Caves in Nevada
Fleg
Pat O'Connell
>
> Can someone tell me the location of some caves around Las Vegas Nevada?
I have no idea (I live in Albuquerque), but there's an NSS grotto
in Vegas, and the members can get you pointed in the right
direction. The NSS Web site, at:
has a list of grottoes by state, with contact phone numbers.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Derek Hoyle
> Can someone tell me the location of some caves around Las Vegas Nevada?
Hi Fleg,
I hear there's a BIG man made "cave" under Groom Lake, just north of Vegas.
(GRIN)
What's your skill level? Are you a new caver? Should i send you to your
death in an extreme vertical cave? (just kidding...)
Nevada is just full of caves, you just have to go out and find them.
More info please.
Have you done the tour of Hoover Dam? It's kinda cave like inside if you
close your eyes and imagine real hard... Now the rope drop off the face of
the dam, that's another story altogether. That would be a BLAST! (Drat,
off topic)
Derek-
Hoyt McKagen
>
> Can someone tell me the location of some caves around Las Vegas Nevada?
Here's a few to get you started:
Angel Lake Pit CłNVłcave łElko łWelcome ł410100N1150400Wł7800
Annex Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełWindy Peak ł390028N1141507Wł8560
Axehandle Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełMcGill ł392238N1144539Wł
Baker Creek CavełNVłcave łWhite PinełKious Spring ł385914N1141304Wł7080
Bare Leg Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełWard Mountain ł390538N1145720Wł8000
Big Cave łNVłcave łLincoln łEccles ł373459N1142724Wł
Birds Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełEast Ely ł392121N1144527Wł8200
Bristlecone BridłNVłcave łClark łSheep Peak ł363711N1151156Wł8300
Bristlecone CavełNVłcave łWhite PinełKious Spring ł385803N1141307Wł8640
Bronco Charlie CłNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł400955N1153012Wł6110
Burial Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełKious Spring ł385540N1140830Wł6800
Burnt Cave łNVłcave łChurchill łLahontan Mountał392432N1183723Wł
Cave Adit łNVłcave łLander łGalena Canyon ł403154N1170453Wł5000
Cave Creek Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełCave Creek ł391103N1144051Wł7610
Cave Creek Cave łNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł401219N1153005Wł6510
Cave Valley CavełNVłcave łLincoln łParker Station ł383836N1144822Wł6440
Caves, The łNVłcave łClark łWillow Beach (Ał354954N1144148Wł
Chimney Cave łNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł400900N1153049Wł6050
Christmas Tree CłNVłcave łWhite PinełSawmill Canyon ł385537N1145554Wł7780
Cirque Cave łNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł400827N1153103Wł6040
Civet Cat Cave łNVłcave łNye łCivet Cat Cave ł373242N1165112Wł
Column Cave łNVłcave łNye łHigh Peak ł361707N1160957Wł2730
Dads Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełSawmill Canyon ł385639N1145600Wł7520
Dead Tree Cave łNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł401131N1153026Wł7480
Deer Creek Cave łNVłcave łElko łJarbidge North ł415600N1152510Wł5735
Desert Cave łNVłcave łClark łBlue Diamond ł360716N1152550Wł3760
Devils Hole CavełNVłcave łNye łDevils Hole ł362538N1161725Wł2480
Discovery Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełLittle Horse Cał391756N1140555Wł7000
Dome Ice Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełWheeler Peak ł385327N1141606Wł8600
Emerald Lake CavłNVłcave łEureka łChristina Peak ł394950N1155158Wł5920
Etna Cave łNVłcave łLincoln łCaliente ł373321N1143420Wł4740
Fallen-In Cave łNVłcave łChurchill łGrimes Point ł392429N1183731Wł
Fish Cave łNVłcave łChurchill łLahontan Mountał392541N1183607Wł
Flat Top Cave NułNVłcave łChurchill łRussell Spit ł391427N1184602Wł
Flat Top Cave NułNVłcave łChurchill łRussell Spit ł391459N1184726Wł
Forty Five Cave łNVłcave łPershing łStar Creek Rancł403053N1180636Wł4955
Goshute Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełGoshute Creek ł400403N1144732Wł7057
Granite Point CałNVłcave łPershing łGranite Point ł400612N1183422Wł3990
Gyp Cave łNVłcave łClark łApex łUNKNOWN ł
Gypsum Cave łNVłcave łClark łFrenchman Mountł361327N1145359Wł
Hidden Cave łNVłcave łChurchill łGrimes Point ł392422N1183736Wł
Highland Cave łNVłcave łLincoln łHighland Peak ł375412N1143245Wł7280
Highland Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełWheeler Peak ł385401N1141728Wł9800
Hill Hole Cave łNVłcave łEureka łCortez ł401003N1163514Wł8290
Hot Creek Cave łNVłcave łNye łLittle Fish Lakł383132N1162419Wł6650
Indian Caves łNVłcave łWashoe łPurgatory Peak ł401912N1192051Wł
Jumbo Cave łNVłcave łEureka łPinto Summit ł392830N1155808Wł7280
Last Chance CavełNVłcave łWhite PinełNorth Schell Peł392306N1143709Wł10500
Lavender Cave łNVłcave łLincoln łMeeker Peak ł374806N1153650Wł5840
Lehman Caves łNVłcave łWhite PinełLehman Caves ł390021N1141309Wł6830
Leviathan Cave łNVłcave łLincoln łMeeker Peak ł374953N1153621Wł8080
Lexington Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełArch Canyon ł385209N1141038Wł7230
Little Joes CavełNVłcave łNye łDanville ł384909N1163030Wł7530
Lost Hope Cave łNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł400947N1153225Wł8200
Lovelock Indian łNVłcave łChurchill łLovelock Indianł395746N1183325Wł
Manhattan Cave łNVłcave łNye łManhattan ł383118N1170357Wł7400
Mineral Hill CavłNVłcave łEureka łMineral Hill ł400806N1160324Wł7400
Mining Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełDiamond Peak ł393334N1154808Wł7720
Moms Cave łNVłcave łClark łHigh Peak ł361618N1160855Wł3080
Monument Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełLittle Horse Cał391728N1140443Wł6600
Mormon Mountain łNVłcave łLincoln łMoapa Peak NW ł365834N1142438Wł4250
Northumberland CłNVłcave łNye łNorthumberland ł385624N1165129Wł
Ocala Indian CavłNVłcave łChurchill łOcala ł395257N1184109Wł
Old Man Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełLittle Horse Cał391512N1140445Wł7020
Painted Cave łNVłcave łPershing łUNKNOWN łUNKNOWN ł
Pescio Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełKalamazoo Summił393131N1144312Wł6857
Picnic Cave łNVłcave łChurchill łGrimes Point ł392430N1183743Wł
Pinnacle Cave łNVłcave łClark łPotosi ł355833N1153207Wł5873
Pintwater Cave łNVłcave łClark łTim Spring ł364740N1153407Wł
Quill Cave łNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł400951N1153012Wł6100
Ragged Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełCave Mountain ł391321N1143528Wł7610
Rat Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełGoshute Creek ł400507N1144750Wł7874
Raven Cave łNVłcave łElko łMiners Canyon (ł405620N1140508Wł
Robbers Roost CałNVłcave łClark łAngel Peak ł361806N1153637Wł
Robust Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełRuth ł391602N1145422Wł7660
Rockslide Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełLittle Horse Cał391843N1140522Wł6700
Root Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełLehman Caves ł390019N1141248Wł6720
Rose Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełSouth Bastian Sł390756N1142339Wł6800
Rudolphs Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełKious Spring ł385817N1140929Wł6420
Sacramento Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełSouth Bastian Sł390953N1142300Wł6350
Salt Cave łNVłcave łClark łValley of Fire ł362441N1142300Wł1280
Salt Cave łNVłcave łChurchill łSalt Cave ł392023N1185547Wł4226
Smith Creek CavełNVłcave łWhite PinełLittle Horse Cał392031N1140512Wł6600
Snake Canyon CavłNVłcave łWhite PinełSouth Schell Peł392202N1143710Wł10300
Snake Creek CavełNVłcave łWhite PinełGarrison (UT) ł385447N1140408Wł
Snow Shaft Cave łNVłcave łEureka łRoberts Creek Mł395222N1161831Wł9800
Snow White Cave łNVłcave łPershing łCoal Canyon ł400906N1182110Wł4920
Soda Straw Cave łNVłcave łClark łHigh Peak ł361855N1160956Wł2800
Star Peak Caves łNVłcave łPershing łStar Peak ł403306N1181049Wł9050
Thunder MountainłNVłcave łPershing łStar Peak ł403325N1180940Wł8800
Tollhouse Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełSilverado Mountł392949N1154935Wł
Toquima Cave łNVłcave łLander łPetes Summit ł391115N1164711Wł
Traventine Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełEast Ely ł392209N1144530Wł7700
Trout Spring CavłNVłcave łClark łGriffith Peak ł361334N1154040Wł8330
Twin Pits Cave łNVłcave łElko łPearl Peak ł401243N1153112Wł8480
Uhalde Cave łNVłcave łNye łWadsworth Ranchł380540N1153427Wł6330
Valley View CavełNVłcave łWhite PinełKalamazoo Summił393230N1144311Wł7085
Water Canyon CavłNVłcave łWhite PinełSawmill Canyon ł385952N1145543Wł7300
Weasel Cave łNVłcave łEureka łCooper Peak ł395306N1161757Wł8840
Whipple Cave łNVłcave łLincoln łShingle Pass ł383048N1145805Wł
White Mountain CłNVłcave łLincoln łHaggerty Springł383736N1145825Wł7460
Williams Hole łNVłcave łClark łGriffith Peak ł361352N1154126Wł9186
Winnemucca Lake łNVłcave łPershing łPurgatory Peak ł401807N1191659Wł4160
Yews Cave łNVłcave łClark łFrenchman Mountł361320N1145401Wł1840
Yorks Cave łNVłcave łWhite PinełLittle Horse Cał391850N1140526Wł6760
Best wishes,
Hoyt McKagen
Belfab CNC - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
Rubber balloons kill more young kids than ALL other toys
mgca...@calweb.com
areas. Getting involved with a local caving group will get you mnore
detailed info. In fact, cave locations on the USGS maps are not always
correct. Also, in Nevada land owners tend to be armed and unfriendly
to tresspassers. The local sherriffs are more likely to side with land
owners. There is also the problem of caves located on military
reservations. It is best to do your homework before going caving. A
local club (like the Vegas grotto) can save you a lot of trouble and
might get you in places that the rest of the world can't.
If you live in or near Vegas, I can help get you in contact with the
local grotto. I don't live there, but my brother (a caver) does. If
you're a Californian, I can direct you to a few grottos here as well.
A side note, many American cavers consider it bad form to publicly
give away the locations of wild caves. Show caves are fair game as the
owners usually like the increased business.
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 12:56:14 GMT, Hoyt McKagen <batw...@i-plus.net>
wrote:
<locations snipped>
Paul Montgomery
abused, I fail to see how the acts of publishing locations as you do help
your cause. You enrage many cavers who may have similar views. I have put
forward the idea of a server with information on caves so that we, the
caving community, would have better access to this information. Being able
to get detailed information on a cave, including access information would in
my opinion help. It would save me a lot of time and effort looking for the
landowner and getting permission. It would be helpful to people doing
research to have a database of trip reports to caves. It would help in the
effort of conservation. Your acts here do nothing to further that cause and
reinforce the need for secrecy in most peoples minds. How can I in good
conscience take you to a cave, which the landowner requested not to be
publicized, knowing that there is a good possibility that you will place it
on your list. You work against the things that you say you stand for. I
suspect that you feed on the anger you instill in others. What a shame. You
are in many ways a great caver. Sometimes I would gladly whack you across
the head with that magic staff of mine, if it would bring you to your
senses.
Hoyt McKagen <batw...@i-plus.net> wrote in message
news:37CCA1...@i-plus.net...
> Fleg wrote:
> >
> > Can someone tell me the location of some caves around Las Vegas Nevada?
>
> Here's a few to get you started:
Locations removed
Tony Brocklebank
the US but a week or two back saw at first hand the type and quality of
information available in the UK, via guide books, surveys, etc. This info
is available to anyone who buys the book. I don't want to get into the
US/UK attitude problem again, after all we're right, you're wrong, but it
would be interesting to hear from Matt his views on the bits he saw whilst
he was here.
And whilst he's pondering this he can be sorting my T-Shirt out.
Paul Montgomery <Pa...@tcia.net> wrote in message
news:Ajbz3.8225$F4.2...@news5.giganews.com...
> > Fleg wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone tell me the location of some caves around Las Vegas
Nevada?
> >
> > Here's a few to get you started:
> Locations removed
>
>
Derek Hoyle
Hoyt McKagen wrote:
> >Here's a few to get you started:
Thanks for posting that list, some of my favorite caves are on it. But could you
post the rest of the list, cause i know of at least five other caves not on your
first list. I'd sure like the info on those caves too!
By the way, how DO you get these locations? Wouldn't it be ironic if your sources
were "secret".
Thanks Hoyt.
Derek-
Jim
<tonybro...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Somewhere out there in the ether is a lurking Canadian who caves mainly in
>the US but a week or two back saw at first hand the type and quality of
>information available in the UK, via guide books, surveys, etc. This info
>is available to anyone who buys the book. I don't want to get into the
>US/UK attitude problem again, after all we're right, you're wrong, but it
>would be interesting to hear from Matt his views on the bits he saw whilst
>he was here.
Why don't we all take a field trip to Buckner's cave, Indiana...since
this is one of the most trashed, if not the most trashed cave in the
United States. Even the NSS guidebook gave directions to the thing,
whilst they normally have the registration desk deal with that etc.
Yes, Buckner's is very popular, and I wouldn't feel too bad about
giving its location out, if anyone doesn't mind crawling through the
broken glass...
and I just wonder if the guy that originally asked this question about
locations is the same guy who posted the same question on the NSS
discussion site. Someone told him no locations are given out, and he
expressed his opinion, in caps, that if he paid the NSS his 30 dollars
then he'd get his cave locations....which of course it doesn't work
that way does it? I don't see what's so hard about making a few
caving buddies and in the process gaining their trust and access to
the caves they are protecting. It only takes a *little* extra effort
on the part of the person, and you need some competent people to cave
with now and then anyways I would think... not to mention the
cookouts
and the fun includes the detective work...I vote for secrecy
sorry to bother :p
Hoyt McKagen
>
> Although I agree with your views that cave location secrets are being
> abused, I fail to see how the acts of publishing locations as you do help
> your cause.
I'm not into causes specifically, so giving info is not in any way a
manifestation of that. But the free exchange of info is a sign of an
enlightened society. I had so much trouble with org's caving as far as
resources that I swore solemn oath to help others in any way. If cavers
as a whole wish to have me stop, they need to open up. I still get
contacts every wek or so from local wanna-be cavers who have had
problems with local grottos.
>You enrage many cavers who may have similar views.
Many cavers with opposite views enrage me, or better, disgust. So what?
> forward the idea of a server with information on caves so that we, the
> caving community, would have better access to this information. Being able
> to get detailed information on a cave, including access information would in
> my opinion help.
It sure would and the debate has raged endlessly. If people want to
consider me an alternative to that they are welcome too.
>How can I in good
> conscience take you to a cave, which the landowner requested not to be
> publicized, knowing that there is a good possibility that you will place it
> on your list.
Because I always respect the requests of owners etc to not reveal
specific caves. You know yourself I've not done that with some you've
shown me.
>You work against the things that you say you stand for.
What things? Secrecy?
> suspect that you feed on the anger you instill in others. What a shame.
No, I just don't give a damn.
> Sometimes I would gladly whack you across
> the head with that magic staff of mine, if it would bring you to your
> senses.
Why don't you come on out and use that energy on the new shooting site I
found?
Hoyt McKagen
> Thanks for posting that list, some of my favorite caves are on it. But could you
> post the rest of the list, cause i know of at least five other caves not on your
> first list. I'd sure like the info on those caves too!
That's about all the caves in NV that I have info on.
>
> By the way, how DO you get these locations? Wouldn't it be ironic if your sources
> were "secret".
THese were posted on Geosites. I believe they're derived from GNIS. GNIS
is secret now because org'd cavers pressured the USGS to remove from the
list all caves on national land. A law in fact was passed to do that. But
USGS said it was impractical to remove only caves on nat lands, so they
removed the entire GNIS cave database. The rationale was bullshit, as all
such were listed by status and national lands was part of status. *I*
could write a program to delete all listings with national status, so
their claim is a lie.
USGS GNIS manager has however personally told me that all uses of GNIS
data is still legal. Enjoy.
--
Paul Montgomery
> >You enrage many cavers who may have similar views.
>
> Many cavers with opposite views enrage me, or better, disgust. So what?
I'm not talking about cavers with opposite views. What about all the cavers
that might support more open info (ME). Whenever I put forth some ideas as
how to do that, people use you as an example of why that doesn't work.
Actually they are referring to the information that you give out. The GNIS
info and other sources that are now restricted were changed because they
were not comprehensive and managed well enough to protect the caves that
needed protecting. In response to the "damage done to caves because of this,
the policies were changed to the other extreme. Some middle of the road can
be found. Your postings of locations, without info like access restrictions
and landowner contacts, helps to continue feeding the secrecy camp with
ammo to use against any ideas of better access to information. Yes it's
politics, but politics caused the problem and is the only venue to a
solution.
>
>
> >How can I in good
> > conscience take you to a cave, which the landowner requested not to be
> > publicized, knowing that there is a good possibility that you will place
it on your list.
> Because I always respect the requests of owners etc to not reveal
> specific caves. You know yourself I've not done that with some you've
> shown me.
True, you have not. Will that continue?
>
> >You work against the things that you say you stand for.
>
> What things? Secrecy?
No, Information. If you must give out the info, try giving it out in private
to the individual who requested it. Then at least your not pissing off the
opposing side at the same time. Then when I suggest a data server for caves,
maybe I could get support instead of flames. Nothing says that a server has
to have all the info available to everyone. Perhaps it could refer the
requester to a caver contact who has agreed to manage that particular cave.
I, as you know have many caves near me that the landowners have let me into
on the condition that I do just this, manage the access so that they are not
bothered, their land is not damaged and their cows are safe inside. I know
things like where to park, how many cavers can be there at one time without
causing a ruckus, etc.. I hunt down the local kids who vandalize and give
them the education necessary so that they change there attitudes or at least
fear being caught. I think that there are many cavers that are reading this
that would be willing to do the same in their area. I bet that you would if
asked.
>
> > suspect that you feed on the anger you instill in others. What a shame.
>
> No, I just don't give a damn.
Oh, you give a damn. I'm not trying to get you into politics, just trying to
make you realize that your approach is hurting the ones that are
"politically" working for more open caving, me included.
>
> > Sometimes I would gladly whack you across
> > the head with that magic staff of mine, if it would bring you to your
> > senses.
>
> Why don't you come on out and use that energy on the new shooting site I
> found?
So are you saying you would be more agreeable if I came out and helped
dilate your hole?;]
Fleg
thank everyone who did list where some caves were. To answer a couple of
questions I am the same person that posted this same question on the NSS
list where I got a nasty response in all caps from some jerk. I did reply
to him in all caps because of his remark. I do feel that other than
newsgroups like this or digging through the Internet the only way to get
locations of caves is to join a grotto, in other words I would have been
FORCED to join a grotto to get this information. I consider myself a
responsible caver and have the knowledge to cave safely and smartly. The
entire reason for getting as much info about caves in the local area before
I go to them is so I know what caves are on private land and which ones are
public. I have already cross-referenced all cave locations with several
topo maps that I have to make sure I am not entering private land, or
military land before I even set out. The way I see it, and this is only an
opinion, all caves should be public knowledge unless on private land, caves
that are on public land should be open to the public and the locations
should be given out to those who ask. If the NSS really wanted to do
something helpful than they should post plaques or something at the
entrances to the more sensitive caves reminding people to cave safely and
to not deface the cave in anyway.
Michael Fleigle
Fleg
this sport out the most. The best way for the public to understand how
fragile caves are is to get them envolved. What's a better way to get them
envolved than to show them the location of a few caves? I am in the
process now of organizing the locations that I got into a generic database.
I understand that some locations that I have are on private land and this
database will reflect that. When I am done or at least a good way started
on this database than anyone that wants it can have it if thats ok with the
people that gave me the locations. Only with the permission from the
original person will the database be given out.
Michael Fleigle
Paul Montgomery <Pa...@tcia.net> wrote in article
<ZWQz3.11997$F4.3...@news5.giganews.com>...
Jo Schaper
<baj...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote:
>If you ask me, and no one did, It is people like Mr. McKagen that can help
>this sport out the most. The best way for the public to understand how
>fragile caves are is to get them envolved. What's a better way to get them
>envolved than to show them the location of a few caves?
To educate them in classrooms, grottos, and in mentoring
situations (friend to friend) ,about what, when, where and
how to cave or not cave, how caves form, why they are
important, why some need to be restricted, and all the
jillion other things involved in both caving as a sport and
science. To impart values to the people being thus educated,
not simply to let them go in caves and "do their thing"
however destructive that "thing" is. Without getting too
nastily religious on folk, I believe there is a parable
about trusting people in little things, and then, when they
have proven their trustworthiness, trusting them in larger
things. This method isn't instant satisfaction required by
some "Me! Right Now!" advocates, but it does seem to work in
the long run.
People will only learn to care about things like caves
if a) they experience them and b) they see others caring for
them. This does not mean that all methods of caring need to
be the same. You don't drive down a one way city street the
same way you drive on an eight lane interstate. Those are
the sorts of things which aren't apparent if all you have is
a location on a map, a tank of gas, and permission of the
landowner to visit the cave. (Too many people (mostly city
folk, unfortunately) think the latter condition is too
stifling. So caves get closed to all because someone who
doesn't know any better acts like an idiot. All cavers
suffer from the actions of ill-educated and impolite
cavers. Those are a few reasons why a list of locations,
and no caving education (formal or informal) isn't a good
idea.
On the other hand, intolerance of people whose views we
may not agree with isn't a good idea either. Cavers from
all sorts of views (Wide open to total secrecy) need to keep
talking. That in itself is quite an education.
> I am in the
>process now of organizing the locations that I got into a generic database.
> I understand that some locations that I have are on private land and this
>database will reflect that. When I am done or at least a good way started
>on this database than anyone that wants it can have it if thats ok with the
>people that gave me the locations. Only with the permission from the
>original person will the database be given out.
>
>Michael Fleigle
It sounds like you are reinventing the wheel of many state
cave surveys, many of which have approximately the same
restrictions on their data. Good luck, because you will be
trying to accomplish singly what in some cases has been put
together already by thousands of people over tens of years
to half centuries. Absolutely nothing wrong with your goal,
as long as you keep a handle on it. But what happens to your
database when you die? Think about it, and you might find
cooperation is at least as productive as competition.
best regards,
Jo Schaper
Chris Kollmar
"Fleg" <baj...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote:
> Sorry to stir up such a discussion about cave locations. I would like
to
> thank everyone who did list where some caves were. To answer a
couple of
> questions I am the same person that posted this same question on the
NSS
> list where I got a nasty response in all caps from some jerk. I did
reply
> to him in all caps because of his remark. I do feel that other than
> newsgroups like this or digging through the Internet the only way to
get
> locations of caves is to join a grotto, in other words I would have
been
> FORCED to join a grotto to get this information.
I really don't think that anyone was "forcing" you to join a grotto.
Other than somebody just blurting out a bunch of cave locations, joining
a grotto is one of the EASIEST ways to find the caves you are looking
for (which is what I think you were asking for.) *damn those NSS people
for telling you the easy way* However, it is not the only way. I
prefer to speak with the locals, find out what they may know, wander
around the woods a bit, check the local library, share a cup of coffee
with some more of the local folk, make a few new friends, find an
entrance, talk to whatever contacts I have made (either the landowner or
other local residents) to make sure I have the right cave, perhaps ask
them to come along, and then enjoy the cave. THe hunt, my friend, is
part of the fun. There are easier ways, yes. But I don't think the
easiest way is always the responsible, or for that matter, most
enjoyable way.
As far as slopping out a bunch of cave locations, I think you (not
specifically you) have subjected those caves to a high risk of
vandalism. Even more important, though, what about that spelunker you
just sent headlong into a 75 foot pit with a flashlight and a 50 ft.
roll of binders twine? The safety of people who obtain these locations
should be, in my opinion, a priority even greater than that of the
preservation of the cave. Why is it so incomprehensible to some that
cave locations only be given to a caver who has proven his abilities,
responsibilty, safety and respect? We don't give you a drivers license
unless you have proven these things. Why? Because there is an element
of danger to you and those around you if you don't display these
qualities. Get my point?
I consider myself a
> responsible caver and have the knowledge to cave safely and smartly.
The
> entire reason for getting as much info about caves in the local area
before
> I go to them is so I know what caves are on private land and which
ones are
> public.
Commendable on your part, however, those locations weren't given just to
you. They were spilled out to responsible cavers and
yahoos-with-flashlights alike.
I have already cross-referenced all cave locations with
several
> topo maps that I have to make sure I am not entering private land, or
> military land before I even set out. The way I see it, and this is
only an
> opinion, all caves should be public knowledge unless on private land,
caves
> that are on public land should be open to the public and the locations
> should be given out to those who ask. If the NSS really wanted to do
> something helpful than they should post plaques or something at the
> entrances to the more sensitive caves reminding people to cave safely
and
> to not deface the cave in anyway.
>
Are you saying that sensitive caves are the only ones that matter and we
should go ahead and deface the ones that aren't? Where I live, signs
such as these do exist. Your idea is not a terrible one, but, in my
experience, a sign such as this increases the degree of vandalism to a
cave unless it is gated. I don't know if it becomes a challenge to "get
away with it" or what. For that matter, the Indiana Cave Protection Law
(and I would suspect your state has a similar law or has one coming)
reads:
http://www.caves.org/conservancy/ikc/cavelaws.htm
(b) A person who knowingly and without the express consent of the cave
owner:
(1)disfigures, destroys, or removes any stalagmite, stalactite, or other
naturally occuring mineral deposit or formation, or archeological or
palentological artifact in a cave, for other than scientific purposes;
(2)breaks any lock, gate, fence, or other structure designed to control
or prevent access to a cave
(3)deposits trash, rubbish, chemicals, or other litter in a cave; or
(4)destroys, injures, removes, or harasses any cave-dwelling animal for
other than scientific purposes;
COMMITS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.
Son, this says it's against the law. We don't post "no murdering" signs
or "don't steal from this store...try the one down the street" signs, so
why should we have to post "don't trash this cave" signs? I'm not
saying it's a bad idea. In theory, it's good. We just shouldn't have
to.
In a perfect world, we could give out cave loctions to everyone. I wish
we could give out cave locations to everyone. The fact is, there are
too many irresponsible cavers in this world. If I tell you where
"bitchen' cave" is, and you go there and get hurt or die, then that
falls on my shoulders because I made that cave accessible to you. If
you prove to me you are a responsible caver, I'll be happy to give you
the location. Bad things can still happen, but I took the precations I
felt necessary.
Chris Kollmar
Cave Softly!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
mgca...@calweb.com
than a plaque. The plaque would be stolen and hung is someone's den.
California has seen several caves on public as well as private land
vandalized. In addition, if a cave is gated, there is a risk the gate
will be removed with further damage to the enatrance. Although there a
lot of enviornmentalists (bleeding heart or wanna bes), caves and bats
get short shrift. Private land owners either want extreme privacy or
mentioned "iability"to their lawyers, access to those caves is an
issue. This is true when the owner is a quarrying company afraid of
having their mineral rights restricted due to endangered species,
archeological sites, etc. On the public lands, vandals are a problem.
We may have an anti cave vandelism law, but it is hard to enforce.
It appears that education of the non caver is the best long term
solution. Until there is a more wide spread conservation ethic among
the unenlighted (i.e. yahoos), secrecy, limited information (how to
get to the show cave with a wild tour) or communication over a narrow
channel (person to person, email) is a working compromise.
Besides, getting to know the local cavers has other benefits. Ever
wanted a few friends to swap new tall tales with at dinner after a
trip? Maybe my grotto is different, but the old stories just get
older. We like to meet other cavers and swop new ones.
Marc
Caver, tinkerer, etc.
Jo Schaper
<baj...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote:
>I do feel that other than
>newsgroups like this or digging through the Internet the only way to get
>locations of caves is to join a grotto, in other words I would have been
>responsible caver and have the knowledge to cave safely and smartly. The
>entire reason for getting as much info about caves in the local area before
>I go to them is so I know what caves are on private land and which ones are
>public.
As far as I am aware, no one is ever *forced* to join a
grotto in cave rich areas. (Cave poor areas are probably a
different story, but I've never lived there.) There are
plenty of perfectly responsible and technically competent
non-grotto independents in Missouri, who do excellent work,
contribute to the state survey as cooperators, not members,
attend regional caving conventions (usually sponsored by NSS
grottos or subunits of them) and in general are well
respected because of their fine reputations. Although I am
an NSS member, it is not because I feel forced, but because
I see it as an opportunity to learn more with less effort
than beating every bush, and tracking down every lead for
other cavers. Yes, there are some NSS folk who seem to have
the idea that the NSS is the "only" answer. It is not.
However, it is one of the better ones, IMO, if you can get
in with a bunch of tolerant types.
>I have already cross-referenced all cave locations with several
>topo maps that I have to make sure I am not entering private land, or
>military land before I even set out. The way I see it, and this is only an
>opinion, all caves should be public knowledge unless on private land, caves
>that are on public land should be open to the public and the locations
>should be given out to those who ask.
This statement omits one of the basic reasons many
(not all) caves on public land are acquired--for the
protection of endangered species. Under the current rules of
the ESA, habitat for endangered species is also afforded
protection, as the protected species needs someplace to
live. For endangered bats, under current technology and
understanding of bat biology, that means gates and human
exclusion. Cavers need to work more with federal, state and
local governments to get them to more clearly see that
recreational caving *is* a legitmate use of the commonly
held public caves, just as much as endangered species
habitat is of some of them.
Your assertion that all caves on public land should
be open to the public is a bit silly. (Actually, nearly all
caves on public land ARE open to the public at some time of
the year, in some fashion.There are a few exceptions by
percentage of total public land caves which are locked up
year round, but not many. )
Are all public buildings open to the public without
passes, permits and such? Can you walk anywhere you want in
the White House or Pentagon 24 hours a day? All publicly
financed military installations? Of course not. Saying that
all caves on public land should be open to the public (for
free? Or is it ok to charge?) is as silly as saying because
land is public, there should be no restrictions on its use.
That way lies destruction, not stewardship of the resource.
You are probably very reponsible. So am I. What about a
carload of 18 year olds with three cases of beer a couple
of cases of spray paint, and fireworks? Do they have the
right to use public land anyway they see fit? Legally, 18
year olds for nearly all purposes except drinking, are
adults. The rules have to apply to everyone. Both good
people (who would behave anyway) and the unruly types have
to play by the same rules. In order to prevent harm by one
group, the other group gives up some of its rights. It is a
tradeoff.
Check your premises on that one, and come back when you
figure out what the different classes of public land are,
what the purposes of the lands are, and how their
managements differ.
You know, people complain about the lack of cave locations,
and sometimes whine that they should be handed them on a
silver platter just because they (the person and the
locations) exist. The cave locations, both on the land, and
in the reference material, are out there, people. You just
have to do a little creative sleuthing. Don't forget, that's
half the fun of caving is finding the darn things!
>If the NSS really wanted to do
>something helpful than they should post plaques or something at the
>entrances to the more sensitive caves reminding people to cave safely and
>to not deface the cave in anyway.
Many states do this on their non-gated caves. The weird
thing is, since caves are in the woods, and no one is
looking, people tear up the signs, as if the signs were an
affront to them. Are people who tear up signs to take care
of the caves the ones you want to let into the caves? But,
since the vandals are rarely caught, people who don't cave
come to think all cavers are like that. The good caver
tarred with the brush of the bad. If you know how to solve
that dilemma, please let me in on the secret. I'd love to
know myself so I could work for more access for good people.
good caving,
Jo *|;-)
Paul Montgomery
is not good. There is a long standing debate about these policies, but the
way Holt released them is in my and many opinions bad. Caves have been and
are now being destroyed by well meaning but ignorant people. Caves are also
being destroyed by not so well meaning people. I, nor anyone else here on
this newsgroup have the ability to judge which category you fall under or if
you, as I once was, are a just starting to discover a life long passion,
that grows into a firm desire protect these rare and beautiful gifts of
nature. The formations that you see in caves took thousands of years of
growth. Breaking one off takes seconds. Caving can be dangerous, in the
extreme if not properly prepared for.
Now, I know Mr. McKagen much better than you. I have went caving, and most
likely will cave again with him. My comments towards his practices of
releasing cave locations wholesale are based upon several years of listening
to others and his informed opinions. You are not the first new person to
sing the praise of Mr. McKagens practices. I'm sure he likes this. Good job.
You are now an official member of the uninformed opinion club. Stick around.
Go to a few caves. Read the posting here on a daily basis. Let me know if
you still think that he did a great thing. By the way, when caving is
reduced to a sport, I'll stop caving.
Fleg <baj...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote in message
news:01bef64f$30a63200$9524...@Bajabug.lvcablemodem.com...
> If you ask me, and no one did, It is people like Mr. McKagen that can help
> this sport out the most. The best way for the public to understand how
> fragile caves are is to get them envolved. What's a better way to get
them
> envolved than to show them the location of a few caves? I am in the
> process now of organizing the locations that I got into a generic
database.
> I understand that some locations that I have are on private land and this
> database will reflect that. When I am done or at least a good way started
> on this database than anyone that wants it can have it if thats ok with
the
> people that gave me the locations. Only with the permission from the
> original person will the database be given out.
>
> Michael Fleigle
>
Chris Kollmar
> We may have an anti cave vandelism law, but it is hard to enforce.
>
That is where responsible cavers come in. Many vandals or spelunkers
are completely unaware that these laws exist. Enforcement of these laws
SHOULD fall on the shoulders of local law enforcement agencies. They do
so here, but only when asked and in fact, some of these agencies aren't
even aware of these laws (NSS NEWS, April 1999, "NSS Grants Indiana
Caver...Vandalism Case", pp.112-113, paragraph 4.) There is also an
article on "State Cave Protection Laws" (pp. 103-104.) It is the
commission of responsible cavers to be aware of, and help to enforce
these laws.
> It appears that education of the non caver is the best long term
> solution.
Well spoken. And as soon as that non caver has become educated, he/she
has taken their first GIANT step to becoming a caver. How can we
educate non cavers? Through the work of local grottos, forums such as
this, and casual conversation above or below ground.
Until there is a more wide spread conservation ethic among
> the unenlighted (i.e. yahoos), secrecy, limited information (how to
> get to the show cave with a wild tour) or communication over a narrow
> channel (person to person, email) is a working compromise.
I don't know that it even comes down to conservation as much as respect.
I wouldn't be happy if you spray painted my car and broke off my
mirrors and antenna. It is my hope that people wouldn't do that out of
respect for my property. The same should hold true for caves. Private
or public.
>
> Besides, getting to know the local cavers has other benefits. Ever
> wanted a few friends to swap new tall tales with at dinner after a
> trip? Maybe my grotto is different, but the old stories just get
> older. We like to meet other cavers and swop new ones.
>
Guarantee: Cavers are a fascinating lot. Get to know as many of them
as you can.
> Marc
> Caver, tinkerer, etc.
>
I am distressed at the amount of bickering that goes on in this forum,
after all, we all have one common interest; a love for caves. The main
difference between each of us is our opinions and methods, something
that is normal and perhaps even healthy. Hopefully, the arguements are
a means to an end, and not just an effort to flame each other. In my
experience, pissing people off closes doors to communication. In order
for effective and productive discussion to take place, the flames should
subside.
Just my opinion, not necessarily that of the staff and management.
Chris Kollmar
> >If the NSS really wanted to do
> >something helpful than they should post plaques or something at the
> >entrances to the more sensitive caves reminding people to cave safely
and
> >to not deface the cave in anyway.
>
> Many states do this on their non-gated caves. The weird
> thing is, since caves are in the woods, and no one is
> looking, people tear up the signs, as if the signs were an
> affront to them. Are people who tear up signs to take care
> of the caves the ones you want to let into the caves? But,
> since the vandals are rarely caught, people who don't cave
> come to think all cavers are like that. The good caver
> tarred with the brush of the bad. If you know how to solve
> that dilemma, please let me in on the secret. I'd love to
> know myself so I could work for more access for good people.
>
> good caving,
> Jo *|;-)
>
Now, Jo, just because they tore up the sign, doesn't mean they'll tear
up the cave. I know when I get home from work late at night and no one
is around, I like to grab a hammer and bust out a couple of my windows.
If no one notices that, I'll rip off a couple of pieces of siding and
then slam my door REAL hard a few times. If I'm feeling really spunky,
I beat the crap out of my mailbox with a sledge. You know, someone
always comes along and gets the mess cleaned up, though. What I never
do is destroy the inside of the house, just the outside. Isn't that the
way it works?
*sarcasm*
Chris Kollmar
Save the dolph.....
Uh, Cave Softly!
(I feel like I'm speaking to a wall sometimes)
Hoyt McKagen
> I'm not talking about cavers with opposite views.
I sense a non-sequiteur here ... if you and they are not opposite to my
POV, why get mad?
>What about all the cavers
> that might support more open info (ME).
You can't share info openly by keeping it secret and so far no-one else
is giving it out.
> Whenever I put forth some ideas as
> how to do that, people use you as an example of why that doesn't work.
I'm a good example of sharing info, no? Something in your logic is
eluding me. Or is it their logic?
> needed protecting. In response to the "damage done to caves because of this,
> the policies were changed to the other extreme.
No-one has ever firmly and scientifically related open cave info to
damage. That's a red herring. The factors most important to traffic seem
to me to be local exposure and convenience of access. I devised a
questionaire to get info on that hypothesis and the idea was panned by
organized cavers. They actually openly conspired to talk it down. I
regard that as distinctly head-in-sand.
> be found. Your postings of locations, without info like access
restrictions
> and landowner contacts, helps to continue feeding the secrecy camp with
> ammo to use against any ideas of better access to information.
I'm not responsible for anyone but myself. If folks want to have a system
other than folks asking me, they need to get it on!! And for you, instead
of saying I am hampering that, you might like to think of it as
incentive, because I can promise you right now AS SOON AS a system is put
in place that satisfies info needs for old and new cavers alike, then
there will be no need for me to supply info and I will stop doing it.
Meanwhile I see no alternative.
> > Because I always respect the requests of owners etc to not reveal
> > specific caves. You know yourself I've not done that with some you've
> > shown me.
>
> True, you have not. Will that continue?
Give me a break! Why should it not?
> No, Information. If you must give out the info, try giving it out in private
> to the individual who requested it. Then at least your not pissing off the
> opposing side at the same time. Then when I suggest a data server for caves,
> maybe I could get support instead of flames.
Look Paul, nothing in my actions is in any way preventing you from
setting up server and I do not take blame for your not doing it however
convoluted the logic for that is. If flames are your concern I'm sure
you'll get plenty on your own merit, and frankly I don't take too well to
being blamed for that. You are ISTM just dodging the cause for the flames
off onto me that the proposal accrues on its own.
> Perhaps it could refer the
> requester to a caver contact who has agreed to manage that particular cave.
> I, as you know have many caves near me that the landowners have let me into
> on the condition that I do just this, manage the access so that they are not
> bothered,
Good idea!! Just do it.
>trying to
> make you realize that your approach is hurting the ones that are
> "politically" working for more open caving, me included.
Sorry, I don't think so. So far you're the only one I ever heard say I'm
hurting open info policies and that seems to me to be a stretch.
> So are you saying you would be more agreeable if I came out and helped
> dilate your hole?;]
No, just trying to help you lower your steam pressure. Nothing is going
to change my outlook on free info until a better system is in place.
--
Hoyt McKagen
>
> locations of caves is to join a grotto, in other words I would have been
> FORCED to join a grotto to get this information.
Exactly ... IOW, the NSS and its members are seeking to monopolize
caving. That would not itself be a bad idea if the grottos were not so
repulsive to new cavers.
Hoyt McKagen
> process now of organizing the locations that I got into a generic database.
> I understand that some locations that I have are on private land and this
> database will reflect that. When I am done or at least a good way started
> on this database than anyone that wants it can have it if thats ok with the
> people that gave me the locations.
Since Fleg seems to be doing what Paul claims he'd like to I am sending
Fleg the entire file. Fleg has my permission to copy it to folks who want
it with these conditions: 1) My copyright on arrangement of the data is
respected (IOW, Fleg is agent but others aren't) 2) the file is not
trimmed of header or other non-data info when copied; 3) users should
share info with me and Fleg on caves not listed, for my inclusion into
the master. That means Fleg and I will probably be doing a lot of commo
over time, but that's OK w/ me.
Fleg: the file will come later today by private email. Of course anyone
else wanting a copy can ask me also. BTW, this file will contain a lot of
my project locations, but good luck telling them apart from others w/o an
almst equally comprehensive source.
--
Paul Montgomery
Chris Kollmar <kollch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7qr6mp$770$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> (I feel like I'm speaking to a wall sometimes)
Sometimes? You must be having good luck.
Jo Schaper
<batw...@i-plus.net> wrote:
<snip>
>No, just trying to help you lower your steam pressure. Nothing is going
>to change my outlook on free info until a better system is in place.
>--
Hey Hoyt,
Could you expand on the quote above? What, in your
opinion, constitutes a "better system"?
I'm not pulling your chin hairs--I'd really like to hear
what you think one is. Seriously.
best regards,
Jo
Jo Schaper
<kollch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> >If the NSS really wanted to do
>> >something helpful than they should post plaques or something at the
>> >entrances to the more sensitive caves reminding people to cave safely
>and
>> >to not deface the cave in anyway.
>>
>> Many states do this on their non-gated caves. The weird
>> thing is, since caves are in the woods, and no one is
>> looking, people tear up the signs, as if the signs were an
>> affront to them. Are people who tear up signs to take care
>> of the caves the ones you want to let into the caves? But,
>> since the vandals are rarely caught, people who don't cave
>> come to think all cavers are like that. The good caver
>> tarred with the brush of the bad. If you know how to solve
>> that dilemma, please let me in on the secret. I'd love to
>> know myself so I could work for more access for good people.
>>
>> good caving,
>> Jo *|;-)
>>
>Now, Jo, just because they tore up the sign, doesn't mean they'll tear
>up the cave. I know when I get home from work late at night and no one
>is around, I like to grab a hammer and bust out a couple of my windows.
>If no one notices that, I'll rip off a couple of pieces of siding and
>then slam my door REAL hard a few times. If I'm feeling really spunky,
>I beat the crap out of my mailbox with a sledge. You know, someone
>always comes along and gets the mess cleaned up, though. What I never
>do is destroy the inside of the house, just the outside. Isn't that the
>way it works?
>*sarcasm*
>
>Chris Kollmar
Gosh, Chris, your sarcastic alter ego sounds like he would
be right at home in the Ozarks. Lots of mailbox smashing
goes on around here, but very little masochistic mailbox
smashing. They save that for shooting bottles off stumps,
and then they gotta clean up the glass every once in a while
so the stump doesn't get buried. Do you turn yourself into
the cops afterward? *|;-)
The part about "someone always comes along and gets the
mess cleaned up" hits home, though. Sometimes cave cleanups
including grafitti removal feels a bit like washing the
blackboards before turning the classroom over to local gang.
And then washing the blackboards again,later. I guess people
trying to set things right are closet enablers....
Jo
Nigel Robertson
Jo Schaper <josc...@inlink.com> wrote in message
news:37d1af3e...@news.inlink.com...
>
> The part about "someone always comes along and gets the
> mess cleaned up" hits home, though. Sometimes cave cleanups
> including grafitti removal feels a bit like washing the
> blackboards before turning the classroom over to local gang.
> And then washing the blackboards again,later. I guess people
> trying to set things right are closet enablers....
>
Just what proportion of caves are trashed in this way and how far into the
cave does this normally reach?
Nigel
Hoyt McKagen
> >to change my outlook on free info until a better system is in place.
> >--
>
> Hey Hoyt,
> Could you expand on the quote above? What, in your
> opinion, constitutes a "better system"?
Nothing better than free info but plenty of good ways to arrange it. I'd
be happy to have the task lifted from me onto server, which both Fleg and
Paul seem in favor of too.
>
--
Hoyt McKagen
> Just what proportion of caves are trashed in this way and how far into the
> cave does this normally reach?
>
1 or 2%. The most common trash caves are the ones near towns, roads and
rivers, and best known to locals. The teeners and partiers are mostly
responsible. Now and then we find caves trashed in countryside, usually
small pits with sinks or sinks themselves, and that is the work of the
farmers and local residents, who usually trash only a one or two on their
own land and often enough that not garbage but tires and old equipment
etc. Often enough there is cave underneath; we did cleanup in '95 here
and not only cleared a 40' pit with going cave, but the LO opened it back
up to entry after 45 years closed.
In the first case, trash is strewn thoughout for the most part. In some
caves, long use by locals has penetrated trash deep, usually to the first
difficult or dangerous part of cave, but in the bigger ones it is more
thinly distributed however much the extent.
Paul Montgomery
be put together where cavers could send in info about caves and have that
available to everyone in a way that didn't cause damage, both to the caves
and the newbe, then yes. I wouldn't do it unless I had a consensus among
cavers that the format was OK. This might entail not giving locations, but a
caver contact who could manage access. It might entail marking some info
restricted because of landowner or conservation needs. Right now I don't
think a consensus could be reached, because of greatly varying opinions and
no want to compromise on either side. Your publishing locations as you do is
a good example of the lack of willingness to compromise. At this point, I'm
pretty sure it's not worth discussion, mainly because you post these
locations, piss people off, and make it difficult for me or anyone else to
defend a reasonable open info policy. Oh Well.
Hoyt McKagen <batw...@i-plus.net> wrote in message
news:37D1DE...@i-plus.net...
> Jo Schaper wrote:
> > >to change my outlook on free info until a better system is in place.
> > >--
> >
> > Hey Hoyt,
> > Could you expand on the quote above? What, in your
> > opinion, constitutes a "better system"?
>
> Nothing better than free info but plenty of good ways to arrange it. I'd
> be happy to have the task lifted from me onto server, which both Fleg and
> Paul seem in favor of too.
> >
>
Chris Kollmar
Hoyt McKagen <batw...@i-plus.net> wrote:
> Nigel Robertson wrote:
> > Just what proportion of caves are trashed in this way and how far
into the
> > cave does this normally reach?
> >
>
> 1 or 2%. The most common trash caves are the ones near towns, roads
and
> rivers, and best known to locals. The teeners and partiers are mostly
> responsible. Now and then we find caves trashed in countryside,
usually
> small pits with sinks or sinks themselves, and that is the work of the
> farmers and local residents, who usually trash only a one or two on
their
> own land and often enough that not garbage but tires and old equipment
> etc. Often enough there is cave underneath; we did cleanup in '95 here
> and not only cleared a 40' pit with going cave, but the LO opened it
back
> up to entry after 45 years closed.
>
> In the first case, trash is strewn thoughout for the most part. In
some
> caves, long use by locals has penetrated trash deep, usually to the
first
> difficult or dangerous part of cave, but in the bigger ones it is more
> thinly distributed however much the extent.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Hoyt McKagen
>
myself. 1 or 2% Hoyt? Apparently you don't give locations to the caves
in your area.
Within the system I primarily cave, there are about 17 miles of known
passage. In my estimation, about 6 miles of the total is trashed. This
ranges from spraypaint, speleothem destruction, trash left in cave by
visitors, and human waste. This vandalism is evident, in varying
degrees, throughout the caves to which I'm referring. This translates
into roughly 28% of the known passage. Interestingly enough, the
trashed passages and caves are the ones that have maps available from
the local cave shop to anyone with two bucks in their pocket. Hmmm, I
wonder if freely distributed locations effects the degree to which caves
are trashed? Nah......
The area caves with no readily available maps are, not somewhat, but
completely trash free.
I also might mention, the only caves in this area with RECORDED rescues
in the last several years, are the ones with maps freely available.
Somebody tell me why that is, please.
The one good thing I can say about the published locatons: I still have
11 miles of NICE passage.
Chris Kollmar
Cave Softly!
Jo Schaper
<Pa...@tcia.net> wrote:
>I'm not in favor of anything that caused damage to caves. If a server could
>be put together where cavers could send in info about caves and have that
>available to everyone in a way that didn't cause damage, both to the caves
>and the newbe, then yes. I wouldn't do it unless I had a consensus among
>cavers that the format was OK. This might entail not giving locations, but a
>caver contact who could manage access.
Cavers don't manage cave access. Cave landowners do. Now,
they might delegate it to local cavers they know to
eliminate the hassle factor. but the responsibility rests
with them. The problem around here doesn't seem to be so
much the damage to caves caused by easy location knowledge,
(although the damage to certain easily accessible caves is
substantial, I seriously doubt if the vandals are getting
their info off the Internet ) but the problem to cave
access, just because if a cave is well known, and the owner
is bothered too much they just close it. End of story.
> It might entail marking some info
>restricted because of landowner or conservation needs. Right now I don't
>think a consensus could be reached, because of greatly varying opinions and
>no want to compromise on either side.
And the discussion so far does not include landowners or
managers, with actual legal rights to the cave, but just
cavers, so it is all blowing smoke, anyway.
> Your publishing locations as you do is
>a good example of the lack of willingness to compromise. At this point, I'm
>pretty sure it's not worth discussion, mainly because you post these
>locations, piss people off, and make it difficult for me or anyone else to
>defend a reasonable open info policy. Oh Well.
The difficulty between the extremes is the idea of "who is a
responsible caver" is purely a subjective one. Until such
time as the caving community adopts somewhat objective
tests and standards, like PADI certification for scuba, with
a landowner liability insurance component, such as
skydivers have, this issue will not be resolved, caves will
continue to be closed, and the ones that remain open will
get more traffic and destruction, regardless of the secrecy
or availability of location information.
Why is it so hard for humans to understand that location
information does not imply permission to visit? If we could
solve that one, we could post locations on every bathroom
wall in the country, and the caves would not be impacted.
The problem isn't locations. It is people, and I don't have
much faith that we can solve that one in our lifetimes.
best to you both,
Jo
Jo Schaper
<ni...@dont-spam-me-im-vegetarian.easegill.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>Jo Schaper <josc...@inlink.com> wrote in message
>news:37d1af3e...@news.inlink.com...
>
>>
>> The part about "someone always comes along and gets the
>> mess cleaned up" hits home, though. Sometimes cave cleanups
>> including grafitti removal feels a bit like washing the
>> blackboards before turning the classroom over to local gang.
>> And then washing the blackboards again,later. I guess people
>> trying to set things right are closet enablers....
>>
>
>Just what proportion of caves are trashed in this way and how far into the
>cave does this normally reach?
>
>Nigel
I generally agree with Hoyt, except the proportion of caves
which are so trashed in the Ozarks is probably more in the
range of 20-30% of all caves, and 80% of all those near
roads, rivers and other thoroughfares, since many of our
caves are near such topographic cuts.. The sinkhole trash
problem is probably more virulent here, as people will dump
trash on the sides of county roads, on government land,
including sinkholes, as well as their own property. It is
probably difficult for someone in a small country such as
yourself to truly comprehend the miles and miles of back
roads and backwoods where people rarely go, and therefore
can do pretty much whatever they damn please, however
illegal or destructive.
I also agree that most intense destruction is in two
locales in the caves--near the entrance to the first nasty
bit, and then again at the very extreme of the cave, where
grafitti is a great problem, and in the exurban areas, more
than those totally rural.
Jo
Nigel Robertson
Paul Montgomery <Pa...@tcia.net> wrote in message
news:l9uA3.11547$Jl.2...@news6.giganews.com...
> I'm not in favor of anything that caused damage to caves. If a server
could
> be put together where cavers could send in info about caves and have that
> available to everyone in a way that didn't cause damage, both to the caves
> and the newbe, then yes.
Information doesn't damage anything, it's what people do with it.
It has been suggested in the past in this group that guide book publication
in the US has rapidly led to the vandalism of the caves mentioned in the
book. Were these books available at just recognised caving shops or were
they available locally in the area they covered, thus making them easily
obtainable by non-cavers?
Damage to the newbie: if you give mis-information or partial information
then I suggest that you are much more culpable if said newbie hurts
themselves than if you had told them what you knew in good faith. Anyway,
it smacks of nannyism. Follow it through and you'll suddenly find that the
State reduces all caving accidents to zero by banning caving completely
because they don't want you to hurt yourself.
> I wouldn't do it unless I had a consensus among
> cavers that the format was OK. This might entail not giving locations, but
a
> caver contact who could manage access. It might entail marking some info
> restricted because of landowner or conservation needs. Right now I don't
> think a consensus could be reached, because of greatly varying opinions
and
> no want to compromise on either side.
Why don't you do it without publishing locations or sensitive data. Provide
contact info where poss. You can then show that some information can be
shared without compromising the caves involved. It's a foot in the door.
Then you can begin the long debate about the contentious info and see what
works out. If the info provided is useful to people and no increase in cave
damage is experienced, then people will identify that you are acting
responsibly and you may win some converts. A question now. Can anyone
identify any cave that has been damaged by people who have discovered it's
location from the info Hoyt posts here?
Nigel
Nigel Robertson
> Cavers don't manage cave access. Cave landowners do. Now,
> they might delegate it to local cavers they know to
> eliminate the hassle factor. but the responsibility rests
> with them. The problem around here doesn't seem to be so
> much the damage to caves caused by easy location knowledge,
> (although the damage to certain easily accessible caves is
> substantial, I seriously doubt if the vandals are getting
> their info off the Internet ) but the problem to cave
> access, just because if a cave is well known, and the owner
> is bothered too much they just close it. End of story.
>
Perhaps some like minded cavers in each region should get together and
negotiate and manage access for the landowners. A permit system could
control the numbers visiting a cave or an area and perhaps persuade your
sceptical landowners that access can be ok.
>
> > It might entail marking some info
> >restricted because of landowner or conservation needs. Right now I don't
> >think a consensus could be reached, because of greatly varying opinions
and
> >no want to compromise on either side.
>
> And the discussion so far does not include landowners or
> managers, with actual legal rights to the cave, but just
> cavers, so it is all blowing smoke, anyway.
>
> > Your publishing locations as you do is
> >a good example of the lack of willingness to compromise. At this point,
I'm
> >pretty sure it's not worth discussion, mainly because you post these
> >locations, piss people off, and make it difficult for me or anyone else
to
> >defend a reasonable open info policy. Oh Well.
>
> The difficulty between the extremes is the idea of "who is a
> responsible caver" is purely a subjective one. Until such
> time as the caving community adopts somewhat objective
> tests and standards, like PADI certification for scuba, with
> a landowner liability insurance component, such as
> skydivers have, this issue will not be resolved, caves will
> continue to be closed, and the ones that remain open will
> get more traffic and destruction, regardless of the secrecy
> or availability of location information.
Oh my gawd, noooooooooo. You don't want certificates for caving. Hilary
didn't need a certificate to climb Everest, Livingstone didn't need one to
walk along the Nile. Don't make caving elitist. Anyway, this argument
doesn't agree with you earlier statement that it is the number of people
(being responsible and) seeking permission that antagonises landowners.
>
> Why is it so hard for humans to understand that location
> information does not imply permission to visit?
It's not hard, it's a lack of proper information on the procedures. Since
most cavers in the US seem to be members of NSS grottoes and presumably
internal cave damage is caused by cavers, perhaps it's the NSS that is
lacking ;]
> If we could
> solve that one, we could post locations on every bathroom
> wall in the country, and the caves would not be impacted.
Being made out of stone, caves are remarkably resilient things.
Disfigurement is different from destruction. Cave ecosystems are probably
much more at risk but there is very little info on the impact of entrance
area vandalism or in-cave traffic. Perhaps some useful studies could be
undertaken of the affects of both.
People have been impacting on all areas of the Earth since they first
appeared. Caves are no exception. Conservation isn't preservation. An
integrated measure is needed of the anthropogenic impacts on caves and how
these change as caver / vandal numbers change. Perhaps you might find that
we, 'responsible cavers are the ones causing more damage to the cave
ecosystem.
Nigel
Nigel Robertson
>
> The area caves with no readily available maps are, not somewhat, but
> completely trash free.
Is the 17 mile cave the only one of note in your area. (I note you are
being careful to not even tell us it's name).
>
> I also might mention, the only caves in this area with RECORDED rescues
> in the last several years, are the ones with maps freely available.
> Somebody tell me why that is, please.
Because they are the only caves that people can find out about so they have
to go there, or, because they are the only caves worth doing in the area.
In the Yorkshire Dales only 4 or 5 caves produce about 70%? of our accidents
because they are the most popular caves here.
Nigel
Nigel Robertson
>
> I generally agree with Hoyt, except the proportion of caves
> which are so trashed in the Ozarks is probably more in the
> range of 20-30% of all caves, and 80% of all those near
> roads, rivers and other thoroughfares, since many of our
I think you need to start manufacturing artificial nasty bits (squeezes,
ducks, spiders) for placement just inside your entrances ;)
John Dryden
one of my thoughts.
How many vandals are going to go to the trouble of looking up caves just
to vandalize? I seriously doubt it would be a common problem. As for
access restrictions, put a contact person either the land owner (if they
agree) or a local caver that the landowner agrees to. It would do no
harm in at least having access to the surveys in case access is ever
gained. Like I said, the land owner would have the final say in who was
able to go and who would not. I don't see what problems would exist in
a setup like this, but I'm sure someone will find one.
ps You will notice that I didn't say anything about cave locations.
There would no harm in postin just the county and state would there?
John
Jo Schaper
<ni...@dont-spam-me-im-vegetarian.easegill.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>Perhaps some like minded cavers in each region should get together and
>negotiate and manage access for the landowners. A permit system could
>control the numbers visiting a cave or an area and perhaps persuade your
>sceptical landowners that access can be ok.
Well, that would only work if the cavers agreed, and US
cavers (as you can tell) are a fractious lot. Some of this
is going on, but organized cavers aren't all cavers
(probably a distinct minority here, actually) and those
"left out" just do as they please anyway. Another difficulty
(I don't know if it is the same around the UK) is the great
mobility of cavers. Probably worse than the general
population. I think only about a fifth of the cavers I
started caving with are still involved locally. It is hard
to set up a "system" with such a high turnover rate. (And I
will probably be leaving this area come January myself, at
least temporarily.)
>>
>> The difficulty between the extremes is the idea of "who is a
>> responsible caver" is purely a subjective one. Until such
>> time as the caving community adopts somewhat objective
>> tests and standards, like PADI certification for scuba, with
>> a landowner liability insurance component, such as
>> skydivers have, this issue will not be resolved, caves will
>> continue to be closed, and the ones that remain open will
>> get more traffic and destruction, regardless of the secrecy
>> or availability of location information.
>
>Oh my gawd, noooooooooo. You don't want certificates for caving. Hilary
>didn't need a certificate to climb Everest, Livingstone didn't need one to
>walk along the Nile. Don't make caving elitist. Anyway, this argument
>doesn't agree with you earlier statement that it is the number of people
>(being responsible and) seeking permission that antagonises landowners.
Maybe I don't want certificates for caving, but the people
who manage state lands do. The public and private
landowners want some evidence of liability release or
insurance in case of mishap. Insurance companies will not
insure cavers for liability (as cavers) without some
evidence of competence. Vertical caves have already been
closed to cavers in this region because cavers lack
insurance and certification, while they are open to youth
groups which carry and do both, even though the quality of
the certification is laughable to a caving veteran.
Increasingly caves are closed to us on the basis of
sensational rescues, and because there is no objective
standard to discriminate between a good caver and a poor
one. You cannot legally hunt in this state without a hunter
education certificate (which is a gun safety course, mostly)
and a hunting license. We've got to live in society which
wants these things. If we had such things, it could do a lot
to legitimize caving so that we could maintain access to
caves on public lands as "recreational caves" with a
legitimate mandate.
I think the day is coming...for the US at least.
>It's not hard, it's a lack of proper information on the procedures. Since
>most cavers in the US seem to be members of NSS grottoes and presumably
>internal cave damage is caused by cavers, perhaps it's the NSS that is
>lacking ;]
Yes, but it is also a lack of common courtesy and knowledge
of trespassing law in the general population. NSS people can
talk until they are blue in the face, but largely it is
preaching to the choir. Forums such as this I think are
useful, because the message of such simple things as ask
permission before you go to a cave get out to some folks who
otherwise are operating on false assumptions.
>
>Being made out of stone, caves are remarkably resilient things.
>Disfigurement is different from destruction. Cave ecosystems are probably
>much more at risk but there is very little info on the impact of entrance
>area vandalism or in-cave traffic. Perhaps some useful studies could be
>undertaken of the affects of both.
>
>People have been impacting on all areas of the Earth since they first
>appeared. Caves are no exception. Conservation isn't preservation. An
>integrated measure is needed of the anthropogenic impacts on caves and how
>these change as caver / vandal numbers change. Perhaps you might find that
>we, 'responsible cavers are the ones causing more damage to the cave
>ecosystem.
I am not an abject preservationist. Far from it. I am
however, a conservationist. As far as I am concerned the
best thing a person can do for the planet is kill
themselves. That is counter intuitive, so the second best
thing is to have no children. (I don't., although that
promotes the procreative survival of people who don't think
that far ahead.) The third best thing is to be a minimalist
consumer. And the fourth best thing is to invent new ways
of doing more with less. A local man well known in the
environmental movement died this past spring, and he is
reputed to have wanted on his gravestone, "I want to have
made no change in natural world." Good things to strive for,
and just about as against bigger, better, more expensive,
faster which is the constant media harangue as one can get.
Caves do have carrying capacities, just like any other
ecosystem. They can be used without detriment, as long as
proper care is given, and they are not abused. But that
pretty much flies in the face of the message of the media,
and the greed which constitutes a "good economy," as well
as the "me now ism " of the last 30 or so years.
I know, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
best regards,
Jo
Jo Schaper
(John Dryden) writes:
>
>How many vandals are going to go to the trouble of looking up caves just
>to vandalize? I seriously doubt it would be a common problem.
You might be amazed. People will look in the Net for stuff they'd never take
the time to look for in the library. I would suspect there would be a lot more
unauthorized access if locations were freely available. By that I mean people
sneaking into caves.
> As for
>access restrictions, put a contact person either the land owner (if they
>agree) or a local caver that the landowner agrees to. It would do no
>harm in at least having access to the surveys in case access is ever
>gained. Like I said, the land owner would have the final say in who was
>able to go and who would not.
But with absentee landowners and little respect for the trespassing laws, there
is a whole lot of "don't ask, don't tell" caving going on now, where only the
cave itself suffers, both from organized and unorganized cavers. It wouldn't be
quite fair to blame "sneak caving" only on the unorganized, cause it just ain't
true.
I don't see what problems would exist in
>a setup like this, but I'm sure someone will find one.
Turnover of landowners, and turnover of access people, with access problems
developing because of it. Xeroxing of "the list" and it getting into kids in
high schools who then "go exploring." None of this is speculation. All of this
has and is happening, with the cave lists that are out there. About the only
advantage I can see is it might cause fewer library books to be stolen, if they
can print the info off the Net.
>ps You will notice that I didn't say anything about cave locations.
>There would no harm in postin just the county and state would there?
Believe it or not, a book on published around 1980 took exactly that tack.
Obviously, it was the state. Longest cave lists per county were also included.
Guess what? Enterprising people took the book to places in that county and
started asking questions of the locals. Found caves that way too, even some new
ones. If people want caves, they will find them. If people come to me
privately, I'll even send them to a couple of well-known caves, once I somewhat
ascertain that they have a clue what they are doing, and are not liable to hurt
themselves or the cave. Sometimes, if I can, I'll take them myself. I'm not
against getting people interested in caves to find caves. However, I don't want
the responsibility of having some idiot "go caving" and get hurt, get caves
closed because of my mistakes, or tick off landowners who value their privacy
in an anonymous setting like a cave server.
Person to person is still the best way to handle cave location
dispersal, I think. Even so, I also think it is only a matter of time until a
cave server of some kind goes up. And it will be an interesting world after
that point, sort of like Pandora's box opening, or the ending of an Isaac
Asimov story about time-viewing, in which all the academics had high minded
reasons for wanting to do time-viewing, but the "killer app" was snooping on
your neighbor. When the secret of time viewing was released to the press, the
ending line went something like, "Happy goldfish bowl to you all, and may you
fry in hell forever."
Nothing personal, anyone...just beware what you wish for, and be sure it
is what you *really* want, because you just might get it.
yawn,
Jo
Chris Kollmar
>
> Information doesn't damage anything, it's what people do with it.
>
And Human nature is difficult if not impossible to change. The debate
over accesibility of info is not so much the root as the effect of lack
of responsibilty.
I know what I mean by that, I hope it makes sense.
> Damage to the newbie: if you give mis-information or partial
information
> then I suggest that you are much more culpable if said newbie hurts
> themselves than if you had told them what you knew in good faith.
I Absolutely Agree
<snip>
A question now. Can anyone identify any cave that has been damaged by
people who have discovered it's location from the info Hoyt posts here?
>
> Nigel
>
I would doubt so. Hoyt is certainly not the only "cave location guru"
and fingers should not be pointed at him. Hoyt is posting as he sees
best just like I or anyone else does. I may not agree with what he
does, but I have to respect his right to do so. I don't think we should
publish cave locations anywhere, and that is the opinion I post. Both
sides of the coin have valid points and through the discussions of those
points, we all get smarter.
To summerize; Don't point fingers at people, point them at ideas.
Chris Kollmar
>
> Is the 17 mile cave the only one of note in your area. (I note you
are being careful to not even tell us it's name).
This is in a cave rich area and I am referring to a 17 mile system
(linked by dye tracing and some light and voice only passage) rather
than a single cave. I would say that the trashed areas are more notable
in that they are easiest to access. Some of the system is relatively
new discovery and in areas involves dangerous breakdown and high
flooding potential. I should also say that the majority of the system
has A single landowner who allows free access to all the caves on his
property.
> > I also might mention, the only caves in this area with RECORDED
rescues in the last several years, are the ones with maps freely
available.
> > Somebody tell me why that is, please.
>
> Because they are the only caves that people can find out about so they
have to go there, or, because they are the only caves worth doing in the
area. In the Yorkshire Dales only 4 or 5 caves produce about 70%? of our
accidents because they are the most popular caves here.
>
> Nigel
I was grouchy when I wrote that so I apologize if it came off wrong. It
is most likely because they are the only caves that people can find out
about, which does, to me, lend itself to the secrecy side of the issue.
Whether or not they are the only caves worth doing in the area is a
matter of opinion. One caver may only wish to see "pretties" and
walking passage while others may be more interested in the geologic
significance or historical aspect of a cave. Certainly higher
visitation means more rescues. I was just trying to point out that the
less visited caves here, although often more dangerous, are involved in
less rescues. I feel like this is because the limited accessibility of
info on the caves serves as a filter which generally only allows
experienced and capable cavers in. In no way am I saying that lots of
experience and expert skills translates into no accidents, but it
increases safety.
Paul Montgomery
logic exercise; "here is an example of posting cave locations....is it
causing damage?".
Chris Kollmar <kollch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7r0j7n$noh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
mgca...@calweb.com
In California, where the poison oak grows, we've contemplated planing
thickets of it to ward off the weak and cautious. But the yahoos are
not too bright and can overcome any obstacle wtih enough beer (liquid
courage and stupidity). Poison ivy might be an option in the east.
Other than that and a few robot rattlesnakes, options are limited.
Perhaps junk yard dogs and rabid wesals?
Marc
Caver, etc.
Jo Schaper
>On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:50:02 +0100, "Nigel Robertson"
>>> I generally agree with Hoyt, except the proportion of caves
>>> which are so trashed in the Ozarks is probably more in the
>>> range of 20-30% of all caves, and 80% of all those near
>>> roads, rivers and other thoroughfares, since many of our
>>
>> I think you need to start manufacturing artificial nasty bits (squeezes,
>>ducks, spiders) for placement just inside your entrances ;)
>In California, where the poison oak grows, we've contemplated planing
>thickets of it to ward off the weak and cautious. But the yahoos are
>not too bright and can overcome any obstacle wtih enough beer (liquid
>courage and stupidity). Poison ivy might be an option in the east.
>Other than that and a few robot rattlesnakes, options are limited.
>Perhaps junk yard dogs and rabid wesals?
Wait until the new bat horror flick gets around. Then
we'll have the caves to ourselves for a while. *|;-)
You must remember, taken with beer and stupidity,
everything outside looks like amusement park ride. There is
poison ivy quite profusely near numerous cave
entrances--also chiggers, ticks, snakes, stinging nettle,
and other amusing plants and animals. No, we need something
like another Mo-Mo scare. (Mo-Mo is midwestern for
Sasquatch.)
Jo
Tony Brocklebank
I reckon the "damage to the newbie" argument needs sorting quickly. Nigel
is 100% right (he would be he's British, he's only a Scot on the days I
disagree with him). Providing partial, misleading information makes you
more culpable.
In my view once the newbie knows where the cave is a piece of paper that
tells him he needs a 100' rope for the pitch stops him falling the last
twenty feet off the end of his shiny 80' rope. More importantly everyone,
even idiots, have to take responsibility for their own actions underground.
Giving information about a cave does not make you liable for someone else's
incompetence.
I've kept quiet for the last few days to see how this develops but having
just reread most of the argument including the post threatening Hoyt with
legal action (nice attempt at intimidation [I wonder if it was NSS
sanctioned?] - I'd be amazed if Hoyt doesn't reply with two words including
the letters C, F, F, F, K, O, U) as an outside observer I'm beginning to see
a certain nepotistic, elitist "you're not one of us" approach seeping
through. Breaking newbies and damaging cave is OK for NSS members but
nobody else?
Hoyt cannot be the only US caver who accepts that any cave twenty feet from
the road within five miles of a town with a party size chamber is going to
get trashed with or without it's location being published. This happens
everywhere. Any policy decision must take this into account and ignore this
type of cave.
And what's wrong with pointing a finger at people? It's always happening to
me.
Love and kisses (oh no - sorry wrong news group)
Tony
Tony Brocklebank
> This is in a cave rich area and I am referring to a 17 mile system
> (linked by dye tracing and some light and voice only passage) rather
> than a single cave.
Not a proper system then - this definition makes the
Easgill/Kingsdale/Chapel le Dale system about 150 miles long?
The trashing and the accidents are happening where the traffic is. No great
surprise. And no argument in there for secrecy. (Unless you believe
publishing a guide book would massively increase the traffic in US cave
areas overall)
Tony Brocklebank
Nigel Robertson <ni...@dont-spam-me-im-vegetarian.easegill.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message news:7qus63$st$4...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Jo Schaper <josc...@inlink.com> wrote in message
> news:37d2a30c...@news.inlink.com...
>
>
> >
Tony Brocklebank
> courage and stupidity....
Try inserting the word "caver".
It reads well to me.
Jo Schaper
<tonybro...@tesco.net> writes:
>
>> Sasquatch
>
>and Sasquatch in English is a what precisely?
>
>
>
>
Sorry Tony.
Sasquatch is a semi-fictitious large humanoid/primate first allegedly sighted
in the Pacific Northwest. It may actually have been a big guy in an ape suit
who didn't wash for a couple of months. It was filmed, and is one of those
"weird creatures" of paranormal possibility, like your own Loch Ness Monster.
(Or whichever Scotsman of the week you'd like to attribute it to.) A similar
creature allegedly was sighted near Louisiana, Missouri in the late 1970's, if
I recall, and it was associated with cow mutilations, UFOs and all sorts of
other such phenomenon. But for a couple of months no one went into the woods,
the dogs barked strangely, and everyone out by themselves at night scared
themselves silly. (It may have actually been a bear. After years of denial, our
local conservation dept. finally has admitted that bears have moved back into
the state, but this was before we were supposed to have had any bears.)
Nuff said? Maybe a moor or bog monster to you.
Jo
Hoyt McKagen
>
> In article <14275-37...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, JDR...@webtv.net
> (John Dryden) writes:
> the time to look for in the library. I would suspect there would be a lot more
> unauthorized access if locations were freely available. By that I mean people
> sneaking into caves.
Ya see, that's the whole problem. You 'suspect' something, but you do not
'know' it and you cannot 'prove' it. In that case you cannot justify
anything decision-wise and you might as well have said nothing.
> But with absentee landowners and little respect for the trespassing laws, there
You're assuming again. Why would wannabees be less likely to respect the
laws?
> Guess what? Enterprising people took the book to places in that county and
> started asking questions of the locals. Found caves that way too, even some new
> ones.
That's exactly what I do to find new caves. So what? It's highly regarded
by most 'real' cavers and you do no tneed a book to start with. You're
merely trying to justify secrecy in it's most hideous form.
Hoyt McKagen
> Your publishing locations as you do is
> a good example of the lack of willingness to compromise.
Show me ONE compromise offered by anyone on the topic.
Caving folks in fact are opposed to even doing studies on the problem;
there was open talking down of my attempt to get data on it and find out
the real causes for excess traffic. I suppose the reasoning on that was
that if I couldn't show what was really happening I would be unable to
justify the open info policy, as if I needed that. But because of the
events (regardless of the reasons) I have decided that if someone wants
justification for secrecy, that person will have to do the study now, as
I am not going to. They certainly had their chance last year to cooperate
in that, and they blew it. That means the onus is now on the detractors
to show me they're right before I will even begin to consider my thinking
again. Since I know how cavers operate, that means essentially the study
will never be done and that my policy will remain set in stone.
>At this point, I'm
> pretty sure it's not worth discussion, mainly because you post these
> locations, piss people off, and make it difficult for me or anyone else to
> defend a reasonable open info policy.
Sorry, I don't accept the blame for that. The locations I give out were
part of the public record and/or are caves I've found myself. And people
have the ability to react to that however they might wish in terms of
their own conceptions; for the record, I get lots of private mail
supporting that. Finally, you can propose any policy more open than
secrecy, and it will draw flames on its own merit w/o any regard for my
acts. I'd think that if you have had flames, no-one has even mentioned me
as part of their reasoning. In fact my policy would be a fine incentive
to come up with something better, yes? BTW, it's always been my opinion
that including secrecy in relation to a more open info policy is like
including fucking for the cause of chastity.
Hoyt McKagen
> I said to myself I wouldn't add fuel to this fire but I can't stop
> myself. 1 or 2% Hoyt? Apparently you don't give locations to the caves
> in your area.
In fact last year I specifically mentioned some digs I was working on and
local cavers went to the landowner and bad-mouthed me, to extent that
permission was withdrawn for some of them. As a result of that I have
begun to bad-mouth local cavers to LOs whenever I can justify it.
> Within the system I primarily cave, there are about 17 miles of known
> passage. In my estimation, about 6 miles of the total is trashed.
My estimated figure was on caves by number of caves, not by amount of
each cave.
> trashed passages and caves are the ones that have maps available from
> the local cave shop to anyone with two bucks in their pocket. Hmmm, I
> wonder if freely distributed locations effects the degree to which caves
> are trashed?
Those caves are the ones well-known to locals on a historic basis and
farther than that have easy access from local roads, yes? I'd even
suggest that you will find caves matching those quals that are not on
readily available maps, that do not differ greatly in trashing.
> The area caves with no readily available maps are, not somewhat, but
> completely trash free.
Compare them on access ease and you'll see what really matters. For
example, trashing usually stops inside at the point where things get
tough. Specifically, we have a cave right beside a road and easily
visible and well-known. It's almost pristine, because it has a tough and
un-nerving entrance pinch.
> I also might mention, the only caves in this area with RECORDED rescues
> in the last several years, are the ones with maps freely available.
> Somebody tell me why that is, please.
Opinion: Because cavers don't want the caves that are less known to be
publicized and there is a diff in how rescues are handled? How many
people can see the action and get involved in telling it around would
also matter.
Paul Montgomery
> Paul Montgomery wrote:
> >At this point, I'm
> > pretty sure it's not worth discussion, mainly because you post these
> > locations, piss people off, and make it difficult for me or anyone else
to
> > defend a reasonable open info policy.
I hearby modify that statement to read "partially" instead of "mainly". What
I would like to see is some kind of middle ground looked at, and both sides
become mighty vocal once the subject is brought up. "They" seem as
entrenched at one extreme as you are at the other.
>
> Sorry, I don't accept the blame for that. The locations I give out were
> part of the public record and/or are caves I've found myself. And people
> have the ability to react to that however they might wish in terms of
> their own conceptions; for the record, I get lots of private mail
> supporting that. Finally, you can propose any policy more open than
> secrecy, and it will draw flames on its own merit w/o any regard for my
> acts. I'd think that if you have had flames, no-one has even mentioned me
> as part of their reasoning.
Not true, but I don't have to get flame letters to see the responses in the
newsgroup and elsewhere.
>In fact my policy would be a fine incentive
> to come up with something better, yes?
. I understand that it is wise to cease hostilities before you set down and
talk peace. It appears that we can't get that far.
>BTW, it's always been my opinion
> that including secrecy in relation to a more open info policy is like
> including fucking for the cause of chastity.
You need to change that opinion. That's like saying shooting someone in self
defense is the same as shooting someone so you can more easily remove their
wallet.
This discussion, as Jo said, is good. The issues of easier access to
information via the internet and the media need to be addressed.
If as Jo said, someone is going to put up a Map/Cave
Server, then we need to be the ones that did it. Only then can we hope to
have a format that minimizes the damage done and provides all the positives
that are possible. I'm totally amazed that everyone doesn't see this.
Paul Montgomery
Jim <jwi...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:37d46008...@news.purdue.edu...
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:54:16 +0100, "Nigel Robertson"
Snip
> You can post your
> locations, and if it can't be stopped, let them come, let everyone
> come, I will help build gates and set access restrictions and fight
> it, and there will always be caves that you and I will never see and
> they will be protected. That gives me a bit of consolation when I see
> lists of GPS locations posted.
I as a supporter of more open information would also help build gates and
set access restrictions. The only difference is I would let everyone know
that there were gates and access restrictions. Damage caused by locals would
most likely not change because of any policy change we as cavers make. The
local kid down the road, who does most if not all of the trashing of the
caves in my area, would not even know this. If he is smart enough to get on
the internet and find the server, access it and read through all of the
information necessary to get a location, (I would make this a requirement)
then he is most likely destined to be a caver and has as much right to be
there and do the thing that we do. He or she is very unlikely to be any more
damaging to caves than us. As to pristine caves... I have several that are
and would like to keep them that way. There is no reason that we couldn't do
this and still have more open access to information. Management. Without it,
we have caves being trashed. Are you saying that adding a little management
would increase this?
>
> But at any rate, what kind of facts would prove the debate to you?
> That's always a good place to start.
I'd say a good start would be to set up a server with a limited number of
caves listed. Start with a format that gave descriptions, past trip reports,
conservation issues, restrictions to access, and a contact person that was
willing to act a access manager for each cave with the landowners permission
of course. If the landowner says no to access, then list it as such and help
the landowner to vigorously pursue trespassers. The word will get out that
times are changing and this cave is managed. Vandals would get the message,
once a few were caught and prosecuted.
If a pilot program like this worked, then we could refine its use and expand
it. If it didn't, then we would know it didn't work and maybe why.
Phil Macrackin
http://intermind.net/~speleo/sngpage/info/info.html
Very Helpful People
Tony Brocklebank
Nigel Robertson
> Maybe I don't want certificates for caving, but the people
> who manage state lands do. The public and private
> landowners want some evidence of liability release or
> insurance in case of mishap. Insurance companies will not
> insure cavers for liability (as cavers) without some
> evidence of competence. Vertical caves have already been
> closed to cavers in this region because cavers lack
> insurance and certification, while they are open to youth
> groups which carry and do both, even though the quality of
> the certification is laughable to a caving veteran.
> Increasingly caves are closed to us on the basis of
> sensational rescues, and because there is no objective
> standard to discriminate between a good caver and a poor
> one. You cannot legally hunt in this state without a hunter
> education certificate (which is a gun safety course, mostly)
> and a hunting license. We've got to live in society which
> wants these things. If we had such things, it could do a lot
> to legitimize caving so that we could maintain access to
> caves on public lands as "recreational caves" with a
> legitimate mandate.
> I think the day is coming...for the US at least.
>
Public liability insurance cover has been arranged in the UK and Europe. In
the UK, a national body was able to persuade an insurance company that
caving is not a dangerous past-time, certainly compared to many other sports
which are routinely insured. There is no test of competence. The caving
population is already composed of both competents and incompetents so any
effects are already integrated into the rescue statistics. I believe that
the rescue statistics were used as a primary pleading point to the insurance
company. This cover is not expensive and is normally taken out by clubs to
cover all their members. Insurers only want to make money so perhaps it
just needs an effort from the NSS to achieve.
>
> I am not an abject preservationist. Far from it. I am
> however, a conservationist. As far as I am concerned the
> best thing a person can do for the planet is kill
> themselves.
And locally change the microbe, maggot and worm populations?
> That is counter intuitive, so the second best
> thing is to have no children.
Humans are part of Nature and this planet as well as every other organism
here and have as much right to survival as they have.
> (I don't., although that
> promotes the procreative survival of people who don't think
> that far ahead.) The third best thing is to be a minimalist
> consumer. And the fourth best thing is to invent new ways
> of doing more with less. A local man well known in the
> environmental movement died this past spring, and he is
> reputed to have wanted on his gravestone, "I want to have
> made no change in natural world."
And which quarry did this gravestone come from ;)
> Good things to strive for,
> and just about as against bigger, better, more expensive,
> faster which is the constant media harangue as one can get.
>
> Caves do have carrying capacities, just like any other
> ecosystem. They can be used without detriment, as long as
> proper care is given, and they are not abused. But that
> pretty much flies in the face of the message of the media,
> and the greed which constitutes a "good economy," as well
> as the "me now ism " of the last 30 or so years.
>
> I know, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
The cake's not much use then.
You have thousands of caves in the US, spread over the whole country.
Carrying capacities would not be reached if the active cavers could visit
most of these caves instead of being limited by the secrecy act.
I suggested a measure of damage should be formulated to distiguish the
negative effects of cavers versus local yobbos. People seem to mix the two
together when citing damage as a reason for secrecy. Although litter and
graffiti may be unsightly, the level and reversibility of such damage may
make them trivial compared to the effect of cavers trudging through
streamways, digging passages, building dams etc.
All the best
Nigel
Nigel Robertson
Jo Schaper <josc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990905235027...@ngol06.aol.com...
> >to vandalize? I seriously doubt it would be a common problem.
>
> You might be amazed. People will look in the Net for stuff they'd never
take
more
> unauthorized access if locations were freely available. By that I mean
people
> sneaking into caves.
You mean cavers finding out the information which the server is set up to
provide.
>
> > As for
> >access restrictions, put a contact person either the land owner (if they
> >agree) or a local caver that the landowner agrees to. It would do no
> >harm in at least having access to the surveys in case access is ever
> >gained. Like I said, the land owner would have the final say in who was
> >able to go and who would not.
>
> But with absentee landowners and little respect for the trespassing laws,
there
> is a whole lot of "don't ask, don't tell" caving going on now, where only
the
> cave itself suffers, both from organized and unorganized cavers. It
wouldn't be
> quite fair to blame "sneak caving" only on the unorganized, cause it just
ain't
> true.
>
Why would the cave 'suffer' any less if the cavers had permission for
access?
Nigel
Nigel Robertson
news:hgRA3.4562$G4.1...@news5.giganews.com...
> Chris, I don't think Nigel was trying to point a finger at all, but doing
a
> logic exercise; "here is an example of posting cave locations....is it
> causing damage?".
>
Thanks Paul.
And it was a serious question too. Although the negative can't be proven,
if people started saying that they could positively link damage to posted
locations then they might have a chance of persuading Hoyt (I assumed Hoyt
wouldn't mind being used as a case example) or others to adopt the secrecy
outlook. Unfortunately, very little of the secrecy debate is ever populated
with facts or with reasoned deductions or conclusions (some notable
exceptions). I am a believer in the free passage of information but I am
also pragmatic enough to realise that on occassions secrecy may be
neccessary. However, the arguments put forward in this newsgroup do not
persuade me that a culture of secrecy is neccessary. Instead they suggest
that some of your in-cave problems may be caused partly (or even entirely)
by such secrecy, so increasing the load on the well-known caves. Cave
entrance vandalism by locals is an entirely differnt matter and would need a
differnt approach. It's also fun to play a devils' advocate ;] but it
should make the proposers of secrecy examine their arguments and refine them
until they are able to persuade me they are correct.
******** (name not due for release until after death)
Nigel Robertson
>
> >
> > Because they are the only caves that people can find out about so they
> have to go there, or, because they are the only caves worth doing in the
> area. In the Yorkshire Dales only 4 or 5 caves produce about 70%? of our
> accidents because they are the most popular caves here.
> >
> > Nigel
>
> I was grouchy when I wrote that so I apologize if it came off wrong. It
> is most likely because they are the only caves that people can find out
> about, which does, to me, lend itself to the secrecy side of the issue.
<snip>
> I was just trying to point out that the
> less visited caves here, although often more dangerous, are involved in
> less rescues. I feel like this is because the limited accessibility of
> info on the caves serves as a filter which generally only allows
> experienced and capable cavers in.
And I was saying that in the Dales, we have exactly the same pattern of
rescue statistics but with free (sorry, you have to buy the guidebook) and
open access to cave locations, descriptions, surveys, permission and contact
details, warnings of notable hazards etc.
Cheers
Nigel
Jim
>Paul Montgomery <Pa...@tcia.net> wrote in message
>news:hgRA3.4562$G4.1...@news5.giganews.com...
>> Chris, I don't think Nigel was trying to point a finger at all, but doing
>a
>> logic exercise; "here is an example of posting cave locations....is it
>> causing damage?".
>>
>
>Thanks Paul.
>
>And it was a serious question too. Although the negative can't be proven,
>if people started saying that they could positively link damage to posted
>locations then they might have a chance of persuading Hoyt (I assumed Hoyt
>wouldn't mind being used as a case example) or others to adopt the secrecy
>outlook. Unfortunately, very little of the secrecy debate is ever populated
>with facts or with reasoned deductions or conclusions (some notable
>exceptions). I am a believer in the free passage of information but I am
>also pragmatic enough to realise that on occassions secrecy may be
>neccessary. However, the arguments put forward in this newsgroup do not
>persuade me that a culture of secrecy is neccessary. Instead they suggest
>that some of your in-cave problems may be caused partly (or even entirely)
>by such secrecy, so increasing the load on the well-known caves. Cave
>entrance vandalism by locals is an entirely differnt matter and would need a
>differnt approach.
That is one point... The in-cave problems might be caused by
excessive traffic in known caves, but at the same time those people
are going to go to what caves they know of, and surely there will be
more trash in each of those "secret" caves as more people visit. Are
you suggesting that publishing all known cave locations will spread
traffic out to such an extent that damage won't be noticeable? The
damage I notice is usually trash, paint or other markings, and broken
speleothems. None of that damage should be caused by responsible
cavers, and it probably isn't. I would suggest that it's only caused
by a very small minority anyways. A small minority, even one person,
can destroy an entire cave given enough time and you know that.
Why should it be risked to give the public access to those locations?
It's not worth it in my opinion if there's the slightest chance of
vandalism. Some people *might* suggest that it's still the right for
everyone to know, and that caves are going to have a little graffiti
no matter what. I don't think so! We have enough caves with graffiti,
how about we keep a few in pristine condition?
The debate is somewhat moot though because no matter how hard someone
tries, there will always be caves, maybe the most beautiful in the
state, country, or world, that the databases won't include; maybe
missed, lost, or never found in the first place, and there will be the
eccentric cavers that feel they should be protected from any human
visitor. People like the Mike, the "Nevada Cave Locations"
poster...they may get locations, the caves may be pretty, but until
they gain the actual trust of cavers (who can easily be grotto members
or at least NSS members) they will never see those special ones
relatively untouched by the human visitor... You can post your
locations, and if it can't be stopped, let them come, let everyone
come, I will help build gates and set access restrictions and fight
it, and there will always be caves that you and I will never see and
they will be protected. That gives me a bit of consolation when I see
lists of GPS locations posted.
But at any rate, what kind of facts would prove the debate to you?
Spencer Christian
> 'know' it and you cannot 'prove' it. In that case you cannot justify
> anything decision-wise and you might as well have said nothing.
>
laws, there
>
the
> laws?
This really nothing to do with the discussion at hand but I juast
wanted to break down the word assume a little ASS U ME. A quote from
a old employer of mine that proved to be true time and time again.
When you assume something all it does it make an Ass of U and Me.
****************************
I am constantly looking for cavers and climbers in the Utah area.
Please let me know if you are nearby.
Jim
wrote:
By the way, I think actual locations about a cave, and information
about a cave are two different things. Lists of closed caves are
seemingly impossible to come by... I'd like to see listings of closed
caves for each state along with the reason posted on the web or
something. Maps are a useful tool...are they necessary? I suppose
they can both help and hurt...but of course you have to consider
ownership of information if you publish it. There would be a lot of
work involved to get permission to post each map...
Jo Schaper
writes:
>
>but you do not
>> 'know' it and you cannot 'prove' it. In that case you cannot justify
>> anything decision-wise and you might as well have said nothing.
>>
>> > But with absentee landowners and little respect for the trespassing
>laws, there
>>
>> You're assuming again. Why would wannabees be less likely to respect
>the
>> laws?
I am assuming nothing based on "wannabes" or not. I am making the assumption
based on human nature as I have experienced it in the last 40 years--that is:
instead of behaving themselves because it is the right thing to do, the
majority of people I have encountered, when faced with the opportunity to "get
away" with something, will do whatever the thing is which is tempting them.
Wish I could say I lived with a bunch of saints, and saw lots of self
discipline out there in the "real world." But I haven't. And I can only make
such decisions based on my own experience, and the experiences of others I have
read, and heard about. I call them like I see them, and don't ever assume that
anyone on the planet is going to agree, since no one else on the planet has
exactly my perspective.
I am glad to hear that people in Utah are very well behaved, always ask
permission, and never take advantage of any situation. If this is indeed so, I
guess maybe I'd better think about moving to Utah.
But don't jump my case on the basis of "your" assumptions. They may be
false ones.
good caving,
Jo
Spencer Christian
You obviously didnt take the time to read my post very closely, I was
not expression any opinion about hte sunject at hand I was merely
stated my opinion of the word Assume. next try paying a bit more
attention before you go off acusing me of being from some other planet
where is everything is different than from you world
In article <19990906234648...@ngol03.aol.com>,
--
*************************************************
Fleg
that the NSS has. They are big brother and they have to watch all us
because we are to stupid to be responsible. In my caving news I have been
going to a few caves and making sure of a couple of locations. I am having
a little trouble finding Desert Cave but other than that they have been
easy with this new GPS and my trusty Nevada Atlas and Compass and most
importantly "the list". Most caves here are on BLM land which is
accessible to all unless otherwise marked. I have found that two or three
of those caves on the list are on Nellis AFB Gunnery Range land so please
people make sure you know if your on BLM land or Nellis AFB land, you will
thank yourself when no bombs drop from the sky. Aim High!!
Michael
P.S. sorry about the spelling, its late
Phil Macrackin <No...@kook.com> wrote in article
<7r2cq3$iqm$0...@dosa.alt.net>...
Fleg
caver. Just because I don't belong to the local Grotto or the NSS does
this mean that I am not responsible? I would like to bet that just about
everyone on this list is responsible enough not to go to a cave and trash
it. Of course this is not a fact and no way to prove it but how many
people that want to go out and trash caves would subscribe to this
newsgroup just to read every post looking for a hint at the location of the
local cave just so they can spray paint their name to the side of it.
> Why should it be risked to give the public access to those locations?
> It's not worth it in my opinion if there's the slightest chance of
> vandalism. Some people *might* suggest that it's still the right for
> everyone to know, and that caves are going to have a little graffiti
> no matter what. I don't think so!
Yeah, why would you risk giving the location of caves to all us children.
Your not going to be able to watch us all. At first I was just pissed at
the local grotto and NSS because they wouldn't give me locations. At the
time I really didn't care about much else but now I am pissed because you
people think your doing us all a big favor for not telling us the locations
of caves. Geesh, thanks!!
> The debate is somewhat moot though because no matter how hard someone
> tries, there will always be caves, maybe the most beautiful in the
> state, country, or world, that the databases won't include; maybe
> missed, lost, or never found in the first place, and there will be the
> eccentric cavers that feel they should be protected from any human
> visitor. People like MICHAEL , the "Nevada Cave Locations"
> poster...they may get locations, the caves may be pretty, but until
> they gain the actual trust of cavers (who can easily be grotto members
> or at least NSS members) they will never see those special ones
> relatively untouched by the human visitor... You can post your
> locations, and if it can't be stopped, let them come, let everyone
> come, I will help build gates and set access restrictions and fight
> it, and there will always be caves that you and I will never see and
> they will be protected. That gives me a bit of consolation when I see
> lists of GPS locations posted.
Ok, if someone is going to a cave for the sole purpose to trash it do you
really think a gate with a master lock on it will stop them? Do you think
that the average vandal that has just traveled 25 miles or more to find the
local cave will leave when he sees that it is locked? My guess is your
gate will be laying on the ground with spray paint all over it.
> But at any rate, what kind of facts would prove the debate to you?
> That's always a good place to start.
And now the best part of your post. I want numbers!! Numbers like how
many caves we vandalized because of lists like the one posted to this
newsgroup. I am not talking about lists posted on the bulletin board of
some high school, I want numbers for lists of caves on the Internet or
books that you can find at the library. Lists that are so hard to find on
the Internet as it is that if you do find it, you just spent about 5 hours
in front of a computer looking. I want numbers like how many caves were
vandalized due to the location being passed down from person to person vs.
caves that were vandalized due to caves on a list on the Internet or book.
I want numbers like percent of caves vandalized in the UK (where locations
are handed out) compared to percent of caves in the US (where locations are
given over someone's dead body).
Thank you
Michael
Fleg
can so I hope that the cave database can be set up like this.
Good post Paul
Michael
> > But at any rate, what kind of facts would prove the debate to you?
> > That's always a good place to start.
>
Tony Brocklebank
Jo Schaper <josc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990906193403...@ngol01.aol.com...
> In article <7r1hde$759$1...@barcode.tesco.net>, "Tony Brocklebank"
> <tonybro...@tesco.net> writes:
>
> >
> >> Sasquatch
> >
> >and Sasquatch in English is a what precisely?
> >
> >
> >
> >
Hoyt McKagen
>
> > Sasquatch
>
> and Sasquatch in English is a what precisely?
'Yeti', but not necessarily one of the white-furred ones, ours have
brown coloration. We have one reliable filming of Sasquatch ... or if you
prefer, one reliable filming of a man in Sasquatch suit. I've seen it
BTW, and it's a hair-raiser. The guy who filmed it said so too.
--
Hoyt McKagen
> >locations then they might have a chance of persuading Hoyt (I assumed Hoyt
> >wouldn't mind being used as a case example)
HAHA what can I do abou tit??
> are going to go to what caves they know of, and surely there will be
> more trash in each of those "secret" caves as more people visit.
There is a logical error in associating 'people' with 'trashed caves'.
The answer to the whole problem is education.
> Why should it be risked to give the public access to those locations?
The local university library has roughly 6' of caving books, and most of
those are compendia of locations. Most schools with a geology
department will match that. So who sez the public doesn't have access to
info?
Hoyt McKagen
> . I understand that it is wise to cease hostilities before you set down and
> talk peace.
I'm not hostile about the issues, others are. Therefore they should take
the initiative if it's important to them. I don't however think that
hostilities will cease when an info server goes up.
> You need to change that opinion. That's like saying shooting someone in self
> defense is the same as shooting someone so you can more easily remove their
> wallet.
Somehow I miss the connection.
Jo Schaper
wrote:
>
>By the way, I think actual locations about a cave, and information
>about a cave are two different things. Lists of closed caves are
>seemingly impossible to come by... I'd like to see listings of closed
>caves for each state along with the reason posted on the web or
>something.
I'd second that. For years I've been trying to get people to
see that most folks won't go to closed caves if they know
which they are, and why.
Jo
Jo Schaper
<ray...@att.net> wrote:
>Jo
>
>
>You obviously didnt take the time to read my post very closely, I was
>not expression any opinion about hte sunject at hand I was merely
>stated my opinion of the word Assume. next try paying a bit more
>attention before you go off acusing me of being from some other planet
>where is everything is different than from you world
I just thought the snipped bits you quoted had something to
do with your response. I thought that was a reasonable
assumption, or else you wouldn't have included them.
Apparently I was wrong. Sorry.
Jo
Jim
wrote:
>Who is to say that I or anyone else on this list is not a responsible
>caver. Just because I don't belong to the local Grotto or the NSS does
>this mean that I am not responsible? I would like to bet that just about
>everyone on this list is responsible enough not to go to a cave and trash
>it. Of course this is not a fact and no way to prove it but how many
>people that want to go out and trash caves would subscribe to this
>newsgroup just to read every post looking for a hint at the location of the
>local cave just so they can spray paint their name to the side of it.
>
were either, how would I know? Seems to me that's up to the local
cavers who go caving with you
As for caves out of your local area, that's where the NSS comes into
play, ways to contact other cavers for visits to their local areas..
By the way, since you didn't like your local grotto, did you find some
other cavers to go with? Or do you need anyone else :-) heh
>> Why should it be risked to give the public access to those locations?
>> It's not worth it in my opinion if there's the slightest chance of
>> vandalism. Some people *might* suggest that it's still the right for
>> everyone to know, and that caves are going to have a little graffiti
>> no matter what. I don't think so!
>
>Yeah, why would you risk giving the location of caves to all us children.
>Your not going to be able to watch us all. At first I was just pissed at
>the local grotto and NSS because they wouldn't give me locations. At the
>time I really didn't care about much else but now I am pissed because you
>people think your doing us all a big favor for not telling us the locations
>of caves. Geesh, thanks!!
The "public" is a very large group of people, quite a few million eh?
Yes there are a few "children" in a mental sense in that group...how
do you keep them out? No, you don't need to be in the NSS to be a
responsible caver, but the NSS is just trying to protect the
caves...and I think you overestimate the morality of some of the
people in this country. Some people forget this isn't the UK, many of
our caves are relatively warm, fairly sized, and we have more
("stupid" people in my opinion) people than some other countries.
That makes for more cave visitors and more damage obviously.
And I'm just sorry that you are angry...no one said the locations were
impossible to find either, I have a stack of them myself, did I need
to NSS to get them? No I didn't, just a little research. I'm not
whining about doing a little research because I know only people that
are sincerely curious will go to a little work...
>> The debate is somewhat moot though because no matter how hard someone
>> tries, there will always be caves, maybe the most beautiful in the
>> state, country, or world, that the databases won't include; maybe
>> missed, lost, or never found in the first place, and there will be the
>> eccentric cavers that feel they should be protected from any human
>> visitor. People like MICHAEL , the "Nevada Cave Locations"
>> poster...they may get locations, the caves may be pretty, but until
>> they gain the actual trust of cavers (who can easily be grotto members
>> or at least NSS members) they will never see those special ones
>> relatively untouched by the human visitor... You can post your
>> locations, and if it can't be stopped, let them come, let everyone
>> come, I will help build gates and set access restrictions and fight
>> it, and there will always be caves that you and I will never see and
>> they will be protected. That gives me a bit of consolation when I see
>> lists of GPS locations posted.
>
>Ok, if someone is going to a cave for the sole purpose to trash it do you
>really think a gate with a master lock on it will stop them? Do you think
>that the average vandal that has just traveled 25 miles or more to find the
>local cave will leave when he sees that it is locked? My guess is your
>gate will be laying on the ground with spray paint all over it.
>
Your guess would usually be wrong then...Do I think a gate will stop
them? Yes, as a matter of fact I know it will. Have you ever tried
to destroy a well built gate? Well I hope not as I haven't tried
either :p But the ones I have seen can resist everything but a
cutting torch. How many vandals carry a cutting torch with them?
Some of the less sturdy gates can be tackled with a few tools and
time, but the average vandal doesn't want to do that much work just to
spray paint...as I understand it, it's the organized cavers that don't
like them and decide to do a little damage of their own.
And just what is wrong with a gate by the way? Caves on public
property usually don't have them. Caves on private property, or
dangerous mines or caves do have them...and just why would you be
trespassing anyways? If you want access, ask the landowner and he/she
will probably give you the key after chatting with you for a bit.
Some landowners do actually care about keeping vandals out of their
caves...as a matter of fact if they want any and everyone out too,
well it's their cave and we should respect that.
Tony Brocklebank
> I'd second that. For years I've been trying to get people to
> see that most folks won't go to closed caves if they know
> which they are, and why.
> Jo
Agreed - and something the NSS should promote. But to achieve this people
need to know what, where and why. Secrecy does the opposite. This is
precisely the point I've been trying to make (badly perhaps) that secrecy is
damaging to caves and cavers, and landowners.
Tony Brocklebank
for assuming things.
Hoyt McKagen <batw...@i-plus.net> wrote in message
news:37D47A...@i-plus.net...
> Tony Brocklebank wrote:
> >
> > > Sasquatch
> >
> > and Sasquatch in English is a what precisely?
>
> 'Yeti', but not necessarily one of the white-furred ones, ours have
> brown coloration. We have one reliable filming of Sasquatch ... or if you
> prefer, one reliable filming of a man in Sasquatch suit. I've seen it
> BTW, and it's a hair-raiser. The guy who filmed it said so too.
>
> --
>
Chris Kollmar
Tony Brocklebank wrote:
Agree- Wow, something several people agree upon. This thing really does
work! I would add though, that I feel that not all secrecy is damaging, and in
fact, some is good. My other posts should explain that so I won't do it again.
People will get locations if they want them regardless of the secrecy issue. It
should be easy to find out if they are closed or restricted.
Tony Brocklebank
few cases secrecy is a good thing, but that in general info should be freely
available?
Chris Kollmar <roa...@cqc.com> wrote in message
news:37D57C44...@cqc.com...
Nigel Robertson
> I am assuming nothing based on "wannabes" or not. I am making the
assumption
> based on human nature as I have experienced it in the last 40 years--that
is:
> instead of behaving themselves because it is the right thing to do, the
> majority of people I have encountered, when faced with the opportunity to
"get
> away" with something, will do whatever the thing is which is tempting
them.
> Wish I could say I lived with a bunch of saints, and saw lots of self
> discipline out there in the "real world." But I haven't. And I can only
make
Jo, are you living in the State of Anarchy? Better keep your towel to hand
;-]
Nigel Robertson
Fleg <baj...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote in message
news:01bef906$2f47b0a0$9524...@Bajabug.lvcablemodem.com...
> Helpful my butt. They have the exact same attitude toward us non-members
> that the NSS has. They are big brother and they have to watch all us
> because we are to stupid to be responsible. In my caving news I have been
Anarchy and totalitarianism in the same country. Phew ;]
Nigel Robertson
Jim <jwi...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:37d46008...@news.purdue.edu...
> That is one point... The in-cave problems might be caused by
> excessive traffic in known caves, but at the same time those people
> are going to go to what caves they know of, and surely there will be
> more trash in each of those "secret" caves as more people visit. Are
> you suggesting that publishing all known cave locations will spread
> traffic out to such an extent that damage won't be noticeable?
Yes. Or to be more precise, I said that spreading the load would reduce the
level of damage within each cave.
When your newbies visit the only four caves in their state that they have
any chance of finding out about, what do they see there? The same as you;
litter, graffiti, broken stal. Is it surprising that they go away with the
impression that this is how's it's done? Over the years in Easegill (our
longest system), litter and spent carbide slowly built up. The local caving
club organised a clean-up and removed a lot of stuff (40 years worth).
Publicising the clean-up in the caving press and the visible difference seen
by cavers seems to have kept the cave much cleaner since. It should be
noted that very few new cavers will visit the cave unless in the company of
someone experienced and knowledgable of the system, leading to the
conclusion that real cavers drop litter.
> The damage I notice is usually trash, paint or other markings, and broken
> speleothems. None of that damage should be caused by responsible
> cavers, and it probably isn't. I would suggest that it's only caused
> by a very small minority anyways. A small minority, even one person,
> can destroy an entire cave given enough time and you know that.
>
If we agree that dropping litter, spent carbide and spray painting are not
responsible acts underground then it obviously can't be committed by
responsible people. But who here is going to hold up their hand and say
"Hey, I'm irresponsible". Only people who have never gone underground and
who have never been in the catchment area of any caves and have never driven
on any roads that use limestone as hardcore and have never utilised cement
and really haven't been born can claim to have not contributed in some way
to the destruction or damage of a cave or to some alteration in the cave
environment. So, giving up caving yet? I know I'm not.
As to stal. Can you honestly say that you have never broken a straw,
touched a bit of flowstone with a mucky paw, however accidently. Descent
recently published a letter from John Forder giving a very thoughtful
account of breaking stal in the name of exploration. The danger is that we
all see ourselves as being the responsible ones and it's those bastards over
there who are doing the damage. It's not. We're all responsible for the
damage. By finding the cave in the first place. By entering it and walking
down a passage. By pulling a few rocks out of the way to get through. By
offering an elitist and secretive society resulting in newcomers picking up
bad habits?
> Why should it be risked to give the public access to those locations?
> It's not worth it in my opinion if there's the slightest chance of
> vandalism. Some people *might* suggest that it's still the right for
> everyone to know, and that caves are going to have a little graffiti
> no matter what. I don't think so! We have enough caves with graffiti,
> how about we keep a few in pristine condition?
Better not discover them then.
>
> The debate is somewhat moot though because no matter how hard someone
> tries, there will always be caves, maybe the most beautiful in the
> state, country, or world, that the databases won't include; maybe
> missed, lost, or never found in the first place, and there will be the
> eccentric cavers that feel they should be protected from any human
> visitor.
Bit absurd that isn't it. The caver who doesn't go caving.
> People like the Mike, the "Nevada Cave Locations"
> poster...they may get locations, the caves may be pretty, but until
> they gain the actual trust of cavers (who can easily be grotto members
> or at least NSS members)
Many people have posted here saying that they have difficulty with gaining
the trust of grotto/NSS members and conversly, having any trust in said
grotto/NSS members. Which group is dysfunctional?
they will never see those special ones
> relatively untouched by the human visitor... You can post your
> locations, and if it can't be stopped, let them come, let everyone
> come, I will help build gates and set access restrictions and fight
> it, and there will always be caves that you and I will never see and
> they will be protected. That gives me a bit of consolation when I see
> lists of GPS locations posted.
We will fight them on the beaches etc kind of thing. What would you think
if all caves had been closed to access 50 years ago? You wouldn't be caving
now. And then what would your opinion be when the government said it was
going to build a mega-lane super highway straight through Pretty Hollow Cave
region. You wouldn't give a toss. But no, you've been caving, you know
what's down there, so you do give a toss. You know why it's worth saving,
what a wonderful place it is, what it feels like to be in commune with the
Earth inside the fastness of a mountain. You probably know what a useful
resource a cave can be, sometimes providing water, shelter, energy,
fertilisers, food, information on past climates that may help us to prevent
the complete fuck up of this one and so on. Stop other people from finding
out this, then they won't give a toss when that highway is at the planning
stage. I've asked people and the answers always the same. I wouldn't have
given a toss before I knew what was here. You may well have problems with
the way some caves are used but secrecy isn't the answer.
>
> But at any rate, what kind of facts would prove the debate to you?
> That's always a good place to start.
Factual ones.
Nigel Robertson
> in front of a computer looking. I want numbers like how many caves were
> vandalized due to the location being passed down from person to person vs.
> caves that were vandalized due to caves on a list on the Internet or book.
> I want numbers like percent of caves vandalized in the UK (where locations
> are handed out) compared to percent of caves in the US (where locations
are
> given over someone's dead body).
Yep. But vandalism and damage need defining. Perhaps a 5 point scale.
Caves that haven't been entered score 1 and caves that have been removed
from the planet score 5. That's the end-members sorted out. 2 points could
be for caves with easily reversible problems and visual pollution that has
not been detrimental to the cave ecosystem. 3 points for some damage to the
cave biota but no species completely overwhelmed or changes in cave
environment and structure. 4 points for almost complete destruction of the
cave biota or major structural changes or large scale, wanton, destruction
of speleothems. Only quarries are regularly able to score 5 points a cave.
I would guess that there are (virtually) no caves that score 4 in the Dales
but that may not be the same elsewhere in the UK. Many caves probably score
3 on the basis that bits have been dug or altered for access. Many caves
can probably score 2 when they have open entrances and passages more or less
confined to active streams. Vandalism has certainly occurred but damage in
caves is too diverse to develop a yes it has / no it hasn't response. But
nothing I've seen in the UK sounds like anything described for the US.
Jim
>Yes. Or to be more precise, I said that spreading the load would reduce the
>level of damage within each cave.
>
>When your newbies visit the only four caves in their state that they have
>any chance of finding out about, what do they see there? The same as you;
>litter, graffiti, broken stal. Is it surprising that they go away with the
>impression that this is how's it's done? Over the years in Easegill (our
>longest system), litter and spent carbide slowly built up. The local caving
>club organised a clean-up and removed a lot of stuff (40 years worth).
>Publicising the clean-up in the caving press and the visible difference seen
>by cavers seems to have kept the cave much cleaner since. It should be
>noted that very few new cavers will visit the cave unless in the company of
>someone experienced and knowledgable of the system, leading to the
>conclusion that real cavers drop litter.
>
condition of one of the most trashed caves in the states... It has
had cleanup attempts in the past, the extent or success of which I
don't know. Today though it lives up to its title...the caver I was
with said he carries trash out on trips on a regular basis. I
suggested that it was a futile process, it's a sacrifice, and that the
trash should be left as an example of what can happen to a popular
cave. I've always felt cleanups should be concentrated on caves that
haven't been extensively damaged yet.
If a concentrated effort did take place, I know it would shock
me on a next visit, maybe the other visitors as well...I can see where
you're coming from there. It's just that my view has always been a
pessimistic one
>If we agree that dropping litter, spent carbide and spray painting are not
>responsible acts underground then it obviously can't be committed by
>responsible people. But who here is going to hold up their hand and say
>"Hey, I'm irresponsible". Only people who have never gone underground and
>who have never been in the catchment area of any caves and have never driven
>on any roads that use limestone as hardcore and have never utilised cement
>and really haven't been born can claim to have not contributed in some way
>to the destruction or damage of a cave or to some alteration in the cave
>environment. So, giving up caving yet? I know I'm not.
>
>As to stal. Can you honestly say that you have never broken a straw,
>touched a bit of flowstone with a mucky paw, however accidently.
Touched flowstone, afraid I have, though it was in such a state as I
couldn't tell much of a difference from the surrounding rock. Broken
a speleothem, not yet. I sincerely hope I never make such a blunder.
I have to admit though as you say, we all damage the cave each time we
go on a trip.
>Better not discover them then.
That's the idea, we have enough caves open for visitation (open or
public being the big topic for debate), hopefully a few are "sealed",
we have enough there should be little problem in doing that. I don't
think every cave needs to be visited...I can handle the gates telling
me to stay out because there are already so many open ones....that's
just me though.
ttyl
Jim
Paul Montgomery
Tony Brocklebank <tonybro...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:7r442n$fuc$1...@barcode.tesco.net...
> We could almost be reaching a consensus !??!!!!? Would you agree that in
a
> few cases secrecy is a good thing, but that in general info should be
freely
> available?
>
> Chris Kollmar <roa...@cqc.com> wrote in message
> news:37D57C44...@cqc.com...
> >
> >
> > Tony Brocklebank wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I'd second that. For years I've been trying to get people to
> > > > see that most folks won't go to closed caves if they know
> > > > which they are, and why.
> > > > Jo
> > >
And could we agree that a listing of closed caves would not be looked at
much unless it was part of a list of open caves?
Chris Kollmar
Paul Montgomery wrote:
> Tony Brocklebank <tonybro...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:7r442n$fuc$1...@barcode.tesco.net...
> > We could almost be reaching a consensus !??!!!!? Would you agree that in
> >a few cases secrecy is a good thing, but that in general info should be
> >freely available?
>
Yes I would agree... To further define my view: The location of cave
entrances should be available to cavers who have proven there abilities. I
really don't care how this is proven, suggestions have been caver contacts,
certifications *reservations on even saying that* etc. I don't really think
locations should be given to just anyone. However, as i have said before,
people will get locations anyway, and information on access restrictions and
closures should be easily available. There should also be some description of
the cave, not so much about the decorations, but about particular hazards such
as known loose breakdown or flooding potential.
> > Chris Kollmar <roa...@cqc.com> wrote in message
> > news:37D57C44...@cqc.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tony Brocklebank wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd second that. For years I've been trying to get people to
> > > > > see that most folks won't go to closed caves if they know
> > > > > which they are, and why.
> > > > > Jo
> > > >
>
> And could we agree that a listing of closed caves would not be looked at
> much unless it was part of a list of open caves?
I don't think that is necessarily true, however I don't see what that would
hurt. Again as I have said before, IMO, limiting the availability of LOCATIONS
can serve as a filter in which many vandals won't go to the trouble, and truely
responsible cavers will go to the difficulty of pursuing those locations.
I sympathize with the frustrations of the cavers who feel left out. My best
advice is to have a bit of patience. Just because you don't have it NOW,
dosn't mean that you won't later, or even soon. The information is out there,
just have some patience.
Chris Kollmar
Cave Softly!
kollch...@look-out-for-spam-hotmail.com
Glawackus
>>How can I in good
>> conscience take you to a cave, which the landowner requested not to be
>> publicized, knowing that there is a good possibility that you will place it
>> on your list.
>
>Because I always respect the requests of owners etc to not reveal
>specific caves.
Except that you apparently make the assumption that the owner doesn't mind
until you know specifically. You may respect an owners request, but you usually
have no idea whether or not you're respecting their wishes.
Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. Or it might just be to
generate discussion.
Jo Schaper
<ni...@dont-spam-me-im-vegetarian.easegill.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
Actually the motto of Missouri is the Show Me State. As in,
"I'm from Missouri, and you gotta show me!" (We take great
pride in wanting firsthand information, and convincing. )
Towels are quite handy to clean up the mess,
afterwards.
Jo
>
Jo Schaper
<batw...@i-plus.net> wrote:
>Jo Schaper wrote:
>
>> Guess what? Enterprising people took the book to places in that county and
>> started asking questions of the locals. Found caves that way too, even some new
>> ones.
>
>That's exactly what I do to find new caves. So what? It's highly regarded
>by most 'real' cavers and you do no tneed a book to start with. You're
>merely trying to justify secrecy in it's most hideous form.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Hoyt McKagen
Or maybe trying to give some clueless people a clue that the
information they seek is available in a multitude of ways,
which are used by all people interested in caves, regardless
of their affiliation with anyone.
What did people do before the Internet? Well, we all know
how they found out where caves were. The old methods still
exist, and they still work fine. You probably would never
guess where I found my first cave location list. At home, in
a book of my dad's (who couldn't care less if caves
existed.) But I didn't have a car (was too young) didn't
have much of a clue that "normal" people went in wild caves,
and only knew from personal experience that trespassing in
farmer's fields was liable to get you running from the sound
of a shotgun fired into the air. I had locations out the
wazoo, and couldn't do a darned thing about it, until I
found other cavers, and learned some of the tricks of the
trade.
It is somewhat unfair to paint me as a diehard secrecy
advocate, and I believe you know that. I'm more middle of
the road--there are legit "need to know" reasons for giving
out cave locations, and responsible recreational caving is
among those reasons. There are also reasons for withholding
that information, especially when it is not within the
proper scope or authority of the person to give out that
info, for example, a caver, superceding the wishes of a cave
owner or land manager. And I respect people in other
regions who have other ways of managing their cave
information. I even, as you may have noted, respect your
right to do what you do, even though it is not the sort of
thing I am likely to do myself.
That was the point I was trying to make.
regards,
Jo
Fleg
in them. That would explain a lot and if thats the case than keep them
secret
Michael.
Paul Montgomery
in a WV Cave. If the NSS would just give me the location to Inbred
Cave....:]news:01bef9c1$143e8ac0$9524...@Bajabug.lvcablemodem.com...
Tony Brocklebank
easily for there own areas. It's the newcomers and cavers from outside
areas who are going to screw up your access agreements by jumping down the
first hole they see. Think about it.
Chris Kollmar <kollch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37D5B18A...@hotmail.com...
Tony Brocklebank
habits :-)
Paul Montgomery <Pa...@tcia.net> wrote in message
news:botB3.30330$Jl.4...@news6.giganews.com...
Tony Brocklebank
> couldn't tell much of a difference from the surrounding rock. Broken
> a speleothem, not yet. I sincerely hope I never make such a blunder.
> I have to admit though as you say, we all damage the cave each time we
> go on a trip.
>
Never broken a straw? Never knocked a stal off? Never heard that charming
tinkling sound? Hmmm. You must be good.
Let's try this again. Are there any diggers out there who've never broken a
straw?
Paul Montgomery
Tony Brocklebank
Paul Montgomery <Pa...@tcia.net> wrote in message
news:GJxB3.17817$G4.2...@news5.giganews.com...
Fleg
inform me of a cave I visited once and whats inside it. The cave is
located on the Current River I think just south of Akers Ferry? I was
cannoeing down the river and cave accross this cave, its on a couple of
maps and has a spring running out of it. Its not the one that you can
cannoe in. I went as far as I felt safe due to the fact that I didn't have
any caving gear but a flashlight I didn't go in very far. If you know what
I am talking about and have been in that cave whats it like after about 200
feet?
Michael
Jo Schaper
<baj...@lvcablemodem.com> writes:
If it on the right side of the river, up a little in elevation (not much) and
on a bend, it is Little Gem Cave (aka Merritt Rock Cave). The cave goes back
about 700 feet, of scalloped sharp vadose passage, intermittently walking with
a couple of crawly.duckwalking bits. The cave is pretty mud free, and ends in a
deep lake room, the rise of Emerald Spring, one of the 8 ebb and flow springs
in the Ozarks. No stal.
The ebb and flow nature of the spring was discovered when the cave was
being mapped, as the mappers (all eminently reliable cavers) were chased from
the cave by rising water, which then subsided as they packed to leave. A stage
hydrograph on the spring then confirmed their observation. The cave is part of
the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, (a national park so national park rules
apply, and the river is patrolled by NPS rangers, Mo Conservation agents and
Mo. State Water Patrol--all law enforcement agents) and protected mostly by the
fact that it is a tricky bit of canoeing to get to that side of the river at
that point, and it is forbidding to people without cave gear. Just like
yourself, most casual canoeists don't venture beyond the immediate entrance.
Jo