Waterhole sink at Peacock

[Tegg]

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.

This post has to be a joke.

[bletso]

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

[DA Aquamaster]

This post has to be a joke.

Sorry it's not. It is what it is - something to consider as a justification to not promote it as an entrance/exit.

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?

[kidsdream]

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.

[MORGAN]

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

[Tegg]

Sorry it's not. It is what it is - something to consider as a justification to not promote it as an entrance/exit.

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?

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.

[LiteHedded]

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.

[Tegg]

I've never seen anyone enter or exit there. intro or otherwise.

Meaning it was never a "heavily used" egress point.

I have used it several times and have seen others use it. Then again, it is and always has been "few and far between".

[Line Squirrel]

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.

It's against the rules, might even be a law, to remove any vegitation from a state park.

[LiteHedded]

even invasive non-native species?