Dedicated to the world of outdoor sports, travel and adventure.

Argument against new entrances - Andy Waddington

Go back

Graham Mullan says

I believe that the earliest access limitation placed on a (whole) cave by cavers to protect it from other cavers (and for no other reason) only occurred as late as 1983... (in the UK)

Only wrong by a few decades, Graham :-) The British Speleological Association took out a lease covering the newly discovered Lancaster Hole in 1946?, 1948? (or about then anyway) with a view to excluding all except those conducting "scientific research". The discoverers and initial explorers were among those excluded. The politics surrounding Eli Simpson and the BSA at that time would fill a book, and I am not qualified to write on the subject. However, the closure was seen as selfish and elitist and led to a great deal of bad feeling and a lot of subterfuge, including the lid being secured with special drilled-out hollow bolts which could be sheared off to gain access, and replaced with a new set afterwards to conceal the fact.

One way or another, the situation led to the formation of at least two Yorkshire clubs, the Red Rose and the Northern Pennine clubs (who between them were largely responsible for the exploration of the Easegill Caverns and reentry to "the Promised Land"). Continuing politics among the "scientists" led to the formation of the Cave Research Group of Great Britain, which was constitutionally forbidden from owning tackle or (I believe) from controlling access to caves. Those at the forefront of the closure of Lancaster Hole were long dead or inactive before the eventual merger of the BSA and CRG to form BCRA in 1971.

All this from an eventually futile attempt to close access to just one cave.

I quote the above, not to argue against Graham's line that access control is needed, but to warn of the dangers of handling such closure insensitively. Excluding those who, for whatever reason, feel they have a right of access, is ultimately doomed to failure, and can cause a great deal of damage to cave, landowner relations and inter-caver relations on the way.

I would strongly agree with Graham Proudlove that caves which protect their own resources by being difficult of access should be left in that state. I deplore the opening of a new entrance to "Cave X" to facilitate exploration when the cave was already perfectly accessible to those prepared to work hard enough. I similarly deplore the blasting out of Mistral Hole, and the failure of the explorers of Link Pot to carry out their stated intention of sealing the entrance some time after connecting it to the rest of Pippikin/Easegill for example - I'm sure UK cavers can think of plenty of other examples.

However, this is the real world, and what cavers do is not subject to democratic control by the caving community at large - many of whom would anyway opt for the easiest access. Educating cavers is a massive task, and a continuing one as new people join the sport. Perhaps a more realistic objective would be the education of landowners to prevent their granting permission for new entrances to be dug. In the case of a cave where the dig is remote from the surface however, what chance the owner knew what was going on or was asked for permission ?

I do not believe that cavers in the UK want "regulating". It is totally

contrary to the traditions of the activity. If a caving club wishes to open

an entrance, it is up to that caving club, ideally in consultation with the

landowner, to decide its own policy on access restriction to that cave. Most

clubs would wish to keep others out during ongoing exploration - it used to

be possible to rely on the courtesy and goodwill of other cavers to respect

this, and this is essentially what Nick Williams is asking for in his post.

It is to be hoped that his point of view prevails - and that damage of the

order of that previously (and erroneously ?) reported does not occur.

But nowadays either secrecy or security seems to be essential. In any

case, this is not something that will be accepted if imposed "from above"

by any body purporting to be a "regulating" or "controlling" or "national"

body. Perhaps rather more respect is granted in each region for its own

regional caving council. At least in the north, the CNCC started out as a

response by cavers to landowners restricting access, so its founding

philosophy is respected despite the common view of it as summed up in a

verse from "The Leck Fell Affair":

Permission is granted by means that are shoddy,

by a fucking politically corrupt body,

that spouts endless bullshit at meetings in pubs,

The Council of Northern Caving Clubs.

Having said that about executive control, then the actual ideas expressed by

Mark with regard to quarantine are fine - just a matter of using a bit of

steel and concrete to enforce what used to be the norm. Unfortunately,

people using the "traditions of freedom" as an excuse, tend to see such

gating as an irresistable challenge. If people have explosives and crowbars

for digging (which they obviously do) then it won't be long before their

attention is drawn to the perceived injustice of being unable to get into a

cave because someone else has thought to impose their own access controls.

Funnily enough, they probably wouldn't have thought of banging their way in

when it was a natural restriction - ie. a dig.

Sadly, the only way to keep the fringe element out of such caves is not to

open easy access into them at all. Accept the challenge of the remoteness

of such a cave, but bear in mind the possible back way in, just in case there

is a serious rescue needed.

Graham Mullan said:

> It was, and is, possible to carry sufficient air in to continue exploration

> but to do so was beyond the resources that were available now, likely to be

> available in the future and would constitute an unacceptable risk to the

> explorers....

So this is an excuse ? It doesn't sound like reasoning that would apply in

the kindred sport of mountaineering or many other such activities. Caving

does seem to be the only adventure sport where it is commonly deemed

acceptable to reduce the challenge in the interests of an easy life. Look at

the banging of Mistral which all but destroyed the cave. Why is opening an

easy back entrance to Dale Barn not seen as defeating the object of a visit?

How about Blowing the top 1000m of Everest so more people can do the trip

with less resources and avoiding "unacceptable risk"? Unacceptable to whom?

Opening a back entrance denies the choice of whether or not to accept that

risk to ALL future cavers, as it removes any benefit - a feeling familiar

to anyone who has slogged up a high mountain to meet tourists on the top

who have come up via the telepherique.

Some places in caving should *remain* hard to reach.

Andy Waddington on Cavers' Digest" <CaverForum@pennine.demon.co.uk>

To: cavers@ditell.com

Subject: re: Second entrances

Graham Mullan says (quoting me):

> > If a caving club wishes to open

> >an entrance, it is up to that caving club, ideally in consultation with the

> >landowner, to decide its own policy on access restriction to that cave

> Sorry, the law says it is up to the landowner, occasionally in consultation with

> English Nature or other statutory bodies. If cavers act regardless of the

> landowner's wishes then they deserve all that they get. _Ideally_ don't enter

> into it.

I'm also sorry that Graham seems to have misread what I wrote there - he

seems to think I argue that a caving club can open an entrance entirely at

its own behest.

Graham, the law says NOTHING about how a caving club decides its own

*policy* (unless you count the conspiracy laws, which is stretching the

point). It has plenty to say on what the club is allowed to do in the way of

digging or gating, but in terms of *deciding* what it *wants* to do, ie.

"its policy on access restriction" or indeed its "policy on opening new

entrances" it *IS* _entirely_ up to the caving club.

The point is that until you have policy, you can't approach a landowner and

conduct meaningful negotiations. As you say, the law requires that you do

that before opening a new entrance or closing an existing one, or face the

consequences (which, very often are nil - perhaps that is the problem).

In many cases, the landowner doesn't know what goes on - if the dig is on

the surface, it is hard to miss (though possible, if well-concealed). If the

dig is underground, then whatever the law says, cavers can dig with little

regard for the landowner's wishes, since unless he is a caver he will not

see. All the club needs is permission to enter the cave, or the ability to

conceal the fact that they are doing so. Again, this is a difference between

policy and implementation. It is the policy of the legislation to prevent

cavers from digging without permission, and to allow the landowner various

remedies against the civil offence of trespass. But enforcement of that

policy is something else entirely.

This, in turn, means that even for the most conscientious of caving clubs,

acting in concert with a landowner in the hope of preserving a cave, the

opening of a new entrance may have unforeseen or undesirable consequences

as other people are not constrained to act in accordance with either the

club's policies or the landowner's wishes. The club needs, on its own, to

decide on *their policy on access restriction*. If the landowner says they

can dig, but doesn't agree with their access ideas in such a way that he can

indeed impose his policy, then the club will have to decide, again, on its

own, whether to dig or to leave well alone. Just because a landowner gives

you permission to open an entrance doesn't mean that you are obliged to do

so - the law says nothing about that. If the landowner isn't going to allow

the sort of access control you think necessary, it is probably better not to

open the entrance.

>> Some places in caving should *remain* hard to reach

> Tell that to the people who are watching parts of ... caves be trashed

> by camping parties ...

This is a very good point. Here you are balancing damage to one part of the

cave being used for access, against potential future damage to another part

from easier access. The responsible organisations will have to decide their

own policy on access restriction, and being in a better position to assess

the problems, they can then negotiate with the landowner to try to get that

policy implemented.

This looks like a situation where the ideal long term solution would be to

open up an easy way in to the back of the cave, with strict access controls

on all ways in, and the proviso that the back way in be closed once the need

for it for digging trips has finished. Whether such a solution is achievable

in the real world is another question entirely. Closing an entrance is

usually a lot harder than opening it, in terms of getting the idea accepted.

Clearly, those who don't like the cave being trashed in this way are unable

to stop these people from going in and camping, or they would have done so.

So what chance would they have of closing a "temporary" back entrance (if

one could be created in the first place) ?

Here then, is somewhere where the place remaining hard to reach is not an

adequate solution, but making it easier to reach would not necesarily help

either. This does not invalidate the original statement that *SOME* places

are better protected by being harder to reach. The situation is entirely

different from the Dale Barn case.

And to throw in a reply to Duncan Price (please read the orignal post in

#5363 - it was quite long and I'm not disagreeing here with anything except

the justification for the ordering of the points. I'm only quoting barely

enough to identify the particular point - please don't read it out of

context):

> a human life is more important than a piece of rock, no matter how

> aesthetically pleasing

But the human has a choice of whether to risk his life or not. By changing

the cave, you may reduce the risk associated with a particular trip, but all

that happens is that people with a lower risk tolerance now visit, and those

with the higher tolerance push further and deeper, until the same level of

risk is reached. So you get increased impact on the cave, *without reducing

the danger to human life*. The same sort of thing is true in activities like

mountaineering - gear improves but risks don't get lower overall, just the

risk associated with a particular standard of achievement. Standards go up

to maintain a similar level of risk, and people continue to die climbing

mountains, which is probably as it should be.

This is NOT like putting ABS and side-impact bars on cars. As cars get

safer, some people drive more confidently and faster - in some situations

probably up to a similar level of perceived risk. But here there is a

difference - there are laws governing driving behaviour, and we don't

increase the speed limits when cars are made safer. So in this case, there

really is a reduction in risk.

So using risk reduction as an excuse for damaging caves is not valid.

Increasing risk-awareness (ie. that old faithful, education) is probably

much better, as it will lead to less accidents by the risk-blind AND less

impact on caves as the low-risk-tolerators notice the risks and keep out.

Andy

Information about W-O-W and how you can advertise on these pages