Remembrance

[alastairgott]

I'm confused, you're contradicting yourself?

it would be good for cavers who truly care about the careful use of caves to withdraw support from the NSS

The reason we shouldn't waste energy on trying to influence or reform NSS is that caver attitudes are not NSS' fault. Ours is an entire culture of carelessness, waste, ignorance, narcissism, and destruction.

There is no luring in some cases, people find out about caves and want to go in them, what you need is people who know about the caves, who are willing to spend the time to guide the novices and show them where to be careful.

how do you do that? Either make them pay for a cave instructor (which some will just not do) or make them join a club (which again some will not do).

You pose many questions but give very few solutions.

I do not think that that will change. So what we really need is to stop luring people into caves. This is all about a reduction of traffic and trying to find ways to ensure that many of those who do cave have demonstrated, through some form of personal commitment, that they are more likely to be careful.

 

[NewStuff]

Yet again, as you have *never* answered this in any ogf your threads with this inane line of waffle - Who decides who can, and cannot, go into a cave, to achieve this reduction in traffic? What is the criteria? How long does it take to decide? What are the consequences of not giving a s**t and going in anyway?

 

[Simon Wilson]

I apologise kenilworth, I probably read into your posts a little too much there.

It seems like a good idea for you could be a UK caving trip and a real immersion in our 'scene'.
......
Perhaps the issue is not just with caving but a much deeper cultural malady?

If he was to broaden his outlook he might easily change his opinions vastly. Try caving in New Zealand South Island where they have big cave systems in wilderness areas and just a handful of cavers so impact is low yet they have laudable conservation ethics. Russia is similar.

In several countries they have big caves of World importance which have been destroyed or are under serious threat but the threat comes not from cavers but from building, mining, dam building and other hydrological change which totally eclipse the threat from cavers.

Then if he was to visit the North of England he would see a completely different aspect, where we have caves that are used freely and heavily for recreational caving but many of those caves are relatively immune to damage.

Threats to caves and attitudes to caves and the management and exploitation of caves by both cavers and others who threaten caves varies enormously across the World.

 

[Kenilworth]

You pose many questions but give very few solutions.

There is no contradiction. Cultural attitudes are not the fault of the NSS. NSS cannot be an island of sanity in an insane world. Much cave traffic is NSS' fault.

An overabundance of quick "solutions" is one of the tragedies of our age. The questions are important whether or not the answers are easy or even exist.

Nonetheless, I have offered several ideas for improvement, and I implement them, as I've said, in my own caving with gratifying results. I quote my previous ideas with the realization that they are very imperfect, and I have withdrawn my application of these ideas to British caving.

1. The elimination of recreational caving organizations as they now exist. These are both damaging and unnecessary.

2. The promotion of show caves and of wild recreational caves with completely open access. These would be, in effect, "sacrificial caves," in that they would cease to be pristine or even ecologically intact (this will happen, is happening, has happened, anyway). However these caves would be well-maintained, and the place where well-developed cave restoration techniques would best be applied.

3. The gating of exceptionally fragile caves, with strict access controls to be administered by those in the best position to know/care what is best for the cave. Ideally, to avoid monopoly, this would be, not a conservation group or any formal body, but the legal owner. The owner, then, must be well and fairly educated on the nature and significance of his holdings.

4. The removal, as far as possible, of cave location information from the public domain, including the internet and guidebooks. This is impossible to control, and it is much too late to be immediately effective in the UK. Here in the US confidentiality is currently the most effective conservation measure.

5. If any legislative remedies are sought by cavers who care about conservation, they should involve, not "rights of access," but prosecution of vandals. This would include (as much as I agree with the spirit of some posts from the CBC Hacksaw Officer) gate/lock choppers. Importantly, for this to be just, gate placement must also be just.

These big steps would make access more difficult. They would require more commitment from cavers. They would condense traffic into fewer, well-suited caves. They would all but eliminate traffic in select caves. There would then be a decrease in cavers and a decrease in total cave traffic while still allowing everyone complete freedom to work, to explore, to learn the land, locate caves, negotiate with owners if needed, develop relationships with owners, neighbors, communities and cavers, locate caves, go caving, and responsibly and carefully share information. The qualifier would be passion, not "membership." The net conservation effect would be positive.

This would not solve all of the problems. We cannot, obviously, solve the societal dilemma that has come from our divorce from nature. Discussing the solutions to those problems would be much more uncomfortable and divisive than any of the CROW battles. So I probably wrote myself into a corner when I criticized Chris for merely trying to control symptoms. That is all any of us can do. But we should try to cut as close to the root as we can.

There are also smaller, individual acts of care that I am practicing or trying to practice:
-Giving priority to photography over survey. This is hard. I like survey more than photography.
-Removing flagging tape wherever appropriate.
-Educating landowners, if possible by showing them. It is very rewarding to see owners develop an understanding and active care of caves on their property.
-Practicing discipline by avoiding unnecessary trips into fragile caves, or repeated aimless tours through the same fragile passage.
-Making survey trips long, thus reducing their total number.
-Maintaining secrecy. This sounds snobbish, but I see no dishonor in asking that visitors to a cave find and explore it on the same terms and through the same hard work that I did.
-Careful observation and careful travel.
-Self-education and meditation on the relative significance and value of cave features. Appropriately, everyone will arrive at different conclusions. Sincerity is the key.
 

Newstuff - I have answered your specific query numerous times. I will do it again.

Who decides who can, and cannot, go into a cave, to achieve this reduction in traffic?

The individual. Anyone who wants to go into a cave may do so freely. I am not advocating restricting caving, I'm suggesting a cessation of promoting caving and enfranchising cavers. This excepting the promotion of individual caves designed to catch high percentages of recreational and casual traffic.

What is the criteria? 

Initiative.

How long does it take to decide? 

To decide what?

What are the consequences of not giving a s**t and going in anyway? 

None. The only consequences for our actions should be tied to the effect they have on other people and on our valued surroundings. If we are caught in a cave against the wishes of the owner, for example, the consequences will be negative. But your question is based on a stubborn misconstruction of my premise and didn't really need answering.

 

[NewStuff]

No, you hadn't, you gave numerous "BCA+NSS  are BAD!" type retorts, but never actually answered my damn question.

Here's how I predict this going this time.

You try to get people to give up their hobby (Caving),on a website that contains many, any active cavers. Cavers laugh at you or ignore you, and go caving anyway.

If you want people to give up a hobby, you had better give them something orders of magnitude better than a few ill-formed, unsubstantiated theories while slagging off bodies that are perceived as doing good. It's not that I'm pro-club, but it suits most people better. Given that you seem to be realising that these, "ideas",  are alien to British caving as it is now, why do you persist in trying to push them forward?

 

[Ian Adams]

I wrote some conservation articles ....

Any chance we might see one or two of them?  It might help us to understand you better .....



Ian

 

[Alex]

We should have a red, white and blue organisation 

 

[PeteHall]

Out of interest Kenilworth, you seem to have a clear view of what you consider as "honourable" reason to visit a cave; I think this can briefly be summarised as "for the increase in scientific knowledge", but where does digging fit into your spectrum of reasons to cave?

Digging, or in fact any original exploration clearly fits the bill as far as increasing scientific knowledge, yet it has the most drastic affect on conservation. It's like buying a new car, the depreciation happens as soon as you take it out of the show room.

Assuming we are happy to endorse original exploration as "honourable", there is the question of capability. You would hardly want someone on an expedition with no caving experience or fitness and as far as I'm aware, the only way to be expedition fit is to cave regularly. So for those of us without new caves to discover on a daily basis, that basically involves recreational caving. Recreational caving then becomes a tool to keep fit and capable for "honourable" caving, therefore is surely "honourable" in its own right.

Next how about motivation. Forgive me if I am misquoting JRat, but I believe he said "you have to dig to remind yourself why you cave and you have to cave to remind yourself why you dig".
Most of us start out as recreational cavers, it's what builds the enthusiasm and passion that leads to "honourable" caving at a later date. Without people being interested in caves, there would be no increase in scientific knowledge.

And how about equipment? Recreational caving has lead to development of better equipment and techniques which allow for more productive and safer "honourable" caving with less impact on the caves.

Recreational caving is an essential driver for scientific caving, whether you like it or not.

 

[cooleycr]

As is often the case with these articles, we seem to have gone off-thread a few times but I think we are debating the affect of mankind on nature, specifically caves and I assume the erosion thereof.

In my part of the world we now have paving slabs going across the hills to protect the peat-bogs and steps cut into the sides of mountains to keep the looneys off the grass...
Is this right?
Do we need to lay concrete in the caves to protect the floors or do we just accept that we need to be a bit mindful whilst enjoying our pastime?
I wonder how many cavers would need to walk the same passage before it became noticeably eroded (as in more than that already caused by nature, without which we would have no caves!!!)?
 
I note that every response to Kenilworth has been from a UK-based caver so I would be interested to hear from others across the pond, for example it seems clear to me that, from her postings, for Amy (and her K9 buddies  ) exploration is very much a part of her hobby?

 

[alastairgott]

I wonder how many cavers would need to walk the same passage before it became noticeably eroded

It depends on what starting point you're basing this on?

An Unexplored system would have very little wear, I can only imagine what OFD 2 (top) looked like before it was opened up.
and similarly a system closed for a while, assuming that there are drips, could possibly repair the look of the floor (if for example it were mud).

Sediments would be irreversibly damaged by people walking off the beaten track, but by definition the 'beaten track' would be damaged.

Some bits have to be sacrificed to enable any future trips, say you have a mud pool in the middle of the passage (the only mud in the whole cave) but the cave was entirely made of Flowstone.
It would be nonsense to make even one person walk through the mud and potentially muddy up the whole cave, so it's necessary to force people to walk on the Flowstone.

In the peak district there is a great big wall of pristine clear/white flowstone which was rigged by someone bolting up it. but you had to crawl through mud to get there. the two leads at the top were checked out and the pitch derigged. thus keeping the damage to the dozen or so cavers that went up there.

 

[Kenilworth]

Pete - I do not like the term "scientific knowledge" and do not think that cave visitation needs to be science-driven, as science is usually understood. I'm not interested with raw information as much as I am with our willingness to put that information into some meaningful context and to practical use

My greatest love in caving is original exploration, but I am aware that it can be done with or without care and honor, and with or without learning much. I recognize in myself some impatient and greedy tendencies that have led to my exploring virgin cave in ways that I now regret.

Your point about expedition preparation is certainly a good one, and I agree that going into an expedition without the means to accomplish it is a waste. This is not something I've thought much about, since my caving is all domestic and independent of any group or new cavers whose fitness is in question.

There will always be people interested in caves, clubs or not. Whether they produce "data" or not is irrelevant. Again, I don't care about "science" but about our individual growth toward fuller understanding and care of caves. This can be done independently of scientists or clubs. As an example, there is an enormous amount of scientific data available regarding agriculture. A study of this could result in a pretty well-rounded understanding of what might constitute good farming. Farmers where I live do not care about good farming though, and are in the process of squeezing the last possible bits of cash out of their ground before selling to residential developers etc. Meanwhile, a farmer who truly cares for his ground does not need "science" to tell him how to be a good farmer. He needs to be attentive and responsive to his ground. Above all he needs to love it.

I have said many times that love of the land is the first step toward caring for caves. This sounds sentimental and yet it is the most practical statement I have ever made. A person who loves the land will recognize the harm done to it, and will see in an unspoiled cave an opportunity to make some small amends, to attempt a sort of reconciliation. A person who loves the land and mourns what is lost will of course love the cave, and love and value what of it has not yet been lost. A person who loves the cave cannot afford to be hasty or to be lazy. A person who loves the cave does not have to know everything, but he will learn from his mistakes and pretty soon he will know a lot. I wish to treat every new cave I find as a new world, born into my care. If you could go back in time, would you invite our current cultures into an unspoiled America or an unspoiled Britain or would you wish for a different evolution of our relationships with our land? I do not wish to invite our current cultures into unspoiled caves. I do not know how to instill a love for the land into current or potential cave explorers, so it is only with some feeling of desperation that I propose to slow cave traffic by any means possible.

 

[Ian Adams]

If you could go back in time, would you invite our current cultures into an unspoiled America or an unspoiled Britain or would you wish for a different evolution of our relationships ?.

It?s a very old argument and one that has no answer. The only possible outcome would be that we would (probably) not be where we are now.

For better or worse?

There have been theories/theologies drawn, books written and films made with every possible result from the benign to the bizarre.

?. A farmer who truly cares for his ground does not need "science" to tell him how to be a good farmer. He needs to be attentive and responsive to his ground. Above all he needs to love it.

Actually, no.  A farmer uses the land as a resource. To best utilise the resource for purpose he does need to know the science.  To be the best farmer you could argue that he would need to be attentive and responsive (and even to love) the science.

Would that not be a more accurate analogy for caves?


Also, I am still interested in this ?..

I wrote some conservation articles ....

Any chance we might see one or two of them?  It might help us to understand you better .....



Ian

Ian

 

[Kenilworth]

Ian, no good farmer that I've ever known views his land as a resource. Most are not good farmers though, and their ideas of successful farming are short-sighted and quantitative. True, scientific innovation has provided higher yields (which they no doubt love) but this does not make them good farmers, or students of farming, merely consumers.

My point is that we should not use the word "science" to refer only to scholarly data. Learning is learning, knowledge is knowledge, information is information. All of these are available to all, and to learn is our life's work. So we need to quit leaving the learning up to paid professionals. Depending on a commercially motivated third party to advise us of best practice is lazy and unnecessary. Farmers can be their owns scientists, and so can cavers.

I wrote some conservation articles ....

Any chance we might see one or two of them?  It might help us to understand you better .....



Ian

I believe that the latest was printed in a springtime issue (Feb. or March?) of NSS News in 2013 or '14. It dealt with the management of a group of caves that have been purchased by a pretty conservative preservationist group. As I recall, I recounted over a century's worth of the history of the caves' usage and argued that their closure by the new owner could not accomplish much from an ecological standpoint, the caves already having been terribly damaged, and that their longtime recreational use had been valuable in diverting traffic from other nearby caves.

I haven't got any copies I can post, as I compose on paper and throw away/delete everything once submitted. Since I'm not an NSS member anymore I can't access online issues published within the last 5 years.

 

[Ian Adams]

It's a pity you are not able to share any of the articles you wrote, I expect they would have gone a long way into providing a good insight into your thinking.

Your rebuttal on the science Vs. farmers though, does not appear to be supporting your earlier statement. Rather, it seems to be accepting that "science" is integral in both farming and caving.

In this country, not many recreational cavers depend on "commercially motivated third parties" to advise us of best practice for caving. Farming, however, is a commercial activity.


Ian

 

[Kenilworth]

Yes, science is integral in caving, farming, and life. By science I mean learning. The science that we do not necessarily need is professional science, which is often aimless.

 

[Simon Wilson]

... The science that we do not necessarily need is professional science, which is often aimless.

Have you done any higher education? I mean degree level.

 

[crickleymal]

The science that we do not necessarily need is professional science, which is often aimless.

What? That's precisely the science we do need.

 

[Fulk]

I don?t know for sure, but my guess is that we wouldn?t have, for example, brilliant, bright LED lights if someone hadn?t been doing ?aimless? research (science) and stumbled across LEDs.

 

[Vulcan]

What has professional science ever done for us?

I don?t know for sure, but my guess is that we wouldn?t have, for example, brilliant, bright LED lights if someone hadn?t been doing ?aimless? research (science) and stumbled across LEDs.

Or electricity, computers, phones, cars, antibiotics, modern medicine, aeroplanes, concrete, steel, glass...

 

[Simon Wilson]

We aren't hating on you Kenilworth. We were all young once. Here's some advice - it's something I think everybody should do if they can but particularly Americans. Take a year out and go to a few other places - try India for starters.