In reply to cavermark, my worry is more in regard to that gate being a permanent fixture, and the idea of a guide for a passage that has been described as 10 mins of easy walking. I am not a cave digger I am afraid and have no interest in pirating a dig. I don't know if I fully agree with the idea that the discoverers have the right to do as they wish in terms of access, I think there should always be some consideration of the local practices. I am a regular visitor to this particular hole (about twice a year) and will sign up to the procedure that has just been put in place because I am very keen to see and photograph the new passage (but that doesn't mean I totally agree with it), cheers Jon
Water Icicle Extensions?
- Thread starter zomjon
- Start date
Maisie Syntax
Active member
Cavermark makes the point of - "Is it not the diggers' perrogative to choose whether to gate or not to gate until they feel they have done the exploration/conservation work?"
Surely some of this depends as to who exactly is paying for the gate?
If every digger in the Peak suddenly wanted a gate fitting to their project on "exploration/conservation" grounds, how long before the DCA is bankrupt?
Surely some of this depends as to who exactly is paying for the gate?
If every digger in the Peak suddenly wanted a gate fitting to their project on "exploration/conservation" grounds, how long before the DCA is bankrupt?
Peter Burgess
New member
That's a good point. But I see it slightly differently. If a group depend on another party to fund gating, then the members of the funding group ought to have a certain amount of say in the matter of future access. Which is where Jenny is coming from - she has made it perfectly clear what the DCA position is on what is going to happen, hasn't she?
Peter Burgess
New member
That depends on how the DCA works. How it's constitution pans out in terms of representation. I would expect the 'executive' body to be granted the authority to act on behalf of its members, and be under scrutiny on a regular basis, whereby individuals are liable to be replaced should they act contrary to the wishes of the majority. They may not need to ask anybody, but act with the chance that they might get removed. And that kinda assumes that someone else is prepared to do the job instead.
El Agreb
Member
Of course it went well! I am on tenterhooks waiting for the publication of their research paper.Rob said:
The benefits of the study for humankind are probably far reaching, life will never be the same, every household in the UK will likely feel the effect to some degree or other. The foundries of Sheffield will probably burst into life again with the sudden demand for gates, locksmiths will come out of retirement in response to the market forces that will surge all due to the fact there is mud in caves.
Sadly everything has a downside and because of this remarkable cave the Sheffield steelworkers will have to give up stripping and go back to day job due to the revitalisation of their industry. The knock on will be that pubs and clubs will close and breweries will go out of business.
However looking on the brighter side again oversuits will stay cleaner and last longer if we are not allowed to go into these mucky places plus we will all save a fortune if we do not have to buy any more ludicrously priced lights.
Maisie Syntax
Active member
So what have we learned so far?
All new bits of cave have the potential to contain important scientific 'stuff'.
Cavers on the whole are not best placed to decide what is or is not potentially important 'stuff'. (As has been described on previous posts on this thread - we do not realise the true potential for stratifed mud / clastic sediments etc. Instead being guided blindly by those whores of the underground known as pretties).
Cave scientists are the only true people who can distinguish between potentially important 'stuff' and actual important 'stuff'.
To preserve the potentially important 'stuff' until such time as a bonafide cave scientist can impartially assess and establish as to whether said 'stuff' is important and if so, ascertain it's true significance (or lack thereof) - cavers will need to be excluded from the area to avoid contaminating the area under observation.
Now we all know that some cavers are little monkeys, and that when told not to do something will, as is human nature, go and do it anyway. The potentially important 'stuff' will need to be protected from these people.
There are also other types of caver; for example, those who assume the high moral ground on such matters and believe that their caving style enables them to pass over/around/underneath any potentially important 'stuff' without the slightest possible chance of contamination, including that from conservation tape. The potentially important 'stuff' will need to be protected from these people too.
The logical conclusion it would seem, is that any new stretch of cave passage must be assessed for potentially important 'stuff' by a bonafide cave scientist, before any other caver whatsoever is allowed to enter.
As has already been alluded to above - some cavers obviously can't be trusted to do this, whilst some believe they are gifted with the attributes of non-contamination.
Using the reasoning used so far for placing the gate in this section of cave passage, from now on, shouldn't all new sections of cave passage be gated and access denied - even by the discoverer's, until such time as the true scientific value of the potential 'stuff' has been scientifically realised?
Alternatively, we could put some sort of perspetive on this.
Massive loss of life from flooding in Pakistan - millions with no food or shelter - widespread disease imminent.
For f*cks sake - take the bloody gate off, nobody go in and trash it (and if they do will anyone die?), and everyone just get a life.
All new bits of cave have the potential to contain important scientific 'stuff'.
Cavers on the whole are not best placed to decide what is or is not potentially important 'stuff'. (As has been described on previous posts on this thread - we do not realise the true potential for stratifed mud / clastic sediments etc. Instead being guided blindly by those whores of the underground known as pretties).
Cave scientists are the only true people who can distinguish between potentially important 'stuff' and actual important 'stuff'.
To preserve the potentially important 'stuff' until such time as a bonafide cave scientist can impartially assess and establish as to whether said 'stuff' is important and if so, ascertain it's true significance (or lack thereof) - cavers will need to be excluded from the area to avoid contaminating the area under observation.
Now we all know that some cavers are little monkeys, and that when told not to do something will, as is human nature, go and do it anyway. The potentially important 'stuff' will need to be protected from these people.
There are also other types of caver; for example, those who assume the high moral ground on such matters and believe that their caving style enables them to pass over/around/underneath any potentially important 'stuff' without the slightest possible chance of contamination, including that from conservation tape. The potentially important 'stuff' will need to be protected from these people too.
The logical conclusion it would seem, is that any new stretch of cave passage must be assessed for potentially important 'stuff' by a bonafide cave scientist, before any other caver whatsoever is allowed to enter.
As has already been alluded to above - some cavers obviously can't be trusted to do this, whilst some believe they are gifted with the attributes of non-contamination.
Using the reasoning used so far for placing the gate in this section of cave passage, from now on, shouldn't all new sections of cave passage be gated and access denied - even by the discoverer's, until such time as the true scientific value of the potential 'stuff' has been scientifically realised?
Alternatively, we could put some sort of perspetive on this.
Massive loss of life from flooding in Pakistan - millions with no food or shelter - widespread disease imminent.
For f*cks sake - take the bloody gate off, nobody go in and trash it (and if they do will anyone die?), and everyone just get a life.
Peter Burgess
New member
Never mind, all those itching to get in there will soon be able to make proper use of the cave mud.
Goydenman
Well-known member
Not sure I go with that Peter but willing to be persuaded. If our club makes a gate for another club or pays for it I do not expect by that to have a say over future access I would just see it as helping them out. As for access I would seek the interests of the general caving community.Peter Burgess said:
Peter Burgess
New member
It depends on the model of representation adopted by the body concerned. If that's how the DCA is set up, then you agree to the process when you join it.
whitelackington
New member
Looks to me that The Peaks are going down the Draenen road.
What a shame.
What a shame.
Peter Burgess
New member
Of course, if individual cavers feel passionately about stuff like this, they can always lobby their own club officers to in turn lobby the other DCA members to have it discussed at a DCA meeting. Personally, I think there are far better things to be done with our time, like caving, digging, and dowsing.Peter Burgess said:
Peter Burgess
New member
I don't think so, Mick. Have you not noticed that Derbyshire cavers don't seem to take life so seriously as certain Welsh cavers do!whitelackington said:
DAN
New member
Pete how do you mannage to have so much time on your hands that you are able to argue on nearly everything that goes on everywhere. I only ever read the stuff which may effect me directly i.e stuff going on Local to me as i would never have the time coment on everything going on everywhere.
Peter Burgess
New member
We are all different Dan. It's a curious fact that the busiest people tend to be those who will always find the time to do something more.
DCA agreed to pay for this particular gate, after discussion at a DCA Council meeting, because the request to gate the extension came from DCA itself, not from Orpheus.
DCA would not normally pay for gating a cave in such a way that it requires restricted access/lock/leadership system unless it was at the express request of the landowner. Our preferred method of protecting caves/mines where there are conservation issues or the landowner expresses concern is to install a gate/lid fitted with nut/bolt which requires a large adjustable spanner to undo it: "a Derbyshire key", so that it is accessible to all cavers who know the system but casual visitors are deterred.
This particular situation arose at Water Icicle because an Orpheus member made a detailed presentation on the new discovery to a meeting on Cave Conservation at which a Natural England representative was present as well as DCA representatives and cave scientists. The scientific importance of the discovery was immediately recognised and all those present at this meeting were concerned that the new section should be conserved as far as possible in view of its scientific importance. However, the meeting did not specifically request that it be gated.
Following this meeting, DCA representatives, including those who had been at the conservation meeting, discussed the matter and agreed that a gate was the only practical solution; we had in mind the recent vandalism at Giants and the fact that persons unknown had already been into the new section, despite a polite request from the diggers to stay out for the time being. It was agreed the matter must be raised at the DCA Council meeting due to take place shortly afterwards. The situation was explained to those present at the DCA meeting and it was agreed that this was an exceptional situation and that Orpheus should be asked if a gate could be installed, which DCA would pay for. It was also agreed that if, a gate was installed, Orpheus should be asked if they would manage the access.
The matter was raised at an Orpheus Committee meeting later the same day, which accepted the need to gate the discoveries while scientific work took place and on the understanding that DCA itself would pay for the gate. Orpheus also agreed to manage the access and have now set up the system which allows this to happen.
This is an exceptional situation and all those involved have thought long and hard about how best to deal with it - the decision to gate the newly discovered section was not taken lightly. Any future decisions about the gate will also involve full discussion with everyone concerned with the scientific work and the conservation of the new section.
Jenny Potts
DCA Hon. Sec.
DCA would not normally pay for gating a cave in such a way that it requires restricted access/lock/leadership system unless it was at the express request of the landowner. Our preferred method of protecting caves/mines where there are conservation issues or the landowner expresses concern is to install a gate/lid fitted with nut/bolt which requires a large adjustable spanner to undo it: "a Derbyshire key", so that it is accessible to all cavers who know the system but casual visitors are deterred.
This particular situation arose at Water Icicle because an Orpheus member made a detailed presentation on the new discovery to a meeting on Cave Conservation at which a Natural England representative was present as well as DCA representatives and cave scientists. The scientific importance of the discovery was immediately recognised and all those present at this meeting were concerned that the new section should be conserved as far as possible in view of its scientific importance. However, the meeting did not specifically request that it be gated.
Following this meeting, DCA representatives, including those who had been at the conservation meeting, discussed the matter and agreed that a gate was the only practical solution; we had in mind the recent vandalism at Giants and the fact that persons unknown had already been into the new section, despite a polite request from the diggers to stay out for the time being. It was agreed the matter must be raised at the DCA Council meeting due to take place shortly afterwards. The situation was explained to those present at the DCA meeting and it was agreed that this was an exceptional situation and that Orpheus should be asked if a gate could be installed, which DCA would pay for. It was also agreed that if, a gate was installed, Orpheus should be asked if they would manage the access.
The matter was raised at an Orpheus Committee meeting later the same day, which accepted the need to gate the discoveries while scientific work took place and on the understanding that DCA itself would pay for the gate. Orpheus also agreed to manage the access and have now set up the system which allows this to happen.
This is an exceptional situation and all those involved have thought long and hard about how best to deal with it - the decision to gate the newly discovered section was not taken lightly. Any future decisions about the gate will also involve full discussion with everyone concerned with the scientific work and the conservation of the new section.
Jenny Potts
DCA Hon. Sec.
