PDCMG meeting: Draenen access

[Andy Sparrow]

Many opinions have been expressed on this issue.  I will offer two self-evidently true observations, rather than opinions,

1.  The development of any cave systems is not determined by committees but by active cavers putting in the work.
2.  A body responsible for cave access that can only fill in so many entrances before it loses the support of the caving community.

 

[graham]

Many opinions have been expressed on this issue.  I will offer two self-evidently true observations, rather than opinions,

1.  The development of any cave systems is not determined by committees but by active cavers putting in the work.
2.  A body responsible for cave access that can only fill in so many entrances before it loses the support of the caving community.

Ah, but if the active cavers do not have teh support of the owner(s) of the property and if the caving community understands that the owner(s) prefer to limit the number of access points across their land.

 

[Peter Burgess]

As this is the SWCC section, I shall keep this observation short, as I am not a member, and then drop back and just follow the topic with interest.

In general, (and not an observation in this particular case as I don't know the people concerned) if a committee includes a good number of active cavers, then do you not get the best of both worlds?

 

[NigR]

So Nig, just how many entrances do you intend that Ogof Draenen should have? 

What are you ultimately aiming for - one entrance per mile of passage? 

Is your objective just to turn the cave into another Porth yr Ogof, or what?

To answer McBad (and attempt to lay to rest a few misconceptions):

Personally, at the present time, I would be happy if there were just one more usable entrance to Ogof Draenen. So no, I am not aiming at one entrance per mile of passage. Neither is my objective to turn the cave into another Porth yr Ogof - any more entrances, no matter where they may be found, would need to be managed effectively.

By its very nature, Ogof Draenen is a multi-entrance system and further entrances will be discovered even if I don't particularly want them to be. What I am ultimately trying to do is create an open atmosphere where this situation can be properly discussed and dealt with so that the cave can eventually realise its full potential. Sorry, but I don't think filling in other people's digs (or threatening to do so) is the best way to go about this.

It is highly significant that the purported third entrance to the cave has been discovered by local cavers. You can have all the committees you want but when the people who sit on them are back home in their nice cosy cities it's what is happening up on a cold, damp, drizzly Blorenge hillside on a Tuesday night in February that really matters.

 

[Hatstand]

I am suprised that in all this discussion there has been no suggestion of accepting multiple entrances but with the application of a reasonably strict leader warden system to reduce damage to the system. I am not neccessarily proposing this as the best answer (I am certainly not experienced enough to judge) but I am suprised it has not been discussed as an option? What have I missed here?

 

[NigR]

As this is the SWCC section, I shall keep this observation short, as I am not a member, and then drop back and just follow the topic with interest.

In general, (and not an observation in this particular case as I don't know the people concerned) if a committee includes a good number of active cavers, then do you not get the best of both worlds?

Peter,

Don't think it matters if you are a SWCC member or not - hope it doesn't anyway. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.

I agree that if a committee includes active cavers you should get the best of both worlds but in the case of the PDCMG you do not do so. Because of the way in which voting rights are distributed amongst the Officers and Member Clubs and the historical enmity that has always existed between the different factions there is a nasty political undercurrent to virtually everything. In fact, it is some of the most active cavers who are responsible for blocking any attempts at making progress on this issue. Sad, but that's the way it is and it isn't going to change.

I am suprised that in all this discussion there has been no suggestion of accepting multiple entrances but with the application of a reasonably strict leader warden system to reduce damage to the system. I am not neccessarily proposing this as the best answer (I am certainly not experienced enough to judge) but I am suprised it has not been discussed as an option? What have I missed here?

Hatstand,

Thanks for the input.

You are quite correct that yours is the first suggestion I have seen proposing a leader/warden system if there were another entrance. This shows the benefit of someone such as yourself (on the outside as it were) helping to come up with a possible solution.

No problem whatsoever from my point of view. Although I am not usually in favour of selective access arrangements I realise that there are important conservation issues at stake here. A leader system would certainly help address some of these.

I would also be willing to accept a solution whereby another entrance could only be used by those who had a valid reason for doing so - e.g exploration, scientific research, surveying, conservation work etc - and not just for tourist trips. If a leader system existed then parties could be taken in to assist with worthwhile projects (as was done in the early stages after the cave was first discovered).

Any other views on this?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Because of the way in which voting rights are distributed amongst the Officers and Member Clubs and the historical enmity that has always existed between the different factions there is a nasty political undercurrent to virtually everything. In fact, it is some of the most active cavers who are responsible for blocking any attempts at making progress on this issue. Sad, but that's the way it is and it isn't going to change.

In addition to not being a member, I am afraid it is precisely because of observations/opinions/facts (impossible to say which) like this that I do not want to become embroiled in the debate. There are too many good people out there whose friendship, potential or current, I do not not wish to compromise.

 

[NigR]

Just one last comment for now before I get my gear together and go off digging.

Regarding future entrances in general, I think it is important that access to all of them should ultimately be administered by the same body. This is another reason why I am attempting to change the attitude within the PDCMG. Does anyone really want to see lots of entrances to the same system controlled by various different groups? I certainly don't but that's the way things could be heading at the moment.

For example, maybe the third entrance has already been gated? If it has, that's fair enough on safety grounds I suppose. However, those responsible need to get in touch with the PDCMG as soon as possible to work out a long-term solution whilst in the short-term ensuring that genuine cavers can get access if they so desire. A 'private' entrance is morally wrong and is not a viable option - the gate would soon disappear in any case.

 

[ChrisJC]

I am suprised that in all this discussion there has been no suggestion of accepting multiple entrances but with the application of a reasonably strict leader warden system to reduce damage to the system. I am not neccessarily proposing this as the best answer (I am certainly not experienced enough to judge) but I am suprised it has not been discussed as an option? What have I missed here?

Any other views on this?

In principle I like Hats idea.

The only complication is who / what makes the judgement about what merits the usage of the restricted entrance. Maintaining impartiality is key I think. Maintaining perceived impartiality may prove a bit more complex.

Chris.

 

[Tony_B]

I realise I am late coming to this debate - I was away on a family holiday last week. But as the Chairman of SWCC and therefore the person who managed the discussion and the vote on this at the committee meeting, I have to respond to some of the charges levelled at me/us.

• Nig phoned Tony Baker 2 days prior to the committee meeting, presenting his side of the case and asking that the SWCC committee discuss this and instruct their PDCMG rep accordingly.
• Nig emailed Tony a proposal that he said was being submitted for the PDCMG agenda. I don't have the wording, but it was a generic proposal asking the PDCMG to reconsider its position on second entrances.
• I believe Tony forwarded this to the committee and pointed them at the uk caving forum on the matter, which I personally would not consider to be a good source of facts.
• Tony mentioned in the long common room on the Friday night that this subject was being discussed the following evening. Tony received a robust response from the randomly collected audience, I don't recall a single person arguing for the opening of a second entrance.
• The SWCC committee discussed the matter, presumably at length, on the Saturday evening.
• I heard on the grapevine a few days later that their decision was to abstain.
• A week or so later, as PDCMG secretary, I received the official proposal from Garimpieros. However the wording was significantly different to the proposal discussed by the SWCC committee, stating that a specific entrance should be opened with immediate effect.

Not all of what Ali states is correct...

1. Nig phoned me at least two weeks before the committee meeting. This gave us ample time to consider the matter in advance of the meeting.

2. When Nig sent me the wording of the proposal he made it clear that this was being submitted with the specific intention of forcing a discussion and a vote on the reopening of the second entrance. I made this clear to the committee at the outset of our discussion and explained that it was on that vote that we were briefing Bernie.

3. I did not forward the Garimpeiros proposal to the SWCC committee, but I warned them that we were going to discuss the issue. Please credit me and the committee with some intelligence; when I directed them at the forum I made it clear that much of the sense was being drowned out by axes being ground, but nonetheless the thread had been started by a respected caver raising a legitimate question. We had been asked by a club member to discuss a thorny issue and to brief our rep in advance of a vote; whatever you may think of that member, his was a perfectly reasonable request. And whatever you may think of the SWCC committee we are all experienced cavers capable of making informed decisions about second entrances.

4. I too cannot recall anyone in the long common room arguing in favour of a second entrance, but that is because many of those involved chose to dwell on their personal thoughts about one or two individuals rather than engaging in any sort of sensible debate about the rights and wrongs of a second entrance. And anyone who thinks that the SWCC committee is going to take its cues from alcohol-fuelled 'debate' on a Friday night is mistaken. Again give us some credit; all of the current committee are Penwyllt regulars who can claim to have a finger on the pulse of SWCC. Some of those lobbying for the opening of the second entrance are SWCC members; should we discount their views because they happened not to be in the long common room that night?

5. We did discuss the matter at length. It was a calm and sensible discussion about the most appropriate stance for SWCC to take. As a club we have 'previous' on this; we opened Top Entrance, after all. There are those within the club, even some of those involved in the work at the time, who think that was a mistake. There are others who think that an OFD 'through trip' is a classic and point to the many hundreds of cavers who use Top Entrance each year. Both viewpoints were expressed in the committee meeting. At the end of the discussion a proposal from the floor suggested we instruct Bernie to abstain. A vote was taken and the motion carried. That's how we do things; anyone have a problem with that?

6. Nothing to add.

7. As mentioned above, I had already made it clear to the committee as to how we were briefing Bernie. Nonetheless when I learned that the submitted proposal differed to the original I sent a circular e-mail around the committee, pointing this out but suggesting that our original vote remained valid. I received only one response, from a committee member agreeing with me. I took this to mean general acceptance.

I will be happy to answer any further queries about the SWCC committee's handling of this matter.

 

[Tony_B]

I understand that at the forthcoming PDCMG meeting the SWCC representative is planning to abstain on the question of opening the second entrance to Draenen on the basis that there has not been sufficient opportunity to canvass SWCC member to get their views.

As I hope I have made clear above this was not the reason we chose to abstain.

 

[Tony_B]

Nig says "As Peter quite rightly points out, the SWCC representative has been instructed to abstain in the event of any vote relating to further entrances to Ogof Draenen. This decision was taken at the last SWCC committee meeting after protracted discussion and deliberation. "

.. which only adds to my frustration that I knew nothing about this issue being on the agenda, being discussed or the decision that was made. Do committee agendas get sent to club members, or made available to them, in advance of meetings so that they have notice of what will be discussed? If so, how and where? If not, why not?

With respect, Steve, this isn't how committees work. You elect a committee at the AGM to manage the club's affairs and you either trust them to get on with it or stand yourself next time round. The minutes of our meetings are available in the club library; take a look sometime and then ask yourself why we don't consult with the wider membership on every issue.

 

[Ali Garman]

Thanks Tony,

There were a couple of factual inaccuracies in my earlier post, so thanks you for taking the time to set the record straight.

I guess this rather nicely makes the point about the limitations of these online forums. Just because a fact is given, normally in good faith, does not mean that it is correct. Even if the fact is incorrect, it will become a quotable fact unless someone who knows better corrects the original statement. There are many many many reasons why apparent facts are left unchallenged on these forums. Therefore the use of these forums as a source of facts, or for seeing a balanced discussion on a topic, is questionable, particular when people have an axe of some kind to grind.

cheers
Ali

 

[Tony_B]

Ali, thanks for your response. I should make it clear that none of what I wrote in my post was intended as criticism of you; it just happened that I thought the best way of responding to the flak aimed at the SWCC committee in this thread was to deal with the list of points you'd made.
Cheers,
Tony.

 

[pete_the_caver]

It now feels that the whole question of opening the "Second" entrance was a smoke screen.  By discussing the opening of an entrance ridiculously close the main entrance the question of other entrances further into the system could be broached once those apposed to the reopening of the second entrance were appeased. 

It may be of interest to those of you digging (or maybe now entering Draenen) up on Gilwern Hill that certain other SWCC members live on the Hill and they are watching you (for example, those of you who were up there on Wednesday the 8th of July).  So before you up the anti, consider why you want a second entrance, what will its existence do to the cave if it becomes widely known and used (airflow, traffic etc) and what of the political ramifications?  As to the ownership of the land (Gilwern Hill) as far as I know, it is the property of [landowner] and as far as I am aware, there are already limitations to the outdoor activities that can be carried out on his land so it is probably not a good idea to piss him off.

But remember... Big Brother is watching and (unlike you) can legally go up there with the machinery to sort the problem one way or the other

 

[NigR]

It may be of interest to those of you digging (or maybe now entering Draenen) up on Gilwern Hill.....

Pete,

Tell me, is this the third entrance (supposedly already in use) or another one altogether?

Which side of Gilwern Hill are you talking about?

I'm getting really confused now!


Just out of interest (although it really is none of your business), my wife and I were up on Gilwern Hill on the date you mention. So maybe it was us that you saw? You should have come over and said hello rather than simply spying from somewhere in the undergrowth. Nice evening wasn't it?

And why were we there ?

Because we had been asked by the Cambrian Caving Council's Conservation and Access Officer to go and take a look around on the ground in light of the current rumours concerning other entrances.

And what did we find?

Well, you'll never know now, will you?

 

[Ship-badger]

I have been reading through all of the various posts on the subject of second, third and fourth entrances to Ogof Draenen, and have finally plucked up the courage to add my twopennyworth.

Having discussed this at some length with a number of fellow cavers, both members of my Club (RFDCC) and work colleagues; here are my (our) thoughts;

1) Why do we go caving? Primarily because it is fun and exciting. Whether the people I cave with are unusual I cannot say, but the vast majority of them admit that conservation comes a poor third to fun and excitement.

2) What type of trip do most cavers love? A through-trip.

3) What do we hate? Access restrictions. We accept them where they are imposed upon us by landowners, but find it hard to accept them when they are imposed by fellow cavers.

I have some experience of attempting to conserve a precious cave, being Chairman of the RFDCC who, with GSS and Hades try to look after Otter Hole. We administer the access procedures, as instructed to do so by the landowner. Whilst we are content to do this, in order to maintain access for all, we are also actively digging in the hope of securing a second entrance. This would give us a superb through trip, with hopefully fewer (or no) access restrictions.

I do not personally know any of the members of the PDCMG (at least not that I am aware of), so I cannot say for sure that their actions are not based solely on a desire to conserve the cave. However, it looks to me as if their actions are, to some degree at least, guided by a desire to retain control over the cave (and who enter it). If this is at all the case, then they are acting for their own interests, and not those of either the cave or fellow cavers. I cannot say whether the "one entrance" stipulation was instigated by the landowner alone, or whether the landowner acted upon the advice given to him by the PDCMG.

Ogof Draenen appears to be a cave that has multiple entrances, albeit blocked with debris. I have not heard any suggestions regarding mining artificial entrances, merely digging out natural ones. This is what cavers do, so please get on with it.

I am going to read through the early accounts of Draenen exploration, and may be back with more.

 

[NigR]

Ship-badger,

Good to hear from you.

It is heartening to see such common-sense viewpoints expressed by someone not directly involved.

Just one clarification I can help you with:

I cannot say whether the "one entrance" stipulation was instigated by the landowner alone, or whether the landowner acted upon the advice given to him by the PDCMG.

Most definitely the latter, there is no doubt about that whatsoever.

 

[Rhys]

...Otter Hole... we are also actively digging in the hope of securing a second entrance. This would give us a superb through trip, with hopefully fewer (or no) access restrictions.

Hi Greg

Although I can't speak for all the diggers at Piccadilly Pot, I'd just like to say that personally I'm not digging with the aim of securing a second entrance to Otter Hole, but to find some virgin passage and missing kilometres of the Otter Hole system. If we end up creating a second entrance, well so be it. Currently, we're around 600m away horizontally and in the order of 100m away vertically, so there's plenty of space for new passage and no instant entrance! This is very different from digging directly into a known cave.

Anyway, at the moment, all the action is on hold while we focus our efforts on the other side of the Wye at Cowshill.

Rhys

 

[menacer]

If we end up creating a second entrance, well so be it.

A view shared by many, regardless of how it is achieved, whether accidentally or deliberately, the outcome remains the same.