What should be brought out?

[al]

Old crap underground is interesting. What appears to be centuries old quarrymen's droppings in an old underground quarry, on closer inspection, seem to contain things like remains of insects and small mammals. Quarrymen used to eat some weird stuff! But in 200 years time will anybody want to know what the average caver used to eat back in the old days?

Sounds like owl pellets. Is that possible, where you found them?

 

[Inferus]

I don't want to get embroiled in arguing the toss about what should stay or go, but do have a question (or two) based on what I've skim-read above (apologies if already asked/answered).

Are we saying that what is unnaturally brought in to a cave and dumped is actually good for the cave? Is it really necessary to assist life underground like on the surface where farming, building and many other factors need to be counteracted? Are we altering the balance by bringing in and dumping - or maybe by fencing open shafts we are depriving life underground of essential nutrients from suicidal sheep? 

I'm not a scientist, biologist or anything remotely similar, just a curious caver..

 

[graham]

I don't want to get embroiled in arguing the toss about what should stay or go, but do have a question (or two) based on what I've skim-read above (apologies if already asked/answered).

Are we saying that what is unnaturally brought in to a cave and dumped is actually good for the cave? Is it really necessary to assist life underground like on the surface where farming, building and many other factors need to be counteracted? Are we altering the balance by bringing in and dumping - or maybe by fencing open shafts we are depriving life underground of essential nutrients from suicidal sheep? 

I'm not a scientist, biologist or anything remotely similar, just a curious caver..

The answer is yes, or possibly no. Got that? The fact is that every case can be different and should be considered on its own merits.

Sadly that may sometimes be complicated and lead to hasty decisions being made.

 

[Chocolate fireguard]

I'm not sure that I understand, but are you saying that someone had a crap in White River Series and it was still identifiable and removable 20 years later?

That, if true, says quite a lot about the energy level of environment in that particular piece of cave passage.

For years there were 2 ammo boxes up in White River, opposite the entrance to Watt Passage.
The word in local caving circles was that they contained crap.
When we took the lids off we found plastic bags which seemed to contain stuff of the correct consistency.
Dragging the first along Watt Passage went without incident.
The second one leaked. Only a bit, but enough for the nature of the contents to be obvious to me and others.

Ok that makes a lot more sense. It makes perfect sense that you took these things out. The ecological niche that i referred to was clearly inside the boxes and separate from the cave passage. You knew that they'd been there for a considerable time. No-one would, I think, argue that a couple of boxes in a fairly recently discovered section of cave constituted something of archaeological significance ammo cans ghardly indicate prior entry by T'owd Man. The purpose of a sealed box of this nature is to prevent its contents interacting with the environment and the contents were quite obviously not going to be of use anywhere else in the cave even before your conclusion as to what they were became fully apparent. Shame that one of the cans leaked, possibly bringing them out whilst wrapped in something else would have been preferable but almost anything can be done better in hindsight.

Nope, no problem with this one.

Thank you.
Next time we'll ask first, obviously.

 

[Simon Wilson]

As a biologist I would be reluctant to remove any organic material as it might contain cave animals.

So if there is an old abandoned caver's bivouac with mouldy food remains, rotting woolen clothing, cotton/feather sleeping bags and canvas bags it should all be left as it is?

Yes.

Thanks for clearing that up. So now we don't need to bother carrying anything out of a cave as long as it is organic. And I'll start straight away enhancing every cave I visit by taking in all the organic rubbish I can find and dumping it around.

Gaping Gill would make a great landfill site. It would be able to take all the organic rubbish that North Yorkshire County Council has to deal with for years. Once it was full people wouldn't be able to visit any more so it would put a stop to the winch meets but there would be lots of cave animals down there and so the cave would have been improved no end.

 

[Badlad]

Interesting thread.  It was my understanding that organic material left in caves by humans was generally a bad thing for eco-systems and the critters that live there.  Certainly there are many cave conservation groups around the world who insist that cavers leave nothing organic (or otherwise) behind.  Material such as faeces, timber, food tend to create a population explosion in delicate life forms which soon leads to catastrophic collapse when the food source is used up. 

In tropical areas organic material such as guano and flood debris will sustain large populations but these sources are constant.  Have a crap in these tropical caves and it will be gone by morning.  Further north, in the UK for example, it will be a very unpleasant mess for a long time to come.

There seem to be very few items in caves that need to be there or do any good.  Anchors for pitches, some fixed aids, some emergency dumps, dive lines, active digging or other project equipment and anything of Pitlamps 

 

[Kenilworth]

The fact that material supports cave life is not always a good reason to leave it lying about. Cave "conservationists" are often hugely hypocritical in that they will fight to preserve cave life but neglect to care for above ground creatures, or features, or other things of value. Graham has correctly answered this question several times with "it depends". Depends on what though?

Conservation is the protection of things of value from waste or depletion. If a pile of rotting food and a caver turd are lying in the middle of your cave passage, you must decide what is more valuable; the creatures that are eating the rubbish, or the aesthetics of the cave? In most cases, I care more about the human appreciation of a special place. Let's not pretend that we do not routinely kill tiny creatures by the thousands in our selfishness and even by our honorable movements upon our world. To decide that this natural give and take of things should not continue once we enter the underground is to deny our right to be there at all. Even conscientious people have differing values. Become a decent and a caring and a careful person and then do whatever you think is right, and you'll naturally become the best kind of "conservationist".

 

[Pitlamp]

Interesting thread.  It was my understanding that organic material left in caves by humans was generally a bad thing for eco-systems and the critters that live there.  Certainly there are many cave conservation groups around the world who insist that cavers leave nothing organic (or otherwise) behind.  Material such as faeces, timber, food tend to create a population explosion in delicate life forms which soon leads to catastrophic collapse when the food source is used up. 

In tropical areas organic material such as guano and flood debris will sustain large populations but these sources are constant.  Have a crap in these tropical caves and it will be gone by morning.  Further north, in the UK for example, it will be a very unpleasant mess for a long time to come.

There seem to be very few items in caves that need to be there or do any good.  Anchors for pitches, some fixed aids, some emergency dumps, dive lines, active digging or other project equipment and anything of Pitlamps 

I'm glad you cleared that up in your last few word Badlad 

But my point remains - you shouldn't just automatically remove everything from a cave without being sure it's genuinely the best course of action. That's what the "If in doubt, bring it out" mantra is saying - and that's why I think you should consider abandoning it. Apart from this I think the initiative is a great idea! 

 

[cap n chris]

timber

A particular non-favourite underground material.

 

[graham]

Kenilworth and Pitlamp are both correct. Every decision is situation-dependent. You need to know what something is, why it is there and most importantly what you are trying to achieve in changing the current situation.

For example:

timber

A particular non-favourite underground material.

Yes.
.
.
.
And yet on another thread no-one, no-one at all, has criticised the amount of it currently being introduced to Eldon Hole.

Every situation needs be treated on its own merits.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Old crap underground is interesting. What appears to be centuries old quarrymen's droppings in an old underground quarry, on closer inspection, seem to contain things like remains of insects and small mammals. Quarrymen used to eat some weird stuff! But in 200 years time will anybody want to know what the average caver used to eat back in the old days?

Sounds like owl pellets. Is that possible, where you found them?

Off topic - probably fox.

 

[cap n chris]

Every situation needs be treated on its own merits.

Totally agree. My one-liner did not contain the adequate caveat; timber left in situ, serving no purpose, is a particular non-favourite. Serving a useful purpose is OK.

 

[graham]

Every situation needs be treated on its own merits.

Totally agree. My one-liner did not contain the adequate caveat; timber left in situ, serving no purpose, is a particular non-favourite. Serving a useful purpose is OK.

And yet its biological effects will be the same. Which brings me on to the next point. if we are to successfully conserve our caves we need to think more about managing them on an ongoing basis rather than simply doing the odd random litter pick. So, if you need timber in a shaft then you need to look after it over time.

 

[Bottlebank]

But my point remains - you shouldn't just automatically remove everything from a cave without being sure it's genuinely the best course of action. That's what the "If in doubt, bring it out" mantra is saying - and that's why I think you should consider abandoning it. Apart from this I think the initiative is a great idea! 

I completely agree, the "If in doubt.." line is the opposite of what should be happening. Also the main ad on the front page of the forum doesn't include or highlight the line "Please don't remove any active scientific, rescue or digging equipment - ask on UKC for clarification if required." which is a shame, and as previously pointed out simply asking on UKC is not enough.

You'll never keep all the people happy all the time but I'd like to see it reworded in a way that far more of us could fully support it.

On a related note CNCC shared this on Facebook last night - http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/nostalgia/nostalgia_history/13495370.Potholers_step_back_in_time_on_Malham_estate/?ref=fbshr

 

[Over the Hill]

I see we are talking a load of (old) crap again. 

 

[cavermark]

On the timer shoring issue (being a bit devils advocate)...

I know one digger that advocates "design it to last a thousand years" - think roman stonework and the like. The neat dry stone walling in the wet sink entrance is an example of this in practice.
Even scaffold tubes rot in time - who will do the repair work in 30 or so years?  If it's a trade route there is usually no problem getting volunteers and funding, if not then will they eventually collapse into a mess of rusty metal, rotten timber, mud and rocks?
And the question of what to replace it with - concrete - expensive and labour intensive?

The other option is dig back to solid walls - then there is no shoring required (this works well in a shaft up to about 3m diameter if an efficient hauling system is in place and plenty of space for spoil  (eg Rana hole in Scotland). It also leaves an attractive "natural" cleaned washed shaft). Templetons is an example of this on a big scale, but obviously progress is slow and lots of heavy engineering is required.

Diggers seem to remain motivated and interest high if progress is reasonably rapid, which has a positive feedback effect - people keep coming back and progress remains rapid.
The scaffold and timber shoring technique seems to be good for this, many breakthroughs may not have happened with alternative, slower approaches, so that's the justification at the outset... what's the long term plan maintenance plan though?

 

[Simon Wilson]

Spot on cavermark.

Meanwhile, back on topic.

If in doubt, bring it out.

The onus is entirely on the owner to remove doubt.

 

[Simon Wilson]

As a biologist I would be reluctant to remove any organic material as it might contain cave animals.

I'm still puzzled about this statement. Timber taken into caves is highly likely to be treated with preservative even if you're not aware of it. Old native timber such as that common in mines is a completely different thing. Modern preservatives are very good at killing all manner of micro-organisms and small invertebrates so surely it's always better out than in.

The micro-organisms living on organic matter such as food and textiles taken into a cave, I would have thought, are likely to be mostly those micro-organisms taken in with the food and textiles and not originating in the cave. So again, better out than in, I would have thought.

I have cleared up underground camps and my instinct has always been to remove organic matter first as the most harmful to the cave environment. Maybe my instinct is wrong - what do I know, I'm not a biologist.

 

[Badlad]

If in doubt, bring it out.

The onus is entirely on the owner to remove doubt.

Exactly - plus a little bit of common sense.

 

[graham]

Simon

I could have shown you some modern timber in a French show cave that was undeniably being eaten by various fungi & bugs. I can't now 'cos last time I was there, it had been removed. There is no doubt it was modern timber, though. It is possible that the upshot of this is that the most appropriate way of dealing with recent timber shuttering is to regularly treat with preservatives. Going to be a bit of a bugger reaching round to do the far side, mind.

And what happens when all the active diggers have retired/died/moved to Spain? Who is going to take the maintenance work on then?