cave conservation

[wingman]

while this may not exactly be conservation i am curious as to the advisibility of fixing obviously reparable damage. When you see a handprint in the mud do you leave it or smooth it out. I have been doing nothing but on sunday in jb i saw a deep handprint in the mud that i could have easily smoothed out. Any thoughts on this? I have heard it both ways but never with any sort of consensus. bill huth

[Herbie]

is to leave it alone and let the cave erase it. Stuff like one ass that carved "Hightower 2000" in the cavern at Hole in the Wall are the acts that nature cannot easily take care of. I have been sinking off grinding that off but that too would cause more cave altering. Oh yeah, hey "Hightower F#(k you p@ssy. Take care.

[DeWayne]

is to leave it alone and let the cave erase it. Stuff like one ass that carved "Hightower 2000" in the cavern at Hole in the Wall are the acts that nature cannot easily take care of. I have been sinking off grinding that off but that too would cause more cave altering. Oh yeah, hey "Hightower F#(k you p@ssy. Take care.

But how do you really feel about it Herbie?

I think it depends on the circumstances. If it can be erased/removed/covered over without causing additional damage then by all means do it, just do it safely. There is a big difference between accidental and intentional damage. What wingman describes is most likely accidental, but what Herbie mentioned is no accident. I don't mind seeing the occassional marks cause I know that with time the cave will heal itself. But the crap that gets carved into stone is too much.

[Kelly Jessop]

while this may not exactly be conservation i am curious as to the advisibility of fixing obviously reparable damage. When you see a handprint in the mud do you leave it or smooth it out. I have been doing nothing but on sunday in jb i saw a deep handprint in the mud that i could have easily smoothed out. Any thoughts on this? I have heard it both ways but never with any sort of consensus. bill huth

Typically with normal rainfall cycles that cause flooding in the spring we'd see caves reverse and many marks in the floor would be "erased" with a layer of organic material. Unfortunately Jackson Blue has very infrequent reversals to the magnitude that would cover these marks. I have seen a debate over the years between leaving these places alone due to further impact it may cause by repairing it,or using a trowel to smooth it over and repair it. It is a tough answer because there isn't a consensus,but I share your concern too.

[Rich]

while this may not exactly be conservation i am curious as to the advisibility of fixing obviously reparable damage. When you see a handprint in the mud do you leave it or smooth it out. I have been doing nothing but on sunday in jb i saw a deep handprint in the mud that i could have easily smoothed out. Any thoughts on this? I have heard it both ways but never with any sort of consensus. bill huth

Bill, I don't know if you remember the "Eric Clapton" deal but some friends and I took care of it....

Safe diving,

Rich

[Gary]

while this may not exactly be conservation i am curious as to the advisibility of fixing obviously reparable damage. When you see a handprint in the mud do you leave it or smooth it out. I have been doing nothing but on sunday in jb i saw a deep handprint in the mud that i could have easily smoothed out. Any thoughts on this? I have heard it both ways but never with any sort of consensus. bill huth

If I can figure out a way I usually will attempt to repair the damage.

Generic mud/clay is pretty easy but patterned areas are very hard to fix. Some areas are so loose that just vibrating the water in the vicinity helps cause the hand print/damage to fall back in on itself and weld itself together in a less obviously impacted way. I hate causing any silt and repairing handprints usually causes some minor silting so I sometimes put it off to the next time I figure no one else will be in the cave and I have the time, etc.

In my opinion most attempts at repair are better then the original damage and will themselves likely be further fixed by the cave on the next reversal.

[wingman]

while this may not exactly be conservation i am curious as to the advisibility of fixing obviously reparable damage. When you see a handprint in the mud do you leave it or smooth it out. I have been doing nothing but on sunday in jb i saw a deep handprint in the mud that i could have easily smoothed out. Any thoughts on this? I have heard it both ways but never with any sort of consensus. bill huth

Bill, I don't know if you remember the "Eric Clapton" deal but some friends and I took care of it....

Safe diving,

Rich

Sure do, i was there at ginnie when that happened in the white room, i think we talked about it before you actually erased it...that was vandalism...a handprint is a bit different..

[Rich]

.that was vandalism...a handprint is a bit different..

Well, I think we should come up with a name for it.....how about "idiotilism" :-D

.....and I agree with Gary's comments.

Safe diving,

Rich

Bill, I don't know if you remember the "Eric Clapton" deal but some friends and I took care of it....

Safe diving,

Rich[/quote]


You have friends? (hee hee!)

Ralph D.

[Genesis]

My view is that there is a huge difference between accidents and intentional acts.

I've seen "cave carvings", and they really pizz me off. Intentional damage is over-the-top - there is no excuse for it, ever, period.

Accidental damage is tougher. Flagarant accidental damage during a normal dive is obviously bad. But how do you know? If you have one of those "oh crap!" situations where you find yourself in a zero-light exit situation, and have to search for the line, you're going to leave marks! Is this bad? Well, if the alternative is death, I vote for the damage!

Then we get into intentional damage that is a bit tougher to quantify. Consider using an "overboasrd discharge" on your drysuit. That's "damage" by any definition - I guarantee you that the cave has NEVER seen human urea in raw, unfiltered form - other than from you and other cave divers.

I vote as a matter of conservation for never intentionally causing damage and fixing the intentional damage if you can do so without doing FURTHER damage (often you can't though) Ditto for accidental damage you see.

Along with that, I vote for being as conscious of the overall environment as we can, and making only appropriate trade-offs. There ALWAYS ARE SOME - you cannot go somewhere without modifying the environment, no matter how slight (when do you think the last time was that bright light saw the walls of the karst - other than by you?) Never mind that percolation changes things too....

So let's be careful, but let's also not go overboard with this stuff, because its really easy for folks to go "over the top" and make the argument (successfully, if we give them the ammunition!) that ALL access should be prevented so that no damage - accidental or otherwise - takes place.

[MikeH]

Consider using an "overboasrd discharge" on your drysuit. That's "damage" by any definition - I guarantee you that the cave has NEVER seen human urea in raw, unfiltered form - other than from you and other cave divers.

I know you're comment is only made to prove a point.....but obviously the cave has seen MUCH WORSE from stuff that has filtered down from the surface.

Mike

[Genesis]

Consider using an "overboasrd discharge" on your drysuit. That's "damage" by any definition - I guarantee you that the cave has NEVER seen human urea in raw, unfiltered form - other than from you and other cave divers.

I know you're comment is only made to prove a point.....but obviously the cave has seen MUCH WORSE from stuff that has filtered down from the surface.

Mike

That's like saying that because people used to dump raw used motor oil on the ground, which obviously gets into the groundwater, that we should not pay attention to anything less harmful than an intentional oil spill!

My point is simply that there is a major difference between unintentional damage and intentional damage, and that there are various degrees of intentional damage, some of which we inflict every single time we cave-dive. As an example, the illumination of the cave, which is necessary for us to dive in it, is an unnatural act - it is pollution, to be blunt, even though it is a minor event in the grand scheme of things. The P-valve is an obvious - but not the only - example of such impact.

One of the axioms of scientific research is that you typically cannot observe a thing without altering that thing, even if the alteration is very slight. Such is the case with cave diving, yet we do it recreationally (most of us anyway) rather than for some greater scientific purpose.

As such we should be very, very careful about throwing stones around regarding other than blatent intentional acts of vandalism, because it would be very easy for any group of people to use that in a way that would produce unintended consequences that none of us would like.

I agree that we should strive to leave nothing other than bubbles when we cave dive - but to believe that this is all we really do leave, irrespective of our level of skill, is not the same thing as striving to do so.

An accurate view of what we're really doing and the actual impact is, I believe, critical to coming to a reasoned view on what we should do when we come across various forms of damage, and if we should accidentally cause some ourselves. And while its easy to say "cause no intentional damage", its not that simple - if you take that absolute position then you've just closed ALL the caves (unless you are able to dive in total darkness without making contact with the cave in any way, shape or form - not possible unless you're Superman.)

Just asking folks to think here rather than accept simple answers - 'cause this issue, while it looks simple on first blush, isn't.

[MikeH]

My point is simply that there is a major difference between unintentional damage and intentional damage, and that there are various degrees of intentional damage, some of which we inflict every single time we cave-dive. As an example, the illumination of the cave, which is necessary for us to dive in it, is an unnatural act - it is pollution, to be blunt, even though it is a minor event in the grand scheme of things.

Going along with that line of reasoning....if we do not want to cause ANY damage to the environment(on that level of "intentional damage"), we can't do ANY diving....ride bicycles off the paved roads....plant new fields of crops....drive our cars....pass gas....run our power plants....etc....because they ALL are unnatural acts. With that line of reasoning, we may as well commit mass genocide of the human race if we want to prevent any further environmental damage.

Of course, as we all know, it's all about the risks and "damage" to the environment that is acceptable based on our beliefs as a human.

Mike