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

Argument against new entrances - Graham Proudlove

Go back

If this is true then it reinforces once again that we should not be mining new entrances to caves. There was a perfectly good entrance to "Cave X", it did not need another artificial one in Kingsdale. Once access is easy it is *inevitable* that the cave will be destroyed. I know that some will argue that the entrance was required for exploration purposes but I cannot agree with this stance. If todays cavers are not prepared to put in the, significant, effort required to get to the end of the cave and push it then someone in the future will.

[And before anyone says that I should try it, all I can say is that I am the first to admit that I'm not up to it. I am prepared to leave it like that and know I will never see certain places. I dont think I, or anyone else, have the right to create entrances where they see fit if they are not up to getting there by the entrance already in existance].

There is however NO DOUBT that the best preserved caves in UK are those where access has been limited. Most of these controls have been placed in response to landowner pressure but have as a side effect led to the ehanced preservation of the cave. Indeed 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. (I am purely talking about Great Britain here). However, since then, more and more cavers have realised that such controls need to be put in place.

In arguing this line before, I have been accused of elitism (well so what) and of ignoring the value of education. If I could be assured that everybody and anybody who enters a cave will have been educated in its value and, more importantly, will have been convinced by that lesson then I would agree - but I actually live in the real world and know this won't happen.

So, yes controls are needed now to protect our scarce resource from an increasing number of ill-educated cavers. But don't believe that it will be easy 'cos a lot of cavers believe that they have a god given right to go where they like when they like and to hell with the consequences.

Subject: Reply to Nick Williams

To reply to several of Nick Williams points

2. The exploration had got to the point where it simply was not possible to carry enough air through the original entrance to be able to seriously consider pushing the farthest reaches of the cave (and no, a re-breather would not fit even if we had one).

I don't believe this for a minute. The original entrance is not *that* small.

3. The cave is on private land and is not officially open to the public.

Irrelevant

4. _All_ of the people who had been involved in the exploration of the cave were agreed that a back entrance was necessary.

The agreement of a number of people, no matter how many, does not make something automatically 'correct'. No doubt _All_ of the present Conservative Cabinet are against giving grants to cavers but thats not necessarily 'correct' either !! (For agument only !).

5. The landowner also granted permission for the dig.

Irrelevant. As I said some large numner of CDs ago Land Owners are in no position to assess the value or otherwise of a cave they have never seen.

6. The CNCC (the local 'representative body' for the area) supported the creation of the entrance.

Well they would, wouldn't they, they too can now get to the back of "Cave X" without any effort.

7 "Proudlove. I am afraid I do not see this in quite such simple terms,however. The logical extension of saying 'no destruction of any sort in caves, even for exploration' is to say 'no digging', and in the UK that is tantamount to saying 'no more caves'. I can only think of one (above water"

I really wonder why people on CD insist in mis-quoting me. I never said 'no digging of any sort'. Clearly if a cave has no entrance it requires one. It it has one entrance it does not require another.

8 "any sort of personal criticism, but how _does_ someone with thewealth of caving experience that Graham Proudlove has, answer the accusation that they are denying others the right to enjoy thingsthat he himself has already had the pleasure of?"

Once again Nick just hasnt't read what I wrote. I tried to clearly state that I was not up to the trip to the end of Dale Barn and therefore I would have to accept that I would never see its end or the formations. Just as I have to say the same about many other caves with sumps in them. I am denying no-one anything. They only need to do the graft and they'll get there.

9 "What we are really talking about here is a question of drawinglines. I am certainly not in favour of indescriminate destruction of cave passage just for the sake of convenience. Caves certainly are fragile, and pristine passage is hard won even if one believes (as I do) that it's not quite a scarce as some people make out. Clearly we arn't going to say 'No more caving' to protect the caves, but maybe we could say 'no more cave digging'. I'd give caving as we know it in the UK about five, maybe ten years if we did."

So what !

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