Ogof Draenen - New Entrance

[Les W]

Hi Ian

it's all here 

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

somewhere, anyway  :-\

 

[Ian Adams]

Thanks Les .... you are (and always have been) a veritable source of information 

....... reading it now ......

8)

Ian

 

[Ian Adams]

Ok, trying to understand the PCMDG properly - after reading Les W's link (specifically the constitution), it appears that (and I am looking for someone to confirm my understanding is right or correct me if I am wrong);

The PDCMG is comprised of (essentially) anyone who wants to join with appointed officers every two years (presumably voted on) except the chairman who remains in situ until death or resignation.

The PDCMG has a primary (sole?) objective of conservation.

The PDCMG has negoitated and/or controls access to certain holes (notably Ogof Draenan) which is/are gated and they hold they key

The PDCMG dictates what is and is not acceptable in terms of how that cave (and others) are managed/travelled/preserved

.... Have I got that right and have I missed anything ?

Thanks ....

Ian

 

[John S]

The PDCMG is comprised of (essentially) anyone who wants to join with appointed officers every two years (presumably voted on) except the chairman who remains in situ until death or resignation.

Pwll Du CMG voting methods?
The last minutes of the PDCMG from 4/7/09 are now out and show the rather strange and dubious voting practices going on.
Those attending the meeting included some 9 club reps (SUSS observing, UBSS later made up to member, Croyden CC present but not in the minutes)
There were also 5 old committee members present who vote on the day to day running of the group but should not vote for the election of officers.
In most democratic organisations the members who are standing for re-election stand down and then are elected again by those eligible to vote.  This means only 9 votes should be shown in the minutes not  13, 12  and 11 !!! So who else was voting and why did the chairman not pick this up and stop it.
It seems that each committee member was standing down in turn and then elected.
This means the actual outcome can change depending on the order of the election. It also means than a cleek can be set up that is almost impossible to remove without a strong chair cancelling the extra votes. So has a cleek formed? Yes
OUCC, Morgannwg CC and Dreanen Diggers had 3 club rep votes and 4 then 5 committee posts at the meeting which out voted the other 6 clubs present.  Noted on one vote was two OUCC people voting as club rep!
The last elections should be voided and fresh ones taken at the EGM. The minutes should not be allowed to stand.


So even if most of the clubs want one thing the cleek can over ride it.

 

[whitelackington]

The PDCMG is comprised of (essentially) anyone who wants to join with appointed officers every two years (presumably voted on) except the chairman who remains in situ until death or resignation.

Pwll Du CMG voting methods?
The last minutes of the PDCMG from 4/7/09 are now out and show the rather strange and dubious voting practices going on.
Those attending the meeting included some 9 club reps (SUSS observing, UBSS later made up to member, Croyden CC present but not in the minutes)
There were also 5 old committee members present who vote on the day to day running of the group but should not vote for the election of officers.
In most democratic organisations the members who are standing for re-election stand down and then are elected again by those eligible to vote.  This means only 9 votes should be shown in the minutes not  13, 12  and 11 !!! So who else was voting and why did the chairman not pick this up and stop it.
It seems that each committee member was standing down in turn and then elected.
This means the actual outcome can change depending on the order of the election. It also means than a cleek can be set up that is almost impossible to remove without a strong chair cancelling the extra votes. So has a cleek formed? Yes
OUCC, Morgannwg CC and Dreanen Diggers had 3 club rep votes and 4 then 5 committee posts at the meeting which out voted the other 6 clubs present.  Noted on one vote was two OUCC people voting as club rep!
The last elections should be voided and fresh ones taken at the EGM. The minutes should not be allowed to stand.


So even if most of the clubs want one thing the cleek can over ride it.

Utterly disgraceful.    :thumbsdown:

 

[menacer]

It seems that now would be a good opportunity to explore a new era of 2 entrances to Draenan.
This thing is just rumbling on and on and on - It cant be stopped, even if the meeting gets a 1 entrance consensus, there are too many people out there that disagree regardless of Cliques.(thanks graham)

Going to the table with a new 2 entrance policy may just prevent renegade 3, 4 or 5 entrance scenarios in the future.. a good old fashioned comprimise.

 

[graham]

Utterly disgraceful.    :thumbsdown:

Indeed, it's spelt "clique". Really!

 

[graham]

More seriously:

menacer says:

a good old fashioned compromise.

However:

Dan says:

As cavers we are guilty of past mistakes and should learn from them.

and NigR has said

the cave is not as it was the day it was first found. In fact it's pretty trashed in places.

That says to me that the lessons of the past, so eloquently put by the late Peter Harvey in the last issue of Descent have not yet been learnt and applied. It's a real shame because it looks so much like the current generation of cavers will bequeath nothing to the future except a heap of trashed caves.

That's what happens with compromises, I'm afraid.

 

[NigR]

It's a real shame because it looks so much like the current generation of cavers will bequeath nothing to the future except a heap of trashed caves.

Every time a new cave or cave passage is discovered and entered for the first time it is trashed to a greater or lesser degree. You cannot levitate your way through the cave, no matter how desirable it might be to do so. The only way to ensure that a cave remains totally pristine is to not find it in the first place. Nobody will ever see it, or even know what is there, but it will remain untouched and inviolate forever. If this what is deemed desirable then the logical extrapolation is that cave exploration should be banned outright.

Why don't you propose such a motion at tomorrow's meeting, Graham?

 

[graham]

It's a real shame because it looks so much like the current generation of cavers will bequeath nothing to the future except a heap of trashed caves.

Every time a new cave or cave passage is discovered and entered for the first time it is trashed to a greater or lesser degree. You cannot levitate your way through the cave, no matter how desirable it might be to do so. The only way to ensure that a cave remains totally pristine is to not find it in the first place. Nobody will ever see it, or even know what is there, but it will remain untouched and inviolate forever. If this what is deemed desirable then the logical extrapolation is that cave exploration should be banned outright.

Why don't you propose such a motion at tomorrow's meeting, Graham?

Because I don't agree with your rather simplistic analysis, Nig. That's why. It is obvious, however, that to a large extent you do - and because you both do think that way and think that it is an impossible or undesirable outcome I would guess that it affects what you do actually do. If you think that it is impossible not to trash caves then the result will be trashed caves, I'm afraid.

Decent levels of cave conservation are possible and are not wholly incompatible with access, either. Conservation does not mean, simply and wholly, preservation. It means managing impacts on the environment to keep degradation within defined and acceptable limits.

I could (I have in the past) give lectures on conservation techniques showing what is achievable and how it can be achieved. I won't go into too much detail, now, as I've got other things I need to be doing, but here are just a few examples:

Compare the degradation over the last half-century in St Cuthberts (leader system) with Swildons (no leader system and a magnet for novice groups).

Much has been said in this debate about OFD; but note the minimal changes in the streamway, as compared with those in the higher parts of OFD 2. Obvious, maybe, but something that needs to be taken into account in management strategies.

In one cave that I know, well, on Mendip. The explorers have dug - and continue to dig - bypasses to fragile areas. They don't need to do that but care about their finds.

Finally, I do know one cave that, apart from certain piles of Bat Poo looks virtually untouched since it was discovered 90 odd years ago. That's 'cos it has a serious gate, a landowner who cares (it's actually owned by a family trust) a leadership system, a single taped route. And only about 1,000 people have visited it over that time. I have. It was a great privilege.

 

[Damo]

The PDCMG is comprised of (essentially) anyone who wants to join with appointed officers every two years (presumably voted on) except the chairman who remains in situ until death or resignation.

Pwll Du CMG voting methods?
The last minutes of the PDCMG from 4/7/09 are now out and show the rather strange and dubious voting practices going on.
Those attending the meeting included some 9 club reps (SUSS observing, UBSS later made up to member, Croyden CC present but not in the minutes)
There were also 5 old committee members present who vote on the day to day running of the group but should not vote for the election of officers.
In most democratic organisations the members who are standing for re-election stand down and then are elected again by those eligible to vote.  This means only 9 votes should be shown in the minutes not  13, 12  and 11 !!! So who else was voting and why did the chairman not pick this up and stop it.
It seems that each committee member was standing down in turn and then elected.
This means the actual outcome can change depending on the order of the election. It also means than a cleek can be set up that is almost impossible to remove without a strong chair cancelling the extra votes. So has a cleek formed? Yes
OUCC, Morgannwg CC and Dreanen Diggers had 3 club rep votes and 4 then 5 committee posts at the meeting which out voted the other 6 clubs present.  Noted on one vote was two OUCC people voting as club rep!
The last elections should be voided and fresh ones taken at the EGM. The minutes should not be allowed to stand.


So even if most of the clubs want one thing the cleek can over ride it.

Was Robert Magabe involved with the voting?

 

[SamT]

Ohh, such a can of worms...

Ok -
Preservation = seal it up for ever.
Conservation = management inorder to minimise the impact.

I'm not familiar with the survey of draenen, but it seems to me that a positive case for having a 2nd entrance that is a short cut to the far end would mean that the far reaches can be pushed without having to traverse the whole system thus conserving that part of the system.

We've spent months digging passage in bagshawe that we knew would one day connect (and it did) to try and conserve a whole section of cave and prevent it being used as a through route.

I'd love to find a second entrance into the far end and continue to look 

 

[graham]

Sam

What about the increased impact on the far reaches of the cave owing to the easier access? That, after all, is what happened at OFD and at Pippikin, for example.

 

[SamT]

Whose to say that those far reaches are vulnerable. See my post about 'delicacy grading above'

 

[Ian Adams]

Sorry to go back to an earlier question I asked (there have been a lot of postings since last evening) .....

..... I am still trying to understand the fabric of the PDCMG .....

"Who" decided that the "body" should be brought into existence? (Ie. local authority, BCA, independent group of people etc.)

and

Has the PDCMG approached the relevant landowners for (exclusive) access rights ?

Sorry if I am being a bit dim but I am trying to be certain of the facts  :-\

Cheers,

Ian

 

[menacer]

What about the increased impact on the far reaches of the cave owing to the easier access

vs the decreased impact on the near reaches...

If I travel say 2km from original entrance to say Circus maximus, i have travelled 4km of footfall .
If an entrance is opened up 0.5 km from Circus maximus then 4 times as many people can visit that part of the cave with the same environmental footfall....

I have no idea of the real figures it just another statistical hypothisis thingumny from a non statistical non scientific view point.

 

[Lou Maurice]

Every time a new cave or cave passage is discovered and entered for the first time it is trashed to a greater or lesser degree. You cannot levitate your way through the cave, no matter how desirable it might be to do so. The only way to ensure that a cave remains totally pristine is to not find it in the first place. Nobody will ever see it, or even know what is there, but it will remain untouched and inviolate forever. If this what is deemed desirable then the logical extrapolation is that cave exploration should be banned outright.

Clearly it is impracticable to prevent all impacts on a cave without preventing cavers going in at all, which is not what cavers want.  But the logical extrapolation of the other end of the argument is that anybody should be allowed to do anything in caves regardless of the impacts they have (graffitti, collecting stal and crystals, taking parties of school children into delicate and vulnerable parts of caves), which also cavers don?t want.  So the solution has to be to try to minimise the impacts of cavers on caves as much as possible.  This is particularly important in Ogof Draenen because most of it is dry so the passages cavers pass through contain very old and sometimes unique sediment and crystal formations.  In addition because it was found more recently than other similar caves, we have an opportunity to learn from the past (e.g. the impacts that have occurred in OFD because sediments and formations were not taped, and the digging of top entrance which lead to a massive increase in caver traffic).

The single entrance policy for Ogof Draenen is a good compromise because it reduces caver traffic by the natural barrier of distance from an entrance but also allows caver freedoms ? any caver can enter the cave, and if they wish, dig within the cave.  The only restriction is that cavers should not dig connections to the surface because this will cause degradation of the cave due to increased traffic. 

New entrances will also reduce the remoteness of areas of the cave, degrading some of the finest long trips in UK caving.  There are thousands of caves in Britain where cavers are close to an entrance but only a few where cavers can experience being more than 4 hours from the surface.  There are several undiscovered cave systems in South Wales ? maybe it would be better to do more surface digging in these areas, and less in areas that connect into known cave.

Conservation taping does a lot to preserve the areas outside the tapes although there are limitations to taping because:
1) cavers cross tapes due to lack of experience or lack or regard for tapes, especially near to entrances where more cavers go.
2) Many narrow passages contain vulnerable sediments/crystals on the walls and floor and cannot be taped.  It is extremely difficult to pass through without damaging these.  In Ogof Draenen it is clear that such passages within 2 hours of the entrance or on trade routes into the cave have been quite significantly impacted (e.g. Indiana Highway, Beer Challenge crawl), whilst the areas remote from entrances where few people go are well protected (e.g. passages in Dollimores, War of the Worlds, Wessex series and Life on Mars).

In Ogof Draenen, I have seen that it is the combination of taping and the single entrance policy that has resulted in many areas of the cave in which there is very little impact from cavers.  Damage increases with distance away from the entrance and away from trade routes.  A new entrance will create a new area of damage near to the entrance, and along new trade routes. 

We do not need to treat every cave the same, but in Ogof Draenen we have an opportunity to do something different.  We could try to preserve a long remote cave in the UK as a single entrance system and see what the benefits are to future cavers.  It is a good one to choose ? it contains some of the finest formations and some of the remotest places in the UK.  And we may not get another chance to try this. 

 

[Cave Mapper]

Well said Lou.

Draenen will be better with single entrance. It's a remote, wild and beautiful place. It's worth keeping it that way.

 

[Joel Corrigan]

I've kept out of this debate (well, apart from stirring the pot every now and again!) for several reasons, the main one being that my mate is the prime digger of the other entrance & he's enjoying himself....

However, quite apart from any sort of conservation reasons I agree with Lou purely on the basis of remoteness. There are cavers out there who are too lazy & useless to push their last sandwich through a squeeze, let alone their bodies, and they feel the need to blast & remove every obstacle in their way in the name of exploration! Anything further than ten minutes away from the entrance is "remote" for them..... 

I suspect that if OFD had been left as a single entrance cave then I would have been far more interested in exploring the further reaches. As it is I see it simply as somewhere to go for a bimble & nothing more.  But there are other entrances & I obviously use them, but I'd like to have seen OFD in the good old days when a pushing trip to the far end would have been a proper adventure. 

Actually, maybe what Draenen needs to conserve it is the removal of all challenges so that anyone with the slightest sense of adventure just can't be arsed to go down there?!   

But what really makes me really chuckle is that from what I can see the strongest advocates for multiple entrances on this forum are people who aren't active in South Wales and, more importantly, don't have a clue who the most vocal gobshite actually is!  I suspect that if you'd had to put up with some of this shite for years then you'd have different opinions...... 

Or maybe there aren't many Welsh cavers with access to the internet?  Hmm....

 

[Ian Adams]

*cough ....

..... I am still trying to understand the fabric of the PDCMG .....

"Who" decided that the "body" should be brought into existence? (Ie. local authority, BCA, independent group of people etc.)

and

Has the PDCMG approached the relevant landowners for (exclusive) access rights ?

Sorry if I am being a bit dim .......

Cheers,

Ian