Peacock Line Arrows

[Scuba Al]

Comparing double arrows making a jump to a neon sign is a bit of a stretch.

[TotDoc]

Anyone who wants to visit these based on the published maps will not be deterred by lack of markers etc - a little bit of planned search effort is all it takes.

Isn't that really the point?



Just because the double arrows are gone, it doesn't prevent someone who is looking for the passage from finding it. It does, however, reduce the swimming by, seeing a marked jump, and exploring it just because it's there phenomenon. There is a LOT of cave to see at Peacock. For those that haven't been there enough to know where the pulled jumps are, I don't think they are exactly missing out on passage to explore. For those who are ready to explore new sections, or who specifically want to find the areas in question, there is no barrier preventing them from doing so. Furthermore, unless the jump lines were significantly cut back, I don't see how this would result in any increased damage to the cave. The same jump line needs to be put in place...


Am I missing something here? I am trying to understand why people are expressing concern over this, but I'm just not seeing it...

[rddvet]

I just don't get the circuiting the wishbone. I can't think of a good reason to do it. Would like to hear the thoughts on that one.

[cmint]

Aren't lines supposed to be there to help someone find their way out, not find their way in?

[oceancurrent]

Well, if "if you can't find the tunnels without the double arrows, then you shouldn't be there => pull out the double arrows" is a sound argument, then shouldn't we pull out the double arrows in Ginnie and all other systems? While we are at it, perhaps consider the argument "if you can't find your way around the cave without the guideline, you have no business in the cave => pull the lines out of the cave". But why stop here? We can take away all cave maps too. Where do we stop?

[MORGAN]

I just don't get the circuiting the wishbone. I can't think of a good reason to do it. Would like to hear the thoughts on that one.

Yup.

[Pavão]

I just don't get the circuiting the wishbone. I can't think of a good reason to do it. Would like to hear the thoughts on that one.

To prevent damage to the cave caused by unskilled divers installing jumps?
Sure one can argue about not having it Teed would keep the unskilled diver from going in to begin with, I believe that would be no more than assumptions, but if the “T” is indeed to prevent damage from installing jumps, then we already have a solid motive without need for assumptions, as one would be able to observe damage near the start/end of the line?

Of course my vote is to T everything, everywhere

[rddvet]

To prevent damage to the cave caused by unskilled divers installing jumps?
Sure one can argue about not having it Teed would keep the unskilled diver from going in to begin with, I believe that would be no more than assumptions, but if the ?T? is indeed to prevent damage from installing jumps, then we already have a solid motive without need for assumptions, as one would be able to observe damage near the start/end of the line?

Of course my vote is to T everything, everywhere

If all of the jumps being placed are whats damaging the caves then we should just t the crap out of everything. I personally suspect higher traffic will damage the wishbone circuit more than jumps. I?m hoping to be proven wrong and it stays pretty. Ove the years I?ve seen the olden bypass get more and more scarred so I?m glad its not marked anymore (at least last time I dove it). In my head I see the same scars popping up in the wishbone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bamafan]

If these line changes are made due to the assumption that there is a lack of skills in certified cave divers shouldn't the root problem be addressed?

[rddvet]

If these line changes are made due to the assumption that there is a lack of skills in certified cave divers shouldn't the root problem be addressed?

That?ll be the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk