I talked to park management,and they have granted access to this sink for entrance and egress,with the understanding that the branches may be an entanglement hazard. Hope this helps. NFSA
Printable View
I talked to park management,and they have granted access to this sink for entrance and egress,with the understanding that the branches may be an entanglement hazard. Hope this helps. NFSA
Thanks so much Kelly.
Is duckweed a protected plant? Ive thought of scooping it off the surface with a pool skimming net for a better look at waterhole since its so small it could be done in a few minutes but figured it may not go over too big being a park and all. Would make entry alot easier though.
Over the weekend I heard that was done at Catfish once,and some official put a stop to it.
FWIW, duckweed blocks sunlight, and reduces the growth of algae, making it the lesser of the two evils.
I hadnt thought of that but it sure makes sense. Suddenly the duckweed dont seem so bad.
Any chance of talking them into NOT allowing this as an entrance point?
As noted in the other thread, the tunnel is not that tight, but it is dusty and an apparent issue under the current policy has been full cave, yet still under skilled, divers silting it up.
What consideration has been given to the implications that similarly under skilled intro level divers could go through it, perhaps as far as the Peanut line, then turn and have to go back through it in low viz conditions to exit? This would appear to have some unhappy ending potential.
No. It's what's for breakfast.Quote:
Originally Posted by stairman
Its actually listed as edible in a Florida survival manual of mine. I was wondering if entry is permitted it might get sloppy around the edge but Im thinking not many will be going in there so I guess well wait and see. Maybe spread the rumour of the moccasin that lurks in its twisted submerged branches?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
http://cavedivingshirts.com/wp-conte...s-Duckweed.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
This post has to be a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
I never knew it not to be an entry / exit point. I have entered it several times over the years. It is a great dive.
Dale
Sorry it's not. It is what it is - something to consider as a justification to not promote it as an entrance/exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegg
People whine about poorly skilled divers and people whine about a lack of cave conservation. Promoting waterhole III as an entrance and exit adds nothing of value and just creates more opportunity for less-skilled-than-they-should-be divers to silt out the passage and damage what is still a nice but fragile tunnel.
Do you have a better suggestion?
I find some of responses to this thread (and the stated concerns) a bit perplexing as before the "change" to officially allow egress - many people didn't even know this limitation existed. This included at least one of the local dive shop proprietors, members of the NACD Board, instructors and a large portion of the general certified cave diving public.
Based on this, it is highly unlikely that this allowance will have a significant impact unless it is physically posted at the site or stairs are added.
The Waterhole Tunnel is one of my favorite parts of Peacock, but even though I always thought that it was open for entry/exit, I've never gotten in or out at Waterhole III. Even with my nothing-special SAC rate and double LP95's, a dive from Peacock I to W-III and back is easily doable without violating thirds. No erosion, no scrambling on slippery rocks and getting tangled in dead trees, no hiking gear through the woods, and twice as long a dive as a W-III to P-I traverse. And I really enjoy doing the return trip in unimpaired visibility and seeing that I didn't make a mess.
Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Read the posts in the thread. As far as most cavedivers go, Waterhole has ALWAYS been open.
As such, there is no change to the "known" policy. Only the official one.
Next time you're at Peacock since this "promotion", I'd like you to sit and count the amount of intro divers entering at Waterhole and report back to us.
I've never seen anyone enter or exit there. intro or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegg
Meaning it was never a "heavily used" egress point.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiteHedded
I have used it several times and have seen others use it. Then again, it is and always has been "few and far between".
It's against the rules, might even be a law, to remove any vegitation from a state park.Quote:
Originally Posted by stairman
even invasive non-native species?
I believe so. Because the possibility of misidentification by people who "think" they know, they just say no vegetation can be removed. It's up to the staff and park biologists to remove both invasive and non-invasive species.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiteHedded
I could be all wet on this but I don't think so.
In the thread it's obvious it has not been clear that it was "open" for entry and exit by a large body of cave divers out there. And it's not just this thread. If you read other threads over time you get the clear impression the only "open" entrances to the Peacock system are OG, P1 and P3. That was by default the generally "known" policy, at least in regard to the larger body of non-local cave divers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegg
As you point out, that has now changed as there is now an *official* policy that it is open. It does not have to be posted to result in greater use, it just has to be spread by word of mouth - or via internet.
It's also obvious in the thread that the vast majority of people who dove the waterhole tunnel and who did a traverse to Waterhole III, entered and exited from P1, not Waterhole III. I think there would probably be general agreement that the bank around the head pool won't tolerate a whole lot of entry and exits before erosion starts to occur.
So consider it this way - with an *offical* "Waterhole III is open" policy you now:
1. open the entire passage to less trained, potentially less skilled Intro level divers,
2. who now know they can enter at Waterhole III and presumeably will do so since it is one of the nicer dives at Peacock, and
3. higher traffic both in and out of the head pool as well as in the tunnel itself will create more damage.
The latter is no big deal to the park people who won't see it, but the former will potentially result in Waterhole III being *officially* closed once the damage occurs.
The end result of the "Officially Open" change is that unlimited access that will result, will over time potentially eliminate any access, including the prior limited access by the well informed (again no big deal as few did it anyway) but sadly will do so only after erosion damage to the edges of the head pool itself has occurred.
IMHO, it's just poor management of the resource.
Oh I wasent gonna leave the park with it, only lay it on the bank. However if it impedes the growth of submerged algae as Forrest stated then its a good thing. Indigeous or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Line Squirrel
Again... I ask you to sit there a few days on the "busy weekends" and count the number of intro divers rushing to jump in and destroy waterhole.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
I'm interested to hear the report.
When Peacock is flooded due to the Suwannee at flood stage,then the Duckweed will be gone. If some diver enters the site with some invasive species on their gear,then the possibility of returning is there. Some state owned systems have the requirement that gear be checked by staff before diving for invasive species,but rarely is this done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Line Squirrel
Just look at what happened to 40 Fathom when they first removed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stairman
I barely could see my hand in front of my face because of all the green.
Ditto. Double HumperQuote:
Originally Posted by MORGAN
Let me summarize what I get from this thread:
DA Aquamaster: "This opens the possibility of intro divers, apprentice divers, and some full cave divers who don't know how to dive well destroying the entrance to the cave."
Tegg: "It's not happening now which proves it will never happen in the future."
Everyone else: "duckweed salad: it's what's for dinner, tonight!"
Anyone want to start taking bets on how long it is before an instructor takes an intro CLASS into Waterhole III? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by JahJahwarrior
I've only got 150 full cave dives but I'm always work on improving my skills.....and I need to.. So why is it that the one time I tried to come in Waterhole I trashed it? Perhaps I'm just a crap diver but perhaps we shouldn't assume everyone else is a much better diver.
Also, since we have divers trashing Waterhole, any reason I can't bring a few gallons of bleach to clean up Peacock 1? Not sure if the difference is significant.
JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!
I hope we get restrictions based on at least training level and experience.
BTW: why does any diver need to enter at Waterhole?
2¢
nvm... I say close all the entrances off to anyone not qualified to dive in the caves without damage according to the panel of cavedivers who think they are the ones who can judge the abilities of others...
:)
As inexperienced as those who judge might be? :P
I personally don't reply much here. I just read what everyone has to say. I personally love entering at waterhole and have done it many times. I enjoy entering there and it gives many possibilities as to where to go once I have reach the peanut tunnel. I have read the post and respect the views of the parties discussing this. However to say lets put a stop to people entering this site for lack of experience,or to much traffic, or erosion is a little bit arrogant. We all need more experience and we all get this experience by diving different places. If we do not allow entrance to this site should we also not allow entrance to peacock 111 for all the same reasons listed above. the same could be said for Cow also and so many other caves. I love to cave dive and I want more people to enjoy this same sport. We will all make mistakes and damage some cave whether it is a tank bump on the ceiling or a fin kick or what ever it may be. This should not be someones personal cave to say who is qualified to dive here. We Have that now at other places and I think that stinks.
I think we should close the passage to anyone who can't prove they've cave dove in FL at least 10 weekends in the past year. Thoughts?Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
That statement alone disqualifies you from entering at Waterhole sir !!!!!! :rollguy Apparently post count factors into being able to utilize Waterhole as an entry/exit point....and not just any post, it has to be post trying convince the world you are God's gift to cave diving !!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediver01
I am sorry I should pay you to enter the park
4TH post
These aren't really an issue or arrogance,but reality. If the park sees erosion becoming an issue because of a lot of land traffic,it will be closed,this is exactly what happened at Olsen,and that is why Emerald couldn't be open until steps were constructed. As far as too much traffic is concerned,the state does monitor trails etc with photo points which allows them to track attrition over time. Yes,this has been done for cave passages,and the way the state reduces wear and tear is by establishing carrying capacities (reducing the number of visitors at a given time). I would really suck to show up at Peacock and be told that the number of visitors has been exceeded,and come back tomorrow. That is why it is imperative that we exercise highest level of cave preservation.Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediver01
Waterhole is already safe from too much traffic. Most divers are too lazy to walk that far :rollguy
Yeah,but because of this thread,and extreme curiosity,I could put a coin operated turnstile at Waterhole,and make a fortune this weekend :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
Just don't put a boardwalk with stairs in and we're golden.Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
The local zip code diving phenomenon - no cave country political discussion is complete without that....but I'll assume you intended to make a point other than "local zip code divers must be better than non-local zip code divers".Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
Still, a lot of non-local divers would come close or even exceed that mark - some would easily exceeed it and I know some divers here who head south on every holiday weekend. We are not in that category, but normally we come down on week long trips arriving on a Friday or Satruday, staying through the week and leaving the following Saturday after 1 or two dives on Saturday. So that hits two weekends with dives in them during each trip. Doing the math for you that means 4 trips and 8 weekends per year. This year I had an extra short trip to FL and picked up another weekend, and had two more FL wreck diving trips where, had I known of this proposed requirement, I guess I could have hit cave country coming and going on one of them and had 11 weekends. Thus by your proposed standards, becoming a diver worthy of diving Waterhole III.
But alas as it was, sadly, I'm only at 9 weekends a year and obviously don't meet your stringent criteria.
On the other hand, a local zip code diver could do one dive a day on 10 Saturdays during a calendar year and still meet your criteria with a total of only 10 cave dives per year. Since we probably agree that is not enough to stay current, let alone highly skilled, your proposed criteria has some validity issues. This is particularly true when you consider the average non-local zip code diver doing only a single a 5 day trip to FL a year would get that same number of cave dives per yearm, but by the latter half of the week is potentially diving better than the occassional local zip code diver ever gets with 10 widely spaced dives per year.
So in short, you'd need to add some additional criteria and qualifiers if you want to go that route, or perhaps just go with a specific number of cave diving days or number of cave dives per year.
How about you just take pictures of the edges of the head pool now and then again at 3 month intervals, see what happens and post them here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegg
I'd be interesting in seeing the pictures.
You'd be assuming wrong. My point was to show you that everyone believes *THEY* should get to dive xyz site, but no one else. You see, you're not a fan of the local zip code discussion, yet you're all in favor of placing other artificial limits on site access at a popular state owned tourist cave, so be it they don't effect everyone's favorite novel writer. Don't you find that ironic?Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
You want irony? Check out my latest Facebook post.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
Let's straighten out the logic here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
The only real limit that existed in the first place was the belief by most cave divers, and in particular those most likely to frequent a state owned toursist cave, that Waterhole III was closed. Thus protecting it from damage form diver who might otherwise have decided to enter and exit there.
The only "change" is that it is now *officially* open, creating potential for a greater level of damage to occur.
A problem expressed by a number of divers, prior to the whole offially open versus closed issue, has been divers with low skill levels in the Waterhole tunnel, and those concerns were in reference to full cave divers -due to the need to jump to the line if the Waterhole III entrance is closed.
I have suggested that it might not make much sense from a conservation perspective to open the entrance, in light of the potential for more damage to occur from traffic in and out of the sink, as well as in terms of opening the tunnel to a broader range of cert levels that could make the dive.
In that regard, closing Waterhole III to entry and exit would continue to leave the Waterhole tunnel effectively off limits to Intro (and Cavern) certed divers.
Beyond that however, I have not suggested anything other than a "limitation" that would be self imposed by each diver being responsible enough to honestly self assess their skills and opt out of going there if their skills are not truly up to the task of doing the dive cleanly.
I'm not asking big government to step in and tell everyone what to do/not to do on a dive, I am just suggesting that it is a diver's responsibility to accurately self assess their ability level, and that at the same time it appears to be a responsibility that many divers seem to be very challenged to successfully uphold.
Its CLEARLY evident from this thread and the last Waterhole III thread, that it was assumed that Waterhole III was a viable entry. So the rest of your diatribe is rubbish, aint it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Nothing has changed.
Actually Larry, I believe you said earlier in the thread that by allowing it as an access point, you felt that management (a gov organization) was poorly managing the resource.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Since this is an either or situation (allow access or not), if you believe that allowing access is poor management, that only leaves one conclusion-- you want the gov management to shut down access.Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
Forrest,
I think you hit it right on the head. I would be surprised if the impact on waterhole is dramatic based on the new "policy" (that I was obviously not aware of) as it is more of walk and the entry into the basin does require some level of dexterity.
Similarly, I think that this factor most likely reduces traffic at P3 (more so than the lower vis. or the fact that is syphon). My buddy and I were the only divers in P3 last Sunday that I am aware of even though the conditions were quite good.
And as far as local vs. tourist; I think we are all tourist's underwater - words from a nomad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
guess that counts me outQuote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
I think Kelly may be the one that hit it on the head. It was hardly ever used as an entry, until this thead. If it does get a lot more traffic, it will be the fault of someone "daring" people to go through without silting up the silt. Now everyone will want to try it for themselves :roll:
Ah... a single act by the state park - closing the entrance - is big government. Thanks for clarifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
The thing is that even conservatives tend to agree that the role of government, at a minimum, is to do those things (and only those things) that individuals cannot do for themselves. If the park does not act to protect the area when/if it becomes apparent it is being damaged, what would you suggest?
Is it in need of protection?
Please, someone tell me this weekend if there's a line to Waterhole III??? Now that access has been granted to a site that everyone already thought we had been granted access to - ie, lets see if there's a change, after nothing has really changed.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say... nothings gonna change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn
Diver traffic at Waterhole increased by 100% last weekend!!! (two teams dove it rather than the usual one) :mrgreen:
:roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by DA Aquamaster
You have zero valid reasons to believe that the park wouldn't take action if/when it becomes an issue. Olsen was closed to protect it after a trial period. Furthermore, the park has proven proactive when these issues arise by building steps at other common entry points.
With the heat of the summer in full force and longer walk to this site, I'm going to go on a limb and guess the extra number of teams entering at Waterhole III will be very small.
It's not the heat, it's those damn spiders.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
Really funny thought since Peacock was one of the "low attended" parks on the chopping block only a month ago. Too few visitors to keep the park open to now too many divers so the park would be closed to more diving visitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop
Sounds exactly like government thinking to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by metaldector
Are you serious? You should just close Florida to anyone without a Florida residence. What in the world does diving 10 weekends a year in Florida tell you about a divers experience? What if someone dives 52 weekends a year in DR, or Mexico... Oh wait, this is like a TEGG post... I fell for it again, didnt I?Quote:
Originally Posted by jj1987
:smt064Quote:
Originally Posted by Skorpiov
FWIW, I dive a lot more that 10 weekends a year in FL, but I don't live anywhere close to FL :-)
Depends on your frame of reference - from here you seem like you're almost in Florida!Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
weekdays don't count. weekends only. and it must be both sat and sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by FW
mexico? do they cave dive there?
I'd say let's limit to those who can show 50 logged cave dives in viz less than 10 feet, with no flow, and water temps below 60, and at least 5 of those must be virgin caves in which the cave diver laid all or part of original survey line. all other cave dives are recreational and won't get you into waterhole iii.
skip
I hear ya! Never forget your spider stick, made that mistake ONCE..... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Line Squirrel
Safe diving,
Rich
Then I have zero cave dives.Quote:
Originally Posted by skip
Yep :-DQuote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
...says the man who started the thread. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop
If you're concerned (and I'm not saying that you are wrong to be) then why start the thread? Why not just let the information spread by word of mouth?
Brian
I happen to think DA Aquamaster has made some very good and valid points. Better to do nothing that might increase traffic.
Waterhole can now be dived from begining to end with little evidence of man other than the line ...sure be nice if it would stay that way.
Hows traffic going to increase? Everyone thought Waterhole was already a viable entry anyway :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benthic
The reason for the post is because this was brought up in two different posts on two different forums. Consolidate it to one post,and get the official answer out there.
Traffic will increase because of curiosity. For example,a few years ago there was a post about tunnel XYZ at Ginnie,and that weekend the jump lines leading to it looked like a fisher man's net,and the disturbed silt in a largely unseen area was unreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn
Everyone already knew Waterhole III existed
Last time I was at Peacock I did a recon free dive in Waterhole. It was pretty viable entrance without the extra 150lbs of gear. Just gotta use some common sense. There was plenty of duck weed. I looked like a swamp creature while exiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuPrBuGmAn
depends on what instructor it is ! ^:(^
Hello 5 months ago
Yea and about 5 ft of hydrilla which obviously wasent there when Scuba Rob jumped in. I can negotiate duckweed algae and logs but trying to submerge with 100 lbs of the stuff hanging onto you is tuff.
Hey stairman you need to hire one of those local weed choppers, aka. Gator to trim you a path.
Does a Gator slide count as erosion?
I am not trying to poke anyone but they are visible on the river when they find a good entry / exit point.
It sound like Waterhole will remain tough entry till the hydrilla dies off a bit.
JCG