or cavers, cave rescue or any other interested party) should be equally involved (I appreciate you are arguing the opposite view for the diggers but the principle is the same).

I don?t think it is unreasonable to have a level and un-biased platform to debate on.

Regards,

Ian

 

[restingcaver]

Tim,
Thanks for your very sensible post.
I agree with your comments almost entirely except (of course) with the position of the PDCMG.
You are correct that they are the controlling body and, in that sense, they have the “control” over who does and does not enter the cave. What I was addressing was should they have the right to do so ?

A management group that has no pre-requiste for membership and whose agenda is to support and maintain (responsible) access for all cavers whilst maintaining the wishes of the landowners.

Personally, I think that this is a much better way to “manage” the cave and it’s visitors and there is no reason why conservation shouldn’t have it’s place.

Hi again Ian
Thanks again for the response. Yes they have the right, but that does not mean they should have or always will have.
To justify change I would want to understand why this particular management group might not be an acceptable one. I start from being in favour of the status quo, and intend to learn more so that I might come to a proper understanding of the position. Maybe as the system of voting is to elect clubs, not individuals as representatives, I can see why the Group could come to loggerheads if the individuals did not get on with one another, so is it that the Constitution is defective? How would it be changed to improve the defects?

The group can change its Constitution if enough (75%) of the members "present and voting" at a meeting consider such changes to be a better way of managing the cave. If however the group were thought to be sufficiently "rogue" to become a barrier to the good management of the cave then in the last resort, the Landowner would have to be persuaded that the arrangements for management needed to be changed and assuming that any legal contract or agreement between him and the Group allowed it, then he could end the agreement and enter into a new one with another body, or any number of alternatives, including refusing access altogether.

In the case of Draenen for the reasons I have previously said, I consider that access controls are necessary to ensure conservation of the cave, and that once the Constitution of such an management group is agreed to be fair, then those wanting access would have to accept that conditions that allow the conservation objectives to be met are the mechanism that protects the cave for everyone in the long term against poor management (and damage) in the short term. I believe that Conservation is the most appropriate prime objective for such an important and inspiring cave, so we diverge only in the relative ranking of that objective perhaps? It's place is at the top of the list in my opinion. Without conservation, access is a short term buzz; the long term is a trashed second rate caving experience, and the loss of a rare resource - until we find another cave to explore!

There is a real likelihood that in due course, CCW (the nature conservation agency in Wales) will seek to designate Ogof Draenen as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or probably a SAC (the higher, European version of a protected conservation site). And well, the cave justifies that status. It will be some time before that happens though - its all in the politics (European, not Caving). At that stage all parties including the Landowner will become subject to greater controls and ultimately decisions will be taken by employees of the CCW as to what is and isn't acceptable in terms of the conservation of the cave. As to whether that would create a better more democratic management structure I leave open for a future forum subject - when it is about to be imposed on the cave! The penalty for serious damage to an SSSI/SAC could be a fine or prison! The designation is not one that could be resisted, but it would possibly have relatively little effect on access, assuming an acceptable management and access regime were already in place. I cannot see that a regime that considered access to be the first priority would be acceptable for a site that is valued for its conservation values, so I think the status quo looks more likely to remain unchanged in that respect.

However, next, back to the practical point that John S raised at the start of this thread; there is a need to carry out conservation works; access controls are not sufficient to ensure the cave is conserved as we all know. Taping seems to be on the agenda; how much, and where is a question of degree - most may agree that some taping is desirable, and actually, is easily reversible if it has to be taken out again because it's disfiguring effects are thought to outweigh the benefits of undisturbed passage floors (though this is more than debatable!). Lets democratically ask the club reps on the PDCMG to address the conservation issues and to require us all to do something practical as a condition of access. I am DYO Conservation warden, and always remove man made debris from the cave when I visit. [Aside: Surprisingly I have yet to come across similar materials left lying in Draenen - maybe the standards are higher there?]

I have experience of the North Wales caving scene, (and lived in Gwynedd and Conwy for 7 years) and would not wish such division to be repeated in South Wales. The trouble is that I think it arrived a long time ago. None the less, I don't think many can complain that they can't get access to Draenen; maybe some do complain that the entrance is in the wrong place or put another way, that they want to have that access somewhere other than the original entrance because it is inconvenient for exploration or surveying or rescue, but it is the damage to the cave that will result if access becomes the lead principle that we should all consider most carefully. The wag the other day who posted that;

No cave has consciousness.
There is nothing that cavers do that can actually damage a cave.
Everything is transitory.

was wrong. We all know caves are damaged by cavers so a bit of humour to make the point is fine but lets not make the mistake of thinking that we can't do better this time.

Hey, enough! Catch up again another time.
Cheers
Tim

 

[Ian Adams]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your interesting post.

Unfortunately, whereas I was almost entirely in agreement with your original post, I regret that now I am not as you have moved from being open minded to a much more biased one.

so is it that the Constitution is defective? How would it be changed to improve the defects?

One answer to that would be to have an unbiased constitution and open membership with no strings attached (as per the previous quoted suggested).

The group can change its Constitution if enough (75%) of the members "present and voting" at a meeting consider such changes to be a better way of managing the cave.

Yes, I know. However, a self appointed group of people with the same ideal are unlikely to vote against their own raison d?etre so I do not see this as being in any way realistic. This an example of the pseudo democratic process to which I have referred earlier.

If however the group were thought to be sufficiently "rogue" to become a barrier to the good management of the cave then?.

I wasn?t referring to the group becoming rogue. What I was trying to get across was that if the group become a barrier to other cavers or parties then those persons/bodies might engage in rogue activity to bypass the  PDCMG. This is precisely the case in North Wales.

I consider that access controls are necessary to ensure conservation of the cave

I am ambivalent on this issue. I am minded to think that the entrance (without a gate) is sufficiently difficult to enter to deter any non-cavers (ie. lads with beer cans and torches) or even novice cavers. However, that is my ?opinion? and I respect the fact that others have their own opinions.

However, ?ensuring the conservation of the cave? is an opinion too and is not a ?given?. It is precisely the adoption and assumption that it is a ?given? that has caused (and still is causing) so much difficulty most especially when other peoples agendas are being attacked in the name of ?conservation?. Personally, I would also like to ensure the cave is conserved but I accept that this is my opinion and that there are differing degrees of conservation and that others do not agree with my own thoughts. degree or quantum of the conservation process.

and that once the Constitution of such an management group is agreed to be fair, then those wanting access would have to accept that conditions

Yes, all things being equal I would agree, but the constitution was born out of a prejudice position. Furthermore, it was born from a group of people who self-appointed themselves to rule and govern their peers with their own political agenda.

I believe that Conservation is the most appropriate prime objective for such an important and inspiring cave, so we diverge only in the relative ranking of that objective perhaps?

Yes and no. Yes, prima facie there is an issue with the degree to which conservation takes place. However, the underlying problem remains with a totalitarian controlling access body.

There is a real likelihood that in due course, CCW (the nature conservation agency in Wales) will seek to designate Ogof Draenen as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Yes, I guess you are right about this. Again I am ambivalent because I have experience of the CCW in North Wales and their mandate (laid down in statute with regards to SSSI) is to consider a schedule ?if, in their opinion that?.? (the countryside & wildlife act).

I reported earlier in this thread that two different CCW officers had interpreted this in two completely opposite ways with regards to the removal of sediment from caves. In this case one officer approved the removal (and the club got a grant to assist) and in the other case the two diggers were prosecuted. I should add that this was the same bank of limestone and the caves were of the same origin and in close proximity. The diggers who were prosecuted were digging an unremarkable cave whereas the other diggers are in a much more splendid cave. So the CCW could easily be Pandora?s Box.

access controls are not sufficient to ensure the cave is conserved as we all know.

Sorry Tim, that is another one of those sweeping statements that is actually an opinion and is an example of precisely the kind of adopted position that is causing the friction.

Lets democratically ask the club reps on the PDCMG to address the conservation issues and to require us all to do something practical as a condition of access.

Again, this is very mis-leading and another example of adopting a position which is opinion based and not a ?given?. Further, the use of the word ?democratic? is wrong and mis-leading and further still, requiring people to do something practical as a condition of access is (in my opinion) wholly unacceptable and will (in my opinion) lead to rogue visits and therefore have a counter-productive effect on conservation.

Again, I have reported earlier that pro-active conservation projects in Snowdonia, North Wales have had damaging effects. Arguably, human exploration of caves (and the accompanying footfall, consequences etc) are perfectly normal and natural. Minimising the effect is one degree of conservation, prevention is another degree but to pro-actively interfere is quite something else. I do not believe that anyone can dictate what is ?right? and ?wrong? but I do believe that we should all respect that fact that we each have opinions as to what conservation is per se.

Ian

 

[graham]

Unfortunately, whereas I was almost entirely in agreement with your original post, I regret that now I am not as you have moved from being open minded to a much more biased one.

Paraphrase: "Unfortunately I think you've gone from agreeing with me to disagreeing with me." 

 

[Clive G]

. . .

Unfortunately, whereas I was almost entirely in agreement with your original post, I regret that now I am not as you have moved from being open minded to a much more biased one.

. . .

What I was trying to get across was that if the group become a barrier to other cavers or parties then those persons/bodies might engage in rogue activity to bypass the  PDCMG. This is precisely the case in North Wales.

. . .

Ian

A simple question Ian : have you ever visited Ogof Draenen to cave in the system?

Have you considered that you may be imposing thought patterns nurtured by the somewhat unsatisfactory conditions that you have personally experienced and described as existing in North Wales on a completely different area and situation - where it is wholly inappropriate to impose the same failings and draw similar conclusions?

How more democratic can you get than a group based on the people who had the good idea and did the work to make the caving discovery - who allow other people entry to explore and survey the cave, as long as they share their findings for the common good - who also take the care of the cave to heart, because they are the ones who brought the cave into human knowledge.

It always amazes me when people criticise films and then you find out that they've actually not seen the films for themselves at all, but read about them from someone else and have decided, nevertheless, for reasons best known to themselves, to jump up on a soap box on the basis of a load of ill-judged stereotyping . . .

 

[Ian Adams]

Clive,

A simple question Ian : have you ever visited Ogof Draenen to cave in the system?

Yes, I was there as recently as last Sunday.

Have you considered that you may be imposing thought patterns?.

It isn?t my intention to impose anything at all and I am not trying to do so. You are certainly correct that I am drawing parallels with unsatisfactory conditions in North Wales but I have done so as an example of how things can go wrong where individuals or groups are in conflict with a controlling body. It is my hope that South Wales (well, Draenen) doesn?t fall the same way.

How more democratic can you get than ??????.

Well, as I have said so many times already. It isn?t democratic and to re-quote someone else?s suggestion as to how to better it;

A management group that has no pre-requiste for membership and whose agenda is to support and maintain (responsible) access for all cavers whilst maintaining the wishes of the landowners.

With regards to your last paragraph, this is a public forum of debate and it follows that a great many people could see, read and even contribute without ever having been in the cave. But beyond that, there is an underlying principle (conservation) that could be mirrored elsewhere and it is possible that other peoples experiences and opinions may help to bring about perspective or even a solution (or they may not of course).

As for a load of ill-judged stereotyping, I have tried to stick to actual factual experiences in the hope that they can be avoided in South Wales.

My original posts here were made with the best of intentions and I still remain with the best of intentions.

Ian

 

[SpeleoTrog]

A management group that has no pre-requiste for membership and whose agenda is to support and maintain (responsible) access for all cavers whilst maintaining the wishes of the landowners.

Jackapup, I'm still puzzled by wtf you think the PDCMG actually is or how it could be realistically improved. Surely there must be a pre-requisite for membership. If the group is open to anybody, then how would you prevent people with no knowledge or even interest in caving, like the posters in the feedback section below from having a say in cave access?

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/4753568.Four_trapped_in_flooded_cave/

I suspect Graham was right, what you mean is that the PDCMG should be disbanded and reformed by people who agree with you.

If the position/makeup of the group is so wrong, then for fucks sake, stop wingeing about it, join a club which is represented on the group and have a say in the meetings!

 

[Ian Adams]

Jessop,

The quote wasn?t mine but I do think that if the PDCMG adopted a mandate which had an unbiased platform (as per the quote for example) then cavers with concerns and their own agendas have a much more balanced and democratic process at their disposal. I believe (my opinion) that none of this thread would have happened had that been the case and I also believe that the current wranglings with the landowners and the CCC would have been avoided.

I suspect Graham was right, what you mean is that the PDCMG should be disbanded and reformed by people who agree with you.

Re-phrasing what someone has quoted and then drawing a different meaning from it is blatantly wrong. It isn?t what I said and it isn?t what I meant. I am not trying to persuade people to agree with me ? I am suggesting that everyone has their own views and that we each should respect that we have our own views (even if we don?t agree with them) and that this whole situation would very likely much improve if the relevant people/bodies took that on board and worked together.

join a club which is represented on the group and have a say in the meetings!

Unless your own primary objective is conservation there is no point and that, is precisely the point and precisely the reason that there is conflict.

Ian

 

[Ian Adams]

At the risk of becoming an agent provocateur, doesn?t your link to the news article on the flooded cave and trapped cavers rather support keeping the rear entrance available to cavers trapped inside if the front entrance becomes too flooded to get out ?

Or, at least. for cave rescue to get in ?

Ian

 

[restingcaver]

OK Ian
How about a compromise statement on the new Management Group mission statement:

"A management group that has no pre-requiste for an open membership policy and whose agenda is the conservation of the cave whilst to supporting and maintaining (responsible) access for all cavers whilst maintaining respecting the wishes of the landowners."

OK?
Cheers, Tim

 

[Ian Adams]

Tim,

It isn?t me that you have to persuade. I have already said a number of times that I am pro-conservation although maybe not to the same degree as some others.

If you (meaning generically) want to avoid conflict between access bodies and ?others? then you need a platform that is unbiased. Having an agenda (in the constitution) of ?conservation?, ?digging?, exploration? or ?anything else? creates a bias which in turn creates a pseudo-apartheid which, in turn, will cause the aggrieved parties to begin acting independently and (almost inevitably) be counter-productive to the original intention. Isn?t that what is happening right now with Draenen ?

Regards,

Ian