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

Death of a Cave?

This article has been inspired by a discussion on the Cavers Digest. Various different points of view, and some pictures of the cave, which for various reasons will not be named.

Letter written to the "Cavers Digest" Monday 19th Aug 1996I have just heard that some of the most beautiful formations in the Dales have been wrecked. These were recently opened up by a dig to allow access beyond several sumps. I got in soon after it was made safe. 6 foot long straws and amazing coloured curtains at one end of the "Large Chamber" were obviously very fragile. Breathing near the straws was risky and I felt privileged to see such a bit of passage.A friend who recently re-visited it tells me this has all been wiped out.some people have just blundered through and wrecked it. It makes me want to cry!I don't know if it was a novice group or just plain carelessness. But if you can't move carefully in such an environment you should 't be there, should you? Surely such caves should be managed and access controlled. The only caves where this is the case in Yorkshire is to protect the grouse on the moors! They regenerate pretty quickly compared to stals. What do people think?

Tom Phillips

Reply by Rupert Knowles

After hearing that formations had been damaged in the cave, we went in last Sunday to investigate. We all agreed that they were amongst some of the best formations we have seen in the Dales, but fear that they wont last very long. The cave is too easy to get into. Perhaps as someone suggested they should have left a sump/duck near the entrance.As regards damage it looks like someone has crawled through the formations at the end of the large chamber to find a way on. This raises the old question of whether or not we should destroy formations in the pursuit of new cave passage. I understand that cave is of great importance in linking up the 3 counties systemI would also like to thank whoever decided to smoke down there and pollute the air for the next six months. They obviously could not wait the 20 minutes it takes to get out of the cave!

Duncan Price

As someone guilty of digging out a new entrance to a cave, I'll throw in my views on the subject...As I understand it there are several good reasons to make a new entrance to a cave:

• Safety - to avoid using an unsafe entrance or avoid a dangerous part of the cave.
• Conservation - to reduce damage to a particular part of a cave.
• Convenience - to enable exploration of remote parts of the cave.
• Control - of access.

I've put these in order of importance - a human life is more important than a piece of rock, no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is. Likewise, conservation of the environment is more important than a little extra hard graft on the part of cavers. Access control is usually due to loss of access by landowner closure or to create more open access due to constraints (real or perceived) surrounding the original entrance. As someone else pointed out - new entrances can conserve parts of cave by making it more convenient to avoid them. There also the danger of creating "through trips" between entrances - I have heard arguments that most cavers will do them once, but I am not sure of this logic as I know plenty of cavers that have done the more popular trips several times.The safety argument holds the strongest appeal - so much so that many existing entrances have been modified to make them "safer" often with the conservation issues being overlooked. However, an easier/safer entrance can create just as manydangers (inexperienced cavers) as it can avoid.Conservation is often used as the biggest argument against creating new entrances - a sort of "holier than thou" attitude of the part of the opposers to new entrances. I've seen this used very recently in the UK in a very efficient manner by one group who set themselves up as having higher morals than those they opposed ('nuf said). Any case made on these grounds needs to be carefully examined - I can think of several cases where underground camping could be avoided by having an alternate means of access.The issue of control of cave entrances is a difficult matter and best sorted out by discussion rather than digging. However, there will always be disgruntled caves who feel excluded from entry to such-and-such cave and might well force another route in. There has been a long history of gate removal from caves in the UK and I know of several unofficial groups who are working at "back doors" into various caves.As previous correspondents agree, there is only one good reason for making new entrances - that of exploration - it was the reason I spent 5 years on an underwater dig to make a new entrance to Daren Cilau (through a 600 m sump - more convenient than a hard 4 hour caving trip to the same point). However, conservation issues need to be handled sensitively - perhaps with gates/leader/permit systems but not to the point where it causes dissention.Duncan

Graham Mullen

As usual, virtually everything that Nick Williams has to say about "Cave X" makes a great deal of sense though I would substitute "completely impractical" for "simply not possible". 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 both to the explorers and to the cave to attempt to do so.However, there is one thing that he does not say, the answer to which might save a great deal of this argument: having decided to open the new entrance, did the diggers consider the possibilty of damage to the formations arising from their actions and if so what action, if any, did they take to prevent/mitigate such damage?Incidentally, of the "major" Mendip caves only about three were enterablewithout any digging, Wookey, Goatchurch and Stoke Lane Slocker and all of them have been extended by digging. A number of minor sites, especially in the walls of the gorges, have "always" been open and some of the early digging was incidental to mining or quarrying activities.

Nick Williams

Having had more than a little to do with the opening of "Cave X" I have been interested to follow this thread.For those not in the know, here are a few facts relating to the place.1. The new entrance cuts out about a twelve hour slog (including two long and difficult dives) to the far end of the cave.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).3. The cave is on private land and is not officially open to the public.4. All of the people who had been involved in the exploration of the cave were agreed that a back entrance was necessary.5. The landowner also granted permission for the dig.6. The CNCC (the local 'representative body' for the area) supported the creation of the entrance."Cave X" appears to be the key to the caves under the moor. You start to realise that its a pretty important area for exploration. I don't think anyone would (or should) put in the sort of effort (and expense) that went into it just to provide an easy entrance to some existing cave.Clearly I'm in favour of the dig (on balance), but that does not mean I do not have a great deal of respect for the views expressed by Graham 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 table) cave found in the British Isles in the last ten years whose discovery did not involve digging (and even then we had to dig it open three times after a flood had originally revealed it). Of all the caves now known on Mendip, if I remember rightly (and Graham Mullan will doubtless correct me if I am wrong) only five caves were enterable without some sort of excavation.I am sure that both Grahams would agree with me to say that the only sure way to preserve a cave in a pristine state is never to visit it, which is why what Jerry Bargo said is so obviously niave, hypocritical claptrap. If you follow this line of argument to its logical conclusion then we'd ALL better give up caving right now. Several things in his posting lead one to suspect that Mr Bargo is more conversant with the 'ethics' of climbing rather than what I would consider caving - and that's fine. However, I don't personally see caving in the same 'man against nature' terms. One of the reasons I have never done any serious climbing (to all intents and purposes never done any climbing) is because this is not how I view the world. Mr Bargo is, of course, entitled to his view, just as I am to mine. I would not deny him the right to visit a cave on his terms and I hope the sentiment would be reciprocated.This is one area where I am certain that the different conditions which pertain in the US to those in the UK make a lot of difference to the attitude of the local caving population. More contributions from both sides of the pond would be welcome, but I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time for people who try to force their ethics on others. I think there are bigger threats to the conservation of the world as we know it than a few thousand people enjoying themselves in various ways in holes in the ground. All those people who sit in front of their telly, proudly counting how many caves they're not destroying with their presence hardly ever think of all the caves which are being dug up to feed the FGDS plant at the local power station!(Ok, so that's a bit flippant, but it serves to illustrate a point that things are never quite as simple as they look. And from a geological (or, bigger still, cosmological) viewpoint, armageddon tomorrow is of no particular significance.)Like many people I derive an immense amount of pleasure from both the act of discovering new cave and from the efforts involved in the discovery. Maybe what people like me should do is fill everything we find back in again. Getting back to the case in hand, we did consider permanently blocking off the pretty stuff in the far chamber and if what Tom said in Digest 5350 is true, I wish we had, but it was not the diggers who destroyed this stuff, and do we really have a right to deny others the pleasure that we have ourselves had from seeing it? I don't mean this as any sort of personal criticism, but how does someone with the wealth of caving experience that Graham Proudlove has, answer the accusation that they are denying others the right to enjoy things that he himself has already had the pleasure of?What we are really talking about here is a question of drawing lines. 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 where do we draw the line?Nick

Andrew Farrant

Contrary to what Graham Proudlove says in a recent digest about mining second entrances, I believe there are cases where a second entrance to a cave would be advantageous, not only to exploration, but also conservation. However, such entrances would need to have a properly administered access system preferably with a suitable gate (and engineered to be made at least as awkward as the existing entrance). Before the flames of wrath descend upon me, let me explain.In a long cave system with only one entrance (and I can think of several), what may be a passage initially worth protecting, but lies on the main route though the system, would get an awful lot of needless traffic and become trashed though over use - Indiana Highway in Ogof Draenen is an excellent example. A second entrance near the limit of the cave would cut down on the huge amount of caver traffic intent on exploration/digging/ surveying or scientific trips at the far end of the system (as opposed to tourist traffic). Some may argue that a second entrance would create a thru-trip, thus increasing traffic. This may be the case in some caves (eg OFD) but is not necessarily always the case and needs to be carefully considered.Secondly, a second entrance is worthwhile if it prevents people from camping underground. Why camp, causing un-necessary damage to the cave through human waste and rubbish (I know many clubs in the UK are very careful when it comes to camping, but this isn't always the case) if new entrance could be engineered to prevent this. I have been to several mould infested camp-sites in the UK and abroad. So long as the new entrance is properly controlled (see Graham Mullan's note in the last digest), then the shorter duration trip to any 'pretties' in the further reaches need not result in damage to the formations. Furthermore, it is well known that tired cavers on the way out after a long trip, take less care and cause more damage than on a shorter trip.Other cases where a second entrance may be advantageous is for rescue purposes. It is probably better to dig out new a sediment choked entrance than engineer the current entrance through blasting to allow a stretcher through. A major rescue in Daren (heaven forbid) would be pretty damaging to the cave (as well as the patient) if the entrance crawl had to be blasted.Finally, if the current entrance is on land owned by a caver unfriendly landowner, a new entrance on adjoining land owned by a pro-caver owner may be preferable.While I'm against needless entrances to caves, I hope this makes cavers aware that there are *certain* situations where new entrances ARE in the best interest of both cavers and cave conservation. However, this is not always the case and each cave should be considered individually on merit.

Andrew Farrant

Although I'm not familiar with "Cave X" (what were the access procedures - was there a gate on the new entrance?) I agree in that instance, a new entrance was probably not a good thing.The reason I wrote the previous article is I believe some caves would benefit from a new entrance, contrary to what many people believe. I'll illustrate that with an example.One such cave is Ogof Draenen in South Wales, UK. This cave was discovered just under two years ago after 4 years of digging and is now probably the second longest cave in the country at c. 50 km.Proposals to dig a new entrance into the further reaches - the Wyvern Hall area - by members of the Chelsea Speleological Society have met with a lot of opposition, including from members of the club who originally discovered the cave. The dig was not a politically motivated action to wrest control of the cave away from the original discoverers, quite the contrary. Here I'll outline a few of the arguments in favour of a new entrance.The arguments against the new entrance are for 'conservation reasons', ie a trip to the further reaches via the present entrance is sufficiently long to deter casual tourists and novices, who may damage the delicate formations in some of the passages. Although prefectly valid, so long as a proper access procedure is in place with a suitable gate (unlike the present entrance gate), a new closer entrance need not be a problem (see Graham Mullans arguments re. Charterhouse Cave in the Mendips) for conservation. Most damage is caused by novice groups and large parties of relatively inexperienced cavers who could be excluded with a suitable access policy.Indeed, a new entrance would probably help prevent the current trade routes, such as Megadrive and Indiana Highway, from becoming trashed through over use. These passages probably deserve as much if not more protection as pretty stals as they are the best examples of paragenetic canyon passages with watertable notches in the entire country. The geomorphology and associated sediment deposits of the Megadrive area are worthy of SSSI status and should not be ruined for the sake of cavers wanting to get to the further reaches when another entrance is a viable alternative. Indeed a recent visiting foreign academic stated it was the best bit of passage he has seen in Europe.Tired cavers are less likely to observe tapes and thus cause more damage. Shorter trips would help prevent such damage occurring.Another argument against a new entrance is that it would provide a new through trip. This is true, although I don't think a thru trip to the proposed new entrance in Ogof Draenen would attract many more cavers. That may be the case in caves such as OFD where an excellent trip is created. In Ogof Draenen, the most popular trip is the Round Trip. The new entrance is only a short distance off this route and thus would cut out a large part of the trip, making it *less* attractive. The actual thru trip created would be relatively short and probably not as popular as the OFD trips.A new entrance would not necessarily be any easier than the current entrance - it could easily be engineered deliberately difficult and does not involve modifying the passage, merely digging out recent inwashed stream deposits of little scientific value. Also, there are many sites (at least10 I can think of) where people could potentially dig into Ogof Draenen. Sooner of later, someone will dig an entrance. Better for it to be by a responsible club than a group of individuals.Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of a new entrance is to prevent people camping underground. Although those cavers currently camping may be extremely careful in taking out rubbish, waste products etc, this will not be the case indefinitely. I have been to some of the camp or brew sites and found them covered in mould. Why camp when a new entrance could be easily opened up within half and hours caving distance away? Those who argue that it would destroy the 'remote feeling' of the cave should try camping in the Scottish Highlands if they want to be remote. The inevitable prospect of further discoveries to the south, beyond the known extent of the cave will only increase the pressure to camp.A new entrance would assist those who are working in the cave, especially the surveyors and cave scientists (who are regularly doing 12 hr+ trips), and people doing exploration. All of those who were involved in the initial digging of the new entrance are perfectly capable of reaching the far end of the cave, but feel a new entrance would benefit both the cave and the cavers.Plus you have the cave rescue argument and real possibility that the owner of the current entrance may deny access following a serious accident...Hope this is of interest and provokes a bit of informed debate to allow *all* the issues to be considered. In this case, I think, on balance, a new entrance is justified. Each case needs to be taken on merit, not all caves deserve alternative entrances.

Mark Minton

I have been involved in the creation of new entrances to several caves in both Mexico and the US over the last 28 years. In every case I know of, this has not resulted in any significant increase in visitation or vandalism, mostly because these were "project" caves that were visited almost entirely only by those working on them. The caves were either on private land with access control or in such remote locations that no casual "tourist" cavers would find them. The entrances have been added either to ease the burden of exploration, as in the case of Illusion Pot, or to increase the safety margin where there was a significant risk of flooding or some other danger. I see nothing wrong with this type of speleo engineering, as long as appropriate precautions are observed, including considering the effect of increased air flow on the cave. Perhaps the much larger density of cavers in England requires special precautions in the opening of new entrances. Gating or some other form of access control would seem best, but to me, giving up on exploration as the alternative would not be the answer

Jerry Bargo

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