Sheep get scared...Quote:
Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn
Printable View
Sheep get scared...Quote:
Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn
Nice Larry :)
Don't mess with goethite and don't mess with Texas!
...or else the sheep get it? :D
Baaa Haaaa Baaa HaaaaQuote:
Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn
Great information being spread here.
I started out caving dry and it has always made me scratch my head regarding how conservation minded folks tend to be until there is the posiblity of new passage. At that point anything seems to go. Dig it, chip it, micro shave it, hammer it, blast it, what ever it takes as long as the hole become big enough to fit through.
Moving a rock one time in an attempt to produce a line routing that is safer for passing divers seems considerable. But as mentioned a slight pull on the line could just move it causing more damage to the cave. It could also cause sudden slack in the line creating a larger hazard to the diver than the bisecting route did.
My question is; what is the "better" way to secure the line to the floor in an area with out placements? I'm just a new intro diver so I won't be the one placing the goldline, but I'd like to know "better" when I see it.
I suspect you'll get a wide range of opinions regarding "better". That sort of subjective wording will always create debate - especially here.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunabku
There are some "different" approaches that are used.
Obviosuly, if you've been to Peacock and the Olsen Tunnel you've seen the little concrete blocks with eyelets in them used to route line. But even there, they tend to be in locations that are large and have fairly sandy bottoms - bottoms that will see heavy traffic from training classes, so the potetial for damage to the cave is relative. The weight may still get moved by students doing lights out drills, but it will mostly distrub sand, not a clay bank, etc, and it won't damage a cave formation.
There is a great deal of old line in Lafayette Blue and much of it is secured along the bottom of the tunnels with PVC tubing used to create a stake in the soft silt bottom. For that to work you need enough silt on the bottom with firm enough composition to hold the stake securely. I won't venture an opinion on wether that approach is "better" or not. It is more visible - some may say unsightly - but it does eliminate a potential issue with damaging rock formations or the line moving rocks or weights and damaging the other wise very undisturbed looking silt bottom (and avoids potentially silting the cave in the process.) You'll see a similar approach in Mannatee and some other caves, so if not better/worse it is at least commonly encountered.
One thing a few people may not always consider is that the routing of the line itself has an impact on the cave as it concentrates diver traffic along the line with potential consequences. For example, on the same line from OG to challenge, at about 800' you swim through a crack in the rock to follow the line when the line instead could have been routed under a fairly large duck under. I suppose the routing was chosen to increase interest along the route, but damage no doubt occurs and is concentrated there. On the other hand, if it were routed under the duck under, those divers (I hesitate to call them cave divers) who lack solid buoyancy skills, and/or SA would impact the ceiling and/or smuck the bottom due to the depth/buoyancy changes. So regardless of where it is run, damage would occur and compromises need to be considered. If you observe line placement in various areas, especially around jumps, the reasons for what at first may appear to be a strange pacement begins to become a bit more obvious from a traffic direction/damage control point of view.
The line in the olsen tunnel that runs through the window is a bit less defensible. It clearly passes through there for interest reasons, when the line could run along side the window in the large tunnel to the side of the window, and that would prevent the window from getting bigger when unskilled divers or divers with poor technique pass through it.
Another issue is simply safety. Consider the OG-Challenge line at about 950' where it passes the distance tunnel. The mainline drops down through the floor and is fairly low impact in terms of placement and is not problematic to follow going in. However when exiting the line is overhead when you come up through the hole and then makes a hard right turn. An inattentive or semi-panicked diver if not actively observing the line will not see that line turn but instead will come up out of the hole and instead see the distance tunnel line. Granted you have to miss some major clues (white line versus gold line, a gap between the lines, forget the turn you made going down the hole earlier in the dive, etc) but it has been a factor in the past in at least one fatal accident.
In that regard, I have mixed feelings about this thread. We are in essence making a lot of noise about one rock, in a system where there are far larger isuses (conservation and/or safety related), and there are ironically enough some some lines tied to geothite structures in areas where jumps will be made, virtually ensuring damage. So while I fully support conservation efforts and strive toward zero impact on the cave, there is a need for some consistency and to recognize a balance between the sometimes competing interests of conservation, safety and traffic control.
you may have mixed feelings about this thread, but one thing is not mixed...the how's, why's and wheretofore's of conservation are being discussed. Is one geothite rock a violation of conservation-minded people? Is the repeated "changes" it may cause a violation? What are the differing philosophy's of conservation? I know this thread has caused me to take another look at my behavior and question if I could do better. And it's made me wonder about "best practices."
skip
I was frankly most interested in Kelly's report of the colony living around the rock and using it for cover. That aspect of cave exploration and conservation is very interesting and I'd love to see more of that - a nice change from the usual "laid new line" and "made a new connection" themes.
And, it provides another very valid reason to reconsider methods and the conservation impact.
At the NDFA Adv Skills Workshop on August 20th we have a topic on Cave Species. Amazingly,very little is known about these species as far as behavior and life cycle. I have done biota inventories at Peacock since 2005,and in this time we have made some observations and conclusions on the data. One thing from an observational stand point is that isopods and amphipods live on the floor,and frequently use debris for shelter/protection. Protection from what? Data suggests an inverse relationship between troglobitic species and catfish,hence it is thought catfish eat these species,which sounds reasonable because none of the catfish look anorexic. Maybe this is a function of adaptation,but isopods and amphipods predatory response is to swim up into the water column,which catfish are bottom feeders. This is why the second person in a dive team will see the most troglobitic species,and also why you don't see these species in high flow caves. I have stated a lot of hypothesis,but when you ask cave biologists,they don't know because nobody studies these species,and sounds fairly reasonable. Here is the cool part. We all can't lay line and do exploration,but observations you make about these species is like exploration,because you are filling a void of knowledge. Therefore we are looking forward to the clinic at Peacock on August 20th,because the more people who understand some of this stuff can help add to the knowledge base,and maybe play a role in protecting a species that are on the imperiled list.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster