UKC Conservation Rewards

[kay]

I was up at Yordas today and noticed that one of the rails of the fence round the top entrance had snapped, some time within the last few days. If people notice damage around cave entrances, it would be useful to tell the relevant Conservation Officer so that arrangements can be made for repair.

 

[bograt]

OK, I confess!, within the descriptions listed in this thread I am guilty of littering!;---
At the very end chamber of Lower Calesdale we ditched a rope and pulling bar, taken in there to do some rootling in the terminal choke, circumstances dictated that the rootling never took place so we left the stuff there intending to go back, since I am no longer fit enough to get there, and my accomplice is dead, it is unlikely either of us will revisit, anyone getting there, could you please remove our litter, or use it to rootle, or - whatever! --.

 

[Fulk]

With reference to the pictures of the Colonnades Chamber (Lancaster Hole) posted about a month ago, I'd like to say what a marvellous job Ray Duffy (and friends?) is (are) doing down there. They've uncovered, for example, crystalline floor that until recently was just a mud-covered walk-way. Congratulations to all concerned. 

 

[Badlad]

Well confessed Bograt.  I'm sure there will be a reward to anyone who brings your stuff out.

I'm afraid I believe it is up to the diggers to take responsibility for their own gear and make it known theirs is an active dig, rather than to put the onus on the Samaritan who might wish to clear it up.  Look at that container of crap the Badgers offered to bring out of Nettle Pot.  http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17705.0 
It had been there over ten years and the contents were unrecognisable.  The diggers actually told them to leave it there as they were thinking of returning to the dig.  It was only because a third party intervened that the Badgers got the ok to bring it out, and well done them.

There is literally tons of stuff in our caves, taken in with the best of digging intentions and never removed (Notts 2 is full of it).  We should not discourage those who wish to remove it.

 

[Cookie]

How about?

If unknown ? leave alone.

Which is pretty much what item 2 of the new Caving Code, currently circulating for consultation, says:

"2. Disturb nothing without consulting other cavers."  See last few pages from here.

Admittedly item 6 says:
"6 Do not pollute the cave, leave nothing behind."

Which doesn't really allow for ongoing digs. Maybe it should say "6 Do not pollute the cave, leave nothing behind without purpose." But that wouldn't be so punchy.

The supporting Minimum Impact Caving Guidelines say:

"12. Make a plan right from the beginning to remove all redundant equipment upon completion of an exploratory dig. If the dig fails ?to go? provision should be made to clear up before all interest is lost. Leave the dig in a safe and tidy condition. Seek help from other cavers if necessary."

Which makes a lot of sense.

Surely, if necessary, we should be educating the diggers to be responsible rather than giving all cavers a sense of entitlement to remove someone else's kit. 







 

 

[Bottlebank]

Well confessed Bograt.  I'm sure there will be a reward to anyone who brings your stuff out.

I'm afraid I believe it is up to the diggers to take responsibility for their own gear and make it known theirs is an active dig, rather than to put the onus on the Samaritan who might wish to clear it up.  Look at that container of crap the Badgers offered to bring out of Nettle Pot.  http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17705.0 
It had been there over ten years and the contents were unrecognisable.  The diggers actually told them to leave it there as they were thinking of returning to the dig.  It was only because a third party intervened that the Badgers got the ok to bring it out, and well done them.

There is literally tons of stuff in our caves, taken in with the best of digging intentions and never removed (Notts 2 is full of it).  We should not discourage those who wish to remove it.

I think you're wrong on that. The Nettle example is a great example of how to do it right. The Badgers contacted someone (me if it's the dig I'm thinking of) and established who owned the kit, and then got it sorted.

There's a difference between rubbish and kit owned by other people, if you want to crusade to get rubbish removed from caves fine but the emphasis should be on establishing ownership. When it comes to digging gear please encourage people to check with the owners before removing it.

I seem to recall a few complaints from you in the past when people have moved your gear.

 

[Badlad]

The supporting Minimum Impact Caving Guidelines say:

"12. Make a plan right from the beginning to remove all redundant equipment upon completion of an exploratory dig. If the dig fails ?to go? provision should be made to clear up before all interest is lost. Leave the dig in a safe and tidy condition. Seek help from other cavers if necessary."

Which makes a lot of sense.

Surely, if necessary, we should be educating the diggers to be responsible rather than giving all cavers a sense of entitlement to remove someone else's kit. 

I am pleased you think this makes sense.  It was part of my contribution to the Minimal Impact Code.

Much of the gear I am talking about has been abandoned in caves for years.  Many of those who put it there have either become too old to take it out, forgotten about it or passed away.  I am not suggesting that cavers remove stuff from an ongoing dig.  However, by suggesting that no one should touch anything in a cave which is not their own will mean that much of this stuff will rot there forever.  This would certainly apply to the 30+ loads of crap my friends and I have brought out of four well known caves in the last six months - and boy is there more.

By publicising the removal of abandoned gear I hope that diggers will think about what the MIC says and be better educated because of it.  How about;

Don't give a jot - leave it to rot 

 

[Badlad]

I think you're wrong on that. The Nettle example is a great example of how to do it right.

The Nettle gear had been left down the cave for 10 or 15 years at least.  There did not seem any intention of the original owners taking it out and the contents of the large tub had rotted to the point that it was unrecognisable.  The Badgers asked on this forum if anyone knew who owned if and were told by you:

It is an ongoing DCC dig. The diggers (Simon and Allan) would appreciate you leaving the gear in place, they're more than happy for anyone to have a dig but please let us know if it's looking good.
Thanks
Tony

A mutual friend who had worked down Nettle himself was horrified by this response as he knew the dig hadn't been worked in years.  He contacted the diggers himself and persuaded them that the offer of the Badgers should be accepted otherwise the stuff would be there for ever more.  They saw sense and the Badgers removed it. 

I appreciate your remarks about not touching gear at an active dig but leaving stuff festering for years on the off chance that someone may return is not a good option either.  As a digger yourself for many years I hope you will see the benefit of cleaning up some of these old abandoned dig sites as well as encouraging cavers to remove any litter that they see. 

 

[Bottlebank]

Badlad,

Whoever "horrified" was, I was simply passing on the message, I haven't been to the dig in Nettle and wasn't involved.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but really think your line below is wrong:

I'm afraid I believe it is up to the diggers to take responsibility for their own gear and make it known theirs is an active dig, rather than to put the onus on the Samaritan who might wish to clear it up.

You may believe that, I don't. If a self appointed Samaritan (which is something of a redefinition of the word in my opinion) wants to clean up someone else's kit he or she should be encouraged to make enquiries as to it's origins first.

Many diggers keep their digs low key and will not be inclined to publicise them just on the off chance some self appointed cave policeman/rubbish collector may decide to pop along and "tidy" their digging tools for them.

Common sense also applies, as I said earlier, obvious rubbish can be removed without a problem - the bottomless bucket being a case in point.

 

[cap n chris]

Totally disagree. Badlad is spot on.

 

[Inferus]

I was involved in a joint dig a while back, enthusiasm waned - not sure if the (very small amount of) equipment was taken out, moved elsewhere or left. Need to chase that one up.

I'm involved in an "active" dig in a notable system - it's not been touched for well over half a year! On the last visit I removed a few small items, no doubt the next time we get round to digging there a few more unused items will be removed. I'd be more than a little p'd off if a good Samaritan decided to remove any gear without first asking. I think it's obvious it's work in progress, gear will still be in good condition and information is in the public domain. Rotten/abandoned gear is a different matter and usually fairly obvious and with a quick bit of investigation (other cavers or on here for example) you might locate the owners and whether or not it's active, wanted or not.

A surface dig I was involved in, a very short "cave", currently has a tub residing in it - I know it's there and I know it needs removing at some point (the dig is effectively abandoned). This is not likely to be visited by anyone, unless you happen to having a look around the area, so it remains a handy place to "store" a tub. I don't fancy getting my clothes mucked up and it's not often I find myself in the area with caving gear on. It will be removed at some point in the future.....

On a lighter note; ten years or so back I was wandering around a fell (Casterton or Leck, can't recall) and looking at numerous shakeholes. In one I found an abandoned broad headed shovel, it had a bit of grass growing over it, broken shaft, looked a little worse for wear. I picked it up in my arms, offered words of encouragement and rescued it from its predicament.
At home the surgery began and using a combination of duct tape, spare carpet and cable ties (that's what I can see, can't recall further detail) I created a very short shaft shovel. It was used to good effect in the above mentioned surface/short cave dig and another nearby soft-sediment cave where we had a good relationship. It is still in reasonable condition and currently enjoying a happy retirement in my garden storage box and is occasionally used for scooping up leaves or other garden material. Reuse and recycle 

 

[Cookie]

By publicising the removal of abandoned gear I hope that diggers will think about what the MIC says and be better educated because of it.

That is a good idea and worthy of support.

If you know something is discarded rubbish then taking out of the cave is a good and worthy thing to do.

If you know digging gear is abandoned then taking it out of the cave is a good and worthy thing to do.

But it should be conditional on knowing. If you don't know, in other words you have doubt, then you should take the trouble to find out first. That's all I'm saying.

I agree with your message, I just don't like your slogan (If in doubt, take it out).

 

[cap n chris]

How about?

If unknown ? leave alone.

Which is pretty much what item 2 of the new Caving Code, currently circulating for consultation, says:

"2. Disturb nothing without consulting other cavers."  See last few pages from here.

I think this is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

What "other cavers"? Where, how, to what extent? Can you just ask two random cavers or do you have to do a regional online survey?

There's a drag tray/crate in Swildon's just before Sump 1. It contains three bits of rotting handle and a totally rusted out spade end. It must be several years old. Thousands of cavers have probably wandered past it since it was left lying there. It is OBVIOUSLY not actively being used*. Clearly it needs to be brought out. No-one needs to consult anyone about it. Frankly it's amazing it's still there.

* If someone claims that it is, they are lying.

 

[cap n chris]

If you know something is discarded rubbish then taking out of the cave is a good and worthy thing to do.

If you know digging gear is abandoned then taking it out of the cave is a good and worthy thing to do.

Agreed. Clearly if you visit a cave regularly and digging gear isn't being used from one year to the next then obviously it is abandoned, this is self-evident, I would consider this to equate to knowing.

 

[Cookie]

If you know something is discarded rubbish then taking out of the cave is a good and worthy thing to do.

If you know digging gear is abandoned then taking it out of the cave is a good and worthy thing to do.

Agreed. Clearly if you visit a cave regularly and digging gear isn't being used from one year to the next then obviously it is abandoned, this is self-evident, I would consider this to equate to knowing.

So would I.

 

[Cookie]

How about?

If unknown ? leave alone.

Which is pretty much what item 2 of the new Caving Code, currently circulating for consultation, says:

"2. Disturb nothing without consulting other cavers."  See last few pages from here.

I think this is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

What "other cavers"? Where, how, to what extent? Can you just ask two random cavers or do you have to do a regional online survey?

There's a drag tray/crate in Swildon's just before Sump 1. It contains three bits of rotting handle and a totally rusted out spade end. It must be several years old. Thousands of cavers have probably wandered past it since it was left lying there. It is OBVIOUSLY not actively being used*. Clearly it needs to be brought out. No-one needs to consult anyone about it. Frankly it's amazing it's still there.

* If someone claims that it is, they are lying.

Maybe the problem is trying to summarise nuanced concepts in rhyming sound bites.  :-\

 

[Ian Adams]

Another element .....

On a search for "new ground", the club members on a particular trip happened across some shakeholes. Most of these had no apparent entrances but one had a very tight squeeze that needed some work to get in and "appeared" to have never been entered ....

Once inside, we were crawling around with a sense of elation having entered a "new" cave system.

After a short while we found a pair of old gloves - had we not found them (had they been removed) we would have claimed the cave as "ours" (quite wrongly).  Upon investigation, it seemed the gloves belonged to an eminent published caver (or his colleague) from the early 70's .....

Rubbish that should have been removed ... ?

:doubt:

Ian

 

[graham]

Another element .....

On a search for "new ground", the club members on a particular trip happened across some shakeholes. Most of these had no apparent entrances but one had a very tight squeeze that needed some work to get in and "appeared" to have never been entered ....

Once inside, we were crawling around with a sense of elation having entered a "new" cave system.

After a short while we found a pair of old gloves - had we not found them (had they been removed) we would have claimed the cave as "ours" (quite wrongly).  Upon investigation, it seemed the gloves belonged to an eminent published caver (or his colleague) from the early 70's .....

Rubbish that should have been removed ... ?

:doubt:

Ian

The eminent published caver had not published this find? To misquote the late Professor Tratman:

if you don't publish it you haven't done it.

Trat actually said survey rather than publish but the implication was always that the survey would be published.

 

[Ian Adams]

Actually, he had surveyed/published his find but he had "lost it"  (GPS was not around in the 70's) and we were able to confirm it was his (and your point is well taken Graham).

.... I should also say (for clarity) I agree with Badlad's principle, I just think it is interesting to cite examples and debate (I don't think there is a "fixed line").



Ian

 

[Bottlebank]

Totally disagree. Badlad is spot on.

No he's not