Cavesr4all

[Vader]

Cavesr4all is a very loosely knit organization. I guess it could be said it's not really even an organization, but more of an idea that another caver and I had.

Cavesr4all has a web site and the idea behind it is to help out beginning cavers and to share information. Over the two years that the site has been active we have had dozens of contacts that we have communicated with on a regular basis. I'm sure there are many more that use the site but don't agree with its politics and don't contact it. Weather its right or wrong to share locations, that's what the idea is behind the web site. We believe that recreational cavers come first.

I have tossed around the idea of forming this website into an organization that would support a membership. The web site has been contacted and asked to teach about recreational caving, however with out a membership roster of people to help us out, this hasn't happened yet. By their nature the people that use this site are people that don't wish to invest the time in a grotto or organization to find out where to go caving, therefore I think membership would probably be sparse. I am glad to pass along the name of a few grottoes to any body that contacts the site and shows interest in an organization.

I don't think Cavesr4all will ever support a membership. Because of the politically un-popular idea of sharing locations. Many of the contacts to the site don't want other cavers to know they use it. Any way I don't think the NSS would back such an idea.

[marlatt]

vader said:

[...]I'm sure there are many more that use the site but don't agree with its politics and don't contact it. Weather its right or wrong to share locations, that's what the idea is behind the web site. We believe that recreational cavers come first.

And that is the rub, isn't it? How many of those who "don't agree with its politics" are those who, for instance, don't agree with your brief blurb about cave conservation? Or perhaps who don't buy into your little nod to safety? The point is that you have NO IDEA who is getting locations from your site, but you nevertheless insist on providing those locations to any and all.

Consider a not-too-unlikely scenario: Let's say I wanted to get a bunch of friends together and have an underground paintball war. I could visit a local grotto, where I'd either be taken underwing and schooled in proper caving ethics or, more likely, told to bug off. Either way, its unlikely that I'd be splatting paintballs off the flowstone in your favorite cave. But I could also go visit Vader's site and find directions to dozens of great caves - no questions asked, no responsibilty needed! Woo-hoo!

Vader - you've promoted your site ad nauseum, but I've yet to hear any cogent argument for how your site helps, to any extent whatsoever, protect the caves that you claim to enjoy. But of course, you "believe that recreational cavers come first," apparently at the cost of the caves.

swm

[Azurerana]

I've thought cavers were going down the wrong path by suppressing locations for years.They should be putting all this effort into conservation, education, and landowner relations and we wouldn't be having this recurring discussion.

You suppress locations, you make obtaining them extremely desirable. Humans just innately want to peer into keyholes in locked rooms. If the door is not locked, they might open the door and take a peek, but likely not break down the door and trash the place.

All sorts of power games are played because of this cave location thing. Surveys collect them, and then refuse to reveal them, and that just pits people against each other who otherwise might have been friends. All sorts of interpersonal intrigue results, and most of that is counterproductive.

I disagree with Stuart that getting a location from a grotto prevents paintball wars. Grottos perpetuate their own mores--if a grotto is conservation minded etc., etc., that wil be the case, but that is not the case for all grottos or all grotto members, who all too often are just someone with some money in their hand and a yen for adventure. And they take their non-grotto friends, who may go back by themselves. All too often I've seen people not call down each other or correct a new person because they don't want to lose their popularity by becoming known as critical or much worse, even though the cave would benefit by such action.

Cave locations in themselves are neutral. They're just data. The problem is with the people being irresponsible, lawbreaking, uneducated, and so forth with data. Instead of correcting the behavior, cavers suppress the data.

95% of the world seems to learn the rules of civil behavior, or the rules of any recreational sport. Occasionally things get out of hand, but most baseball players know you don't clobber the other players with the bat. Therefore they can be trusted to have wood or metal bats,and not be restricted to Nerf bats. What's wrong with cavers that they think civil and law-abiding behavior is optional? Granting access to a cave is up to the LANDOWNER. People abide by this in regards to houses and other private property. Why can't we get it through people's heads in regards to caves?

Organized cavers sometimes get so tunnel visioned, they think they are the only ones going in caves. Tain't true. So we need much more education and outreach. With the exception of a caver kid of cavers, 99% of organized cavers started out as the general public. But most seem to forget this....

We can't (nor should we think we can) control people like Vader without infringing their free speech. The Net is Pandora's box, and it's been open for 10 years. We need to learn to manage what has gotten loose (and what will expand from there), not imagine it will all miraculously go back into the box.

[marlatt]

azurerana-

The fallacy is in assuming that this is a dichotomy - total secrecy vs. education. It isn't so clear cut. I personally am NOT in favor of absolute secrecy (I actually led a group of Boy Scouts through a cave this weekend). But I am absolutely against widespread, indiscriminate dissemination of cave locations. Yes, the Internet is a fact of life, and yes, it is not possible (nor desirable) to control all information. But, there is also no reason not to address specific situations as they occur. Not to do so is simply irresponsible. I'm not attempting to "control" Vader or impinge on his free speech. I'm simply attempting to influence his opinion, or the opinions of others.

You note that "granting access to a cave is up to the LANDOWNER. " I completely agree - and in this part of the world (where both Vader and I cave), the majority of our caves are on federal lands. The landowner, in this case, is the people of the US; management of these lands has been delegated, per representative gov't, to agencies like the USFS or the BLM. In some cases, the management of specific caves has been further delegated to citizen organizations (such as the Colorado Cave Survey).

You also note that "people abide by this in regards to houses and other private property. Why can't we get it through people's heads in regards to caves?" True, MOST people abide by the rules of social behavior, but some don't - and therefore, we end up with locks on our doors and windows.

And that - caves with locks on there doors and windows - is the future we have in store. Perhaps that is inevitable, but perhaps we can postpone that future for a little while.

swm

[Azurerana]

marlatt said:

azurerana-

The fallacy is in assuming that this is a dichotomy - total secrecy vs. education. It isn't so clear cut. I personally am NOT in favor of absolute secrecy (I actually led a group of Boy Scouts through a cave this weekend). But I am absolutely against widespread, indiscriminate dissemination of cave locations.

This is fine. However, you draw the wrong dichotomy. It is not between secrecy and education. It is between secrecy and non-secrecy. And they are mutually exclusive.

Yes, the Internet is a fact of life, and yes, it is not possible (nor desirable) to control all information. But, there is also no reason not to address specific situations as they occur. Not to do so is simply irresponsible.

I disagree. I don't think cavers should be cave location guardians or cops. If anyone should have that responsibility, it should be the cave owners, and the cavers should respect their wishes in regards to distribution and visitation.

I'm not attempting to "control" Vader or impinge on his free speech. I'm simply attempting to influence his opinion, or the opinions of others.

As I am, with a differing opinion.

You note that "granting access to a cave is up to the LANDOWNER. " I completely agree - and in this part of the world (where both Vader and I cave), the majority of our caves are on federal lands. The landowner, in this case, is the people of the US; management of these lands has been delegated, per representative gov't, to agencies like the USFS or the BLM.

Therefore, the responsibility on locations lies with the agencies, and you should be holding their feet to the fire, not Vaders.

In some cases, the management of specific caves has been further delegated to citizen organizations (such as the Colorado Cave Survey).

I have a problem with this, too. Agencies should ALWAYS maintain control of their cave management, and not delegate it to a group of citizens. The agencies are bound by non-discriminatory policies. Cititzen's groups are not. If a private landowner wants to give the key over to a private group, fine. But I don't like the idea of the feds doing so. All should be treated equally under the law, with the sole exception that someone who is a convicted cave vandal should be treated as such.

You also note that "people abide by this in regards to houses and other private property. Why can't we get it through people's heads in regards to caves?" True, MOST people abide by the rules of social behavior, but some don't - and therefore, we end up with locks on our doors and windows.

And that - caves with locks on there doors and windows - is the future we have in store. Perhaps that is inevitable, but perhaps we can postpone that future for a little while.

Maybe in Colorado. In Missouri, the locks on cave doors and windows are already here. And people are busting them off, with usually small penalty, if any, unless they are destroying federally protected cave life. There are exceptions, of course, but whereas someone breaks into your house, the county prosecutor doesn't wonder if a crime has been committed, in the case of caves, they either don't know, or often have a 'so what?' attitude.

The property owners should be the people going after Vader's locations for invasion of privacy, not the cavers, who mostly don't have any legal standing in the matter, and as he reports, are often the people visiting the site to get the info he offers. You claim 'we' as citizens can go after Vader because 'we' own the caves on federal land. But that's not the way most courts see citizen action on federal lands these days. They claim the agencies are the ones responsible, Concerned citizens should therefore go after the agencies to do their duty under the FCRPA, not be vigilantes, as many cavers are wont to do.

On the other hand , if so called legitimate cavers and surveys didn't collect great masses of locations in the first place, people like Vader would be limited to knowledge of the caves that he has visited. I quit collecting cave locations for that very reason some years ago.

[marlatt]

azurerana said:

This is fine. However, you draw the wrong dichotomy. It is not between secrecy and education. It is between secrecy and non-secrecy. And they are mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily. Some caves are either well-protected (gated, etc.) or resistant to impact - and thus it is not reasonable to keep their locations secret. Others, however, may be extremely fragile and at high risk - we have a lot of caves like that out here. In such situations, secrecy - or at least low profile - is the first line of defense. All the education in the world won't restore a trashed cave. (This is a similar situation to that of an archaeological site, and merits similar management.

You also note that "people abide by this in regards to houses and other private property. Why can't we get it through people's heads in regards to caves?" True, MOST people abide by the rules of social behavior, but some don't - and therefore, we end up with locks on our doors and windows.

And that - caves with locks on there doors and windows - is the future we have in store. Perhaps that is inevitable, but perhaps we can postpone that future for a little while.

Maybe in Colorado. In Missouri, the locks on cave doors and windows are already here. And people are busting them off, with usually small penalty, if any, unless they are destroying federally protected cave life. There are exceptions, of course, but whereas someone breaks into your house, the county prosecutor doesn't wonder if a crime has been committed, in the case of caves, they either don't know, or often have a 'so what?' attitude.

So - given that we have a large number of sensitive, un-gated caves and potentially uninterested land managers and/or county prosecutors, what is the best means of protecting these caves? In the long run, education and gating is probably going to be the only solution - but what about right now? We don't have the resources to gate them all, nor the ability to magically convert every and all possible visitors to a conservation mindset. How do we keep these caves from getting trashed? Somehow, I don't think widespread, indiscriminate publication of their locations is the answer!

The property owners should be the people going after Vader's locations for invasion of privacy, not the cavers, who mostly don't have any legal standing in the matter, and as he reports, are often the people visiting the site to get the info he offers. You claim 'we' as citizens can go after Vader because 'we' own the caves on federal land. But that's not the way most courts see citizen action on federal lands these days. They claim the agencies are the ones responsible, Concerned citizens should therefore go after the agencies to do their duty under the FCRPA, not be vigilantes, as many cavers are wont to do.
locations for that very reason some years ago.

I'm not claiming that we "go after" Vader at all! At least, not in the sense that you are implying. I'm not even trying to censor his site via the FCRPA - I'm just trying to appeal to him as a person who has stated an interest in protecting (to some extent, at least) the caves he is publicizing. For what it is worth, certain cavers did attempt to contact the land management agencies and to shut him down by means of the FCPRA. As should have been apparent, there is nothing in the FCRPA to prevent a private party for disclosing cave locations - the restrictions therein are only binding on the land managers.

This isn't an invasion of privacy, and, as these caves are on public land, then WE, the landowners, are indeed the right people get involved. At this point, my involvement has been solely to attempt to debate the legitimacy of Vader's actions and to, hopefully, convince him to close it down. How exactly is that inappropriate?

On the other hand , if so called legitimate cavers and surveys didn't collect great masses of locations in the first place, people like Vader would be limited to knowledge of the caves that he has visited. I quit collecting cave locations for that very reason some years ago.

On yet another hand, without some database of cave locations, we have some pretty serious issues when said caves are threatened by things like mining, timber harvests, etc. Much cave science also requires some identification of the locations of caves, especially in relation to watersheds, etc. My concern isn't about the collection of cave data, nor in the responsible sharing of such data - it is just in regard to the unnecessary, irresponsible dissemination of that data.

swm

[Azurerana]

marlatt said:

Not necessarily. Some caves are either well-protected (gated, etc.) or resistant to impact - and thus it is not reasonable to keep their locations secret. Others, however, may be extremely fragile and at high risk - we have a lot of caves like that out here. In such situations, secrecy - or at least low profile - is the first line of defense. All the education in the world won't restore a trashed cave. (This is a similar situation to that of an archaeological site, and merits similar management.

The wishes of the landowner should come first. The responsibility for his property lies with him or her. The cavers shouldn't think this is their sole responsibility, but work with the landowners in this regard. This also applies to the federal government. Education and prosecution could work very well, except that no one seems to want to try it.
(I don't see archeology as an analogy, especially since many professional archeos are defending turf, just as cavers seem to be. Meaning--the mindset of 'if I can't have it, no one else can, either. "

So - given that we have a large number of sensitive, un-gated caves and potentially uninterested land managers and/or county prosecutors, what is the best means of protecting these caves? In the long run, education and gating is probably going to be the only solution - but what about right now?

Start now with the education/prosecution management model. There is a middle ground between secrecy/publication distribution, which is what many people are ignoring.

We don't have the resources to gate them all, nor the ability to magically convert every and all possible visitors to a conservation mindset.

Educate the landowners that it is THEIR responsibility to gate the caves, just as they fence their lands, and put up no trespassing signs. Then prosecute people who ignore/trash those caves. Educate the kids...in parks and school... that karst is not like other landforms, and if they don't take care of it, they will suffer the consequences. Just like we educate kids that they shouldn't mix acid with water, or walk out into traffic.

As should have been apparent, there is nothing in the FCRPA to prevent a private party for disclosing cave locations - the restrictions therein are only binding on the land managers.
At this point, my involvement has been solely to attempt to debate the legitimacy of Vader's actions and to, hopefully, convince him to close it down. How exactly is that inappropriate?

You are perfectly within your rights to do what you do. I just don't think this approach works, and would like to try something else for a change.

On yet another hand, without some database of cave locations, we have some pretty serious issues when said caves are threatened by things like mining, timber harvests, etc. Much cave science also requires some identification of the locations of caves, especially in relation to watersheds, etc. My concern isn't about the collection of cave data, nor in the responsible sharing of such data - it is just in regard to the unnecessary, irresponsible dissemination of that data.

swm

The problem lies in what is responsible, and what is unnecessary, or irresponsible, and who decides which is which. I think the burden of that decision should move from the caver to the landowner, where it rightly belongs. Perhaps you've been lucky enough to not know that we live in a cut and paste world these days. Even kids in school cut and paste plagiarize, often with impunity. I don't think we'll be able to maintain 'cave secrecy' much longer, even if we were able to as we were in the pencil and paper days. So, we need to look at new approaches.

There is also the way one can protect a resource by 'hiding it in plain sight'. Look at birding. Songbirds and raptors are protected by law. People don't shoot cardinals and jays for women's hat decorations anymore. Non Native Americans who mess with bald eagles get the book thrown at them in no uncertain terms. You're never going to be able to control the 2% of hardcore criminals out there. But if you get people to care deeply about resources while at the same time enacting stiff penalties for abusing them, progress can be made. Hey, if we tried to hide eagles, many people would be secretive, want eagle feathers, and do all sorts of insane things in order to lord it over their peers. As it is, bald eagles may be coming off the endangered species list very soon, because people have cared enough about them--they make money off them, and like to have them around.

We could do the same with caves and karst, and I think we need to do so before the last spring is polluted, and the last cave bulldozed for a parking lot. But you don't accomplish this by hiding them.

[marlatt]

azurerana said:

marlatt said:

We could do the same with caves and karst, and I think we need to do so before the last spring is polluted, and the last cave bulldozed for a parking lot. But you don't accomplish this by hiding them.

Nor by broadcasting all locations to all people, before such a time as education has run its course.

I'm NOT for complete secrecy. I AM for education, prosecution, gating (where viable), and responsible management. I fully support having some caves available for general recreational traffic. BUT - many, probably most, caves are a fragile, non-renewable, irreplaceable resource. I'm not willing to assume that every person who picks a cave location off a website is going to be a responsible cave visitor - and since it only takes one to permanently trash a cave, I think such publication is unwarranted and unwise.

Sure, secrecy tends to generate some attraction. Hopefully, the majority of that attraction will be concentrated on well-known, 'public' caves. We can focus some of our education at these points, where we are likely to meet neophyte spelunkers. (Of course, other educational thrusts can be directed at schools, museums, etc.) Those still interested, who hunger after the 'secret' caves, may seek out those caves via their local caving community - which is an ideal forum for more intensive education.

Maybe things are substantially different in Missouri. Is it your impression that your educational efforts, your gating efforts, and your prosecutorial efforts have been sufficient to assume that the caves are safe from vandalism? From your previous comments, it hardly seems that that is the case. So then, do we encourage broadband publication of any and all locations? Are we silent and neutral, passively trusting the land managers to care for the caves? Or ...?

swm

[Azurerana]

marlatt said:

azurerana said:

[

Maybe things are substantially different in Missouri. Is it your impression that your educational efforts, your gating efforts, and your prosecutorial efforts have been sufficient to assume that the caves are safe from vandalism? From your previous comments, it hardly seems that that is the case. So then, do we encourage broadband publication of any and all locations? Are we silent and neutral, passively trusting the land managers to care for the caves? Or ...?

swm

You are ignoring my previous quotes:

"I don't think cavers should be cave location guardians or cops. If anyone should have that responsibility, it should be the cave owners, and the cavers should respect their wishes in regards to distribution and visitation. "

"Start now with the education/prosecution management model. There is a middle ground between secrecy/publication distribution, which is what many people are ignoring."

The secrecy model does not work unless one caves alone. As my husband says, "keeping kids ignorant of sex does not prevent pregnancy." Likewise, 'hiding' the caves only keeps the caves from the responsible people, not the locals, not the casual hiker, not the person willing to go to any length to find caves, and definitel not the vandal with spraypaint and a case of beer.

Caves are erosional features in the process of collapse anyway. Even if people vanished tomorrow, the caves would eventually go away.

I've never been to Vader's site. I grew up with a list of hundreds of wild Missouri caves at my fingertips, and was never tempted once to go find any of them, because they were private or state property, I didn't have the skills to do landowner relations at the time, and I would never try to trespass. I just don't understand what drives people to break the law to go caving. And in most cases, if you go in a cave without permission, you are breaking some law or regulation. And if you do, you need to be assured of the error of your ways. Such prosecution can only be done by the landowner or manager.

Some years ago, though, a list of Missouri caves was published on Usenet. This did not substantially change the impact on those caves. They were already well known. It is up to the landowners to protect their caves. As I also said in a previous post, we need to educate those landowners to the fact that they need to gate and take care of the caves, just like they fence their lands.

I also refuse to believe that people outside of organized caving are by default bad or poor cavers. I've known too many who weren't (and too many horrid organized cavers) to make that distinction.

We've covered this ground already.
best wishes

[marlatt]

azurerana said:

You are ignoring my previous quotes:

I don't think cavers should be cave location guardians or cops. If anyone should have that responsibility, it should be the cave owners, and the cavers should respect their wishes in regards to distribution and visitation.

Cavers often find themselves in the position of being de facto "guardians or cops," and - at least for caves on public lands - have a duty as citizens to be involved in land management. While various gov't agencies have been charged with overseeing land management, many do not have background or expertice in cave management, and thus it is entirely right and proper for them to request input from the caving community. Similarly, as citizens, and thus landowners ourselves, we all have the right and responsibility to express opinions regarding any and all land management issues. In this aspect, cavers are no different than a host of other land users who provide input to land use decisions - these would include other recreational interest groups (Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mt. Elk Foundation, various mtn. bike groups, Sierra Club, etc.) as well as ag/commercial interests (grazing, water conservancies, mining groups, timber companies, etc.).

Start now with the education/prosecution management model. There is a middle ground between secrecy/publication distribution, which is what many people are ignoring.

I'm not ignoring that at all. My point is that even starting now (and in fact, we've started quite some time ago) with an education/prosecution model does nothing to protect vulnerable caves in the immediate future. The middle ground includes some secrecy - that is exactly my point!

The secrecy model does not work unless one caves alone. As my husband says, "keeping kids ignorant of sex does not prevent pregnancy." Likewise, 'hiding' the caves only keeps the caves from the responsible people, not the locals, not the casual hiker, not the person willing to go to any length to find caves, and definitel not the vandal with spraypaint and a case of beer.

I think this is probably a regional difference. Many of our most vulnerable caves are those which are relatively isolated - not likely to be accidentally stumbled upon by the casual party/beer crowd, and often in areas.

But you are insisting on a dichotomy which I've repeatedly attempted to deny. I'm not supporting complete secrecy - I'm simply arguing that indiscriminate, widespread dissemination of any and all cave locations is detrimental to the goal of protecting many of these caves! Do you disagree with that proposition?

Caves are erosional features in the process of collapse anyway. Even if people vanished tomorrow, the caves would eventually go away.

Agreed - but so what? Our sun will also eventually grow into a red giant and then collapse, probably leaving the earth a cold, lifeless hunk of rock. Does that fact negate all conservation concerns? Likewise, everyone currently alive will be dead in roughly 100 years - does that suggest no benefit of medicine?

Some years ago, though, a list of Missouri caves was published on Usenet. This did not substantially change the impact on those caves. They were already well known. It is up to the landowners to protect their caves. As I also said in a previous post, we need to educate those landowners to the fact that they need to gate and take care of the caves, just like they fence their lands.

And again, how do we address little-known caves, on public lands, in the interim? Is the best solution to publish their locations on the internet? Perhaps we could take out classified ads and list their locations in the paper? Maybe a few billboards? Or do we simply become reactionary and take up the Madrat motto - "scoop, survey and bury?"

I also refuse to believe that people outside of organized caving are by default bad or poor cavers. I've known too many who weren't (and too many horrid organized cavers) to make that distinction.

Never said otherwise (although I may have implied so, unintentionally). I, too, have known a lot of very good unaffiliated cavers, and some real idiots within the grotto structure. Nevertheless, given that the caving community, as a whole, supports cave conservation and conscientious caving practices, I am more likely to trust the caving community.

Cave softly (and quietly),
swm

[Vader]

Sorry I am so behind the times, I wanted to stay out of the conversation. I have already put in my two cents in previous threads on different boards and was interested to see what others had to say.

Azurerana,
you make some excellent points and I've got to applaud you for standing up for what you think, even though it's not the most popular point of view.

Stuart,
I take it you are not satisfied with the Safety and conservation messages on the web site.

marlatt said:

and that is the rub, isn't it? How many of those who "don't agree with its politics" are those who, for instance, don't agree with your brief blurb about cave conservation? Or perhaps who don't buy into your little nod to safety?

If you would like to write up a better safety or conservation message for the site we would be glad to put it up there.

[marlatt]

vader said:

Stuart,
I take it you are not satisfied with the Safety and conservation messages on the web site.

If you would like to write up a better safety or conservation message for the site we would be glad to put it up there.

No, it's not the content of the safety/conservation messages on the site. Those are pretty reasonable. Rather, it is simply the blind assumption that anyone who gleans locations from your site is trustworthy. Most probably are, and the safety/conservation messages may help somewhat. However, the fact remains that even if the majority are ok, it only takes one vandal to permanently destroy a cave. And since the site provides no means of filtering out the guy who is looking for a cave for his paintball war (reprising my earlier example), it significantly increases the risk that one or more of the caves listed may get trashed.

The only protection many of these caves have is their relative obscurity. Even with land manager interest in cave conservation, many of these caves are quite isolated and enforcement is impractical. The last resort may be gating the caves - which will eliminate the sort of free access you appear to be promoting.

Ironically, the following quotes from your own site supports either gating caves or keeping them relatively unknown:

"Vader and CaverOne got to tour Huccacove Cave and Breezeway Cave in March 2003. First and foremost, the caves are incredible and restricted access has kept them in amazing condition.”

“...It is fairly well preserved because the cave doesn't see alot of traffic....” [re: Powerline]

swm

[L Roebuck]

vader said:

<snip>
a very loosely knit organization. I guess it could be said it's not really even an organization, but more of an idea that another caver and I had.

Cavesr4all has a web site and the idea behind it is to help out beginning cavers and to share information. Weather its right or wrong to share locations, that's what the idea is behind the web site.
<snip>

Hey Vader, I did take some time to view your web site and have a question for you. Do you have any concerns that people will use the locations that you have posted on your web site, go to these locations and get injured or even worse? Let me say I am not trying to pick on you but am just interested in how you feel.


An example of why I ask this question: www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=105404

[Vader]

Stuart,

I am not ignoring your questions. We have been through this before and whatever I have to say would simply be repeating what I have said before. I would however like to respond to them and I will when I get the chance tonight.

There is one statement I would like to respond to immediately

marlatt said:

[

"Vader and CaverOne got to tour Huccacove Cave and Breezeway Cave in March 2003. First and foremost, the caves are incredible and restricted access has kept them in amazing condition.”

“...It is fairly well preserved because the cave doesn't see alot of traffic....” [re: Powerline]

swm

CaverOne helps me with this site. I respond to e-mails try to expand on the list of caves and I just happen to be the vocal one of us.

I did not create the site. It is CaverOne that wrote the site and maintains it, Therefore most of the wording was chosen by him.

I DO NOT agree with the above statement. The two caves he mentioned were very well decorated and preserved. Stone River in Breezeway was one of the coolest things I have seen underground. I however am not in complete agreement with him on this.

[Azurerana]

Ok, I looked at Vader's and CaverOne's site.

I was astonished by the few locations I actually found. And unlike most org caver location lists, they actually tell you a bit about the cave and what to expect, so you can make up your mind before driving a gazillion miles on some dirt road.

On the other hand, I found the site chock full of good caving softly, safely and with concern that people realize you have to have your stuff together and not be a knucklehead to go caving and come back from it.

The only safety thing I cringed slightly about was the bicycle helmet recommendation. If people are doing rope work or open exposure freeclimbing, they absolutely need those $100 climbing helmets, or their brains quite likely will be scrambled if there is any sort of an incident. On the other hand--one of my brothers who is an occasional (not chronic) horizontal caver uses his bike helmet, because while they make bike helmets in XXL, its ****** hard to get a rockclimbing or caving helmet which fits his head. (He was bounced about a bit as a child, and has an XXL cranium).

One point no one seems to have made in the extensive pounding Vader took on the NSS board (which I followed) is this: Organized caving has this squeaky clean boy scout superior/academic/scientific image they try to project. (Sure, some organized cavers are mangy, but these they try to palm off as our mad geniuses.)

CavesR4All is more like, 'hey dude, if you're gonna go cavin' , kewl, but don't get your butt in a sling, or bust up the pretties for the next guy." Its more NASCAR and Jimmy Buffett or Charlie Daniels than Boston Philharmonic and white gloved speleo-polo.

So, you get a hypothetical web-cruiser, with an itch to get underground, do something a bit more daring than hang at the mall and no clue how to do it. He stumbles on a caving org website with all these requirements, and do's and don'ts and you must joins and so forth. All that blather about science and discovery and conservation and management sounds like well--work! So he skips over to CavesR4All, and he gets much the same message, but in language he can relate to. Education happens anyway.

Now , I'm not saying that I'm out there setting a stamp of approval, mostly because I'm not from Colorado, and it's the people out there who have to deal any call outs, or cave vandalism resulting from hopped up meth-heads deciding to take some sledges and go caving on the basis of the GPS locations. I'm actually from the old school--Don't deny locations entirely, but make people work a bit for the locations (like the puzzle coded geocache sites) because they'll appreciate it more.

But maybe being hifalutin and elite about locations and caving in general means we're winning the battle to discourage caving, but losing the war to save the caves. Anybody considered this?

[L Roebuck]

Thanks for the response Vader, I appreciate you taking the time to sharing your thoughts.

As a FYI to every one, for the time being I am refraining from giving my opinion on the controversy concerning cave location's until a time when "the bigger picture in the grand scheme of things" becomes clearer.

Cave softly....