caveparrott,
your a great guy and I'm not knocking you personally, but when it comes to gates and your employer the ACCA "we are on parallel lines that will never again intersect" (Ray Stevens)
lots of things like rap music, gay marriage, and abortion are "part of our reality". That in and of itself isn't an argument that they are valid practices (or not). They are all supported or opposed by people with various degrees of intensity for various reasons...any of which may or may not be related to the truth.
The issue is what level and frequency of gating is prudent or desirable and for what reasons. Gates are never necessary, they are sometimes prudent, frequently helpful to a narrow interest, and often over used.
It is certainly desirable to have people build "good" gates vs "bad" gates but if various special interest organizations didn't raise or give them money in the first place far far fewer would get built at all. Grottos often fund gates on private or public land...in exchange for access rights. Many have come to regret it later.
If a private entity or person chooses to gate a cave I view it the same as any other land practice that can be either prudent or disasterous depending on the situation and implementation. The original NSS gate of Shelta is an example of good intentions gone bad. We are 30 years ahead and maybe not making the same mistakes but what about new ones? Public cave gates add in the factor of depriving the public access to a public resource. Sometimes this is needed....sometimes. Unfortunately we are in the midst of a cave gate craze to slap a gate on at the slightest cause and some organizations are making money doing it. (not just the ACCA)
"people not following the rules" is an easy out for those wanting to co-opt control and monopolize resources because there will always be some rule breakers somewhere to justify their actions. The issue rarely addressed is whether the actual as opposed to theoretical threat matches the response and do the impacts on other organisims and users justify the benefits. If you stop 2 winter visits by 2 people over 2 years to a mediocre bat cave but also permanently exclude species like owls (natural predators), and turkey vultures (cave nesters) from a resource they too need and removed that cave from recreational visitation by those who appreciate the resource have you really acted responsibly? What will we think 30 years from now looking back? oops?
As I said, gates aren't about rule breakers, otherwise most cavers who followed the rules would get access...(this does happen sometimes but is an exception overall) gates are about letting a few people control a resource for their own individual or organizational purposes. Did they gate the cave where your pot hunter died? I don't think so...
They also aren't necessary to protect the resource in many cases. Most of these caves have been ungated in the presence of people for a loooongg time. The world didn't end. Bats still fly. Artifacts outside of known grave sites are really only valuable to archeologists or collectors and then only when they...wait for it...dig them up. In context of course
There are also lots of factors that kill lots of bats besides disturbance of caves..The really irresponsible people are those living in single dwelling homes, using wind power, eating commercial food crops, and driving at night on rural roads near water. But gating caves is an easy feel good distraction from the true causes of decline.
We can agree to disagree about Laurel, but there certainly was not a history of vandalisim or bat killing by people there. If the regular human traffic caused some bats to seek a quieter cave...all the better since an excellent *safe* hibernacula exists virtually next door.(several actually) I went on winter tours of Laurel before the hoopla and I thought then that those bats must be underweight seeking extra cold conditions and gambling on a dangerous roost or maybe just the duller crayons... IMHO the Laurel gate is a *feel good* gate born of publicity over an isolated problem. If a few hundred bats die every 20 years because a scout group goes postal thats bad. But is that worse than drowning several thousand "naturally" ? As Archie Bunker said of victims of handgun violence, if you dont like guns would you prefer they got thrown out of windows? Dead is still dead.
The ACCA aren't the only folks gating caves by a long shot, but don't hide behind "a service".
An addict needs a pusher....A gate doesn't get built without money. (the ACCA along with others raise money through grants and donations) It never gets built without labour (again the ACCA and others facilitate recruitment of volunteers or paid staff) It rarely gets built on public land without "experts". (which the ACCA provides and/or trains.) and if cave gates are portrayed to the public and landowners as you say... " a necessary evil" or even worse as the only solution... "Unfortunately, until there is another way to protect the resources of the caves, cave gates will always be." And if completed gates (and to be fair cleaned up sinkholes) are splashed across newsletters to let members and donors know how their money is protecting bats (and implying they should keep sending it to protect more bats in similar manner) then guess what? more caves will get gated directly because of the ACCA whether or not they themselves actually "closed" them.
I simply don't think the ACCA cares, because I don't think most of their revenue is from active wild cavers. The ACCA (and BCI) will make money even after every wild cave is gated and they will make money in the meantime helping put those gates there.