Peter Youngbaer ROCKS!

[Pippin]

What is CRF saying?

[Teresa]

What is CRF saying?

You'll have to ask them. This isn't a put down of CRF. But people go to caves for many different reasons, many of them legitimate, but not all the same, nor all in alignment with the immediate needs of agencies. This is why the NSS has multiple aspects to their mission statement. It's also why USFS has a multi-use mandate. To appeal to and to serve many different populations. Missouri Dept of Conservation has critters as its main mandate, and recreation only insofar as it meets its management objectives, such as how hunting and fishing are intertwined with population management. No game animals to speak of hang out in caves. NPS is a protect and enjoy mission; they've always come down heavier on the protect part, except where great masses of people insist on the enjoy. State Parks mission statement is preserve and interpret and provide safe recreation.

If you're dealing with a natural resource agency, their mission statements are often written into law or policy and it's good to know what they are in order to wave it their faces, or to understand why you are not being listened to.

[John Lovaas]

Forest Service is just talking to the people who are saying what they want to hear--mostly CRF.

Ms. Schaper-

I'd like to address your comment with a few personal observations. CRF does not tell any agency 'what they want to hear'. The work that CRF is guided by memoranda of understanding with the respective management agencies; you can view our recently updated MOU with the US Forest Service here:

http://cave-research.org/docs/usfs_crf_mou_2011.pdf

The agencies author the MOUs. While CRF could suggest changes to make our work easier, the agency makes the final call on the soundness of the document- not CRF.

Scott House is CRF President, and he speaks for the organization. He has the primary responsiblity for negotiating these MOU, and has done an excellent job, in my opinion. As a personal observation, I would not characterize Scott as the sort of person who tells anyone 'what they want to hear'- and I mean that in the best and friendliest possible way.

As for myself- I've been active in CRF since the 1990s. I participate in and manage expeditions at Mammoth Cave, and I currently serve as a Director of the organization.

Everywhere where CRF has projects, we are caving- and by caving, I mean mapping, inventory, and monitoring work. Our Western operations require that you have regionally-specific gear; for the rest of the country, we decon before and after cave trips. I've participated in 'post-WNS' trips in every CRF project in the nation, excluding Cumberland Gap.

For me, there isn't a single CRF operations area that isn't doing stuff that don't I find enjoyable, fun- and, dare I say it- recreational. I am not aware of any agency proscription against enjoyment and fun. All that, and we give cave agency managers what they want and need to more effectively manage their cave resources. But it is the Cave Research Foundation, and not the Cave Recreation Foundation, or the Cave Knitting Foundation... ;-)

I am not speaking for Scott, or for CRF as an organization, but simply as someone who participates in lots of CRF activities. Pippin and I have discussed this elsewhere- but consider how I've shot my mouth off over WNS issues. I'm still serving as a CRF Director, and have never received a single negative comment, caution, cross word or sideways glance from anyone in the organization. While there is no causal connection, the CRF Board voted to make me a Fellow of the Foundation last fall, while I was embroiled in the WIDNR nonsense.

In addition, I cannot overemphasize how helpful agency personnel in CRF project areas have been to WI cave owners and cavers to our attempts to address the deficiencies in the WIDNR WNS management plan.

As to whether CRF should 'say something'- we weren't invited to the hearing. Seemed like they needed a bigger table anyway.

One more observation on the idea of making statements. I had communicated with Peter Youngbaer prior to his testimony on Friday; I had shared some correspondence I had with David Blehert. Peter and I brought up the idea the idea of "speaking truth to power"- which, I should clarify, was unrelated to my discussion with David. David is as open and friendly and willing to discuss the science of WNS as anyone I know.

Peter, to my eyes, hit a home run in that respect on Friday. The best I can ever hope to do, I suppose, is shoot my mouth off to power.

Perhaps- and I'm not saying this as a CRF Director, or as being representative of the organization- just as one CRF project participant. Maybe CRF doesn't need to say anything; just act against/in spite of power. I have to think that all the work that CRF is doing around the country is an annoyance to the Center for Biologic Diversity. And if I can assist in annoying the CBD, then I get all warm and fuzzy inside... ;-)

[Teresa]

John,

I said this wasn't a putdown of the CRF. They do good work, I'm very glad they do what they do, and no defense of them is needed. It's just not what I and a lot of other cavers want to do on public lands and we're frustrated that people who have been our friends for years aren't talking to us, even though we are no more a a threat to the resource than any CRF person is.

I also know well how MOUs work...I just helped to write and now help to administer one for the 3rd longest cave in Missouri. Both sides have to agree on what they are up to before anyone signs them. I just happen to think that, at this point in time, some agencies are considering cavers under MOU as the only "good guys," which I simply do not believe is true, and which I think flies in the face of their mandate to consider their entire public constituencies in their decisions. To consider those folks involves talking to them and both sides figuring out what is and is not possible.

That's what my mini-rant about knowing an agencies' mission statement was all about.

[John Lovaas]

Jo-

I'm certainly aware of the agreement MCKC and MMV have regarding Berome Moore Cave- I know folks who've been involved in the discovery, exploration and management of the cave- and you discussed it last fall-

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10855#p92528

To be fair, there are differences between how two caving/cave conservation groups defining how a parcel of private property is managed, and how a federal or state agency defines the aims and responsibilities of a volunteer group. I'm not minimizing one over the other- the only analogy I can come up with is how my company defines and negotiates business contracts with privately held firms versus local, state, or federal governments. Much less wiggle room with governments.

It's just not what I and a lot of other cavers want to do on public lands and we're frustrated that people who have been our friends for years aren't talking to us, even though we are no more a a threat to the resource than any CRF person is.

I would agree that organized cavers are no more a threat to cave resources than CRF- CRF being a group of organized cavers as well. I've had several federal level resource managers tell me the same thing recently. They're worried about the groups Peter mentioned in his Congressional testimony- scout groups, church groups, college groups, geocachers, pothunters- we can all probably add a group to that list.

Problem is, if you aren't interested in the mapping/inventory/monitoring of caves and cave resources, what do you have to offer a cave manager? These folks are under tremendous pressure to "do something" about WNS, and in this WNS era, they have to justify to everyone- perhaps even US Senators and Representatives- why they have people in their 'closed' caves.

It would be hard for them to defend their variances from "everything's closed" by saying, "well, folks just want to go caving..."

To your comment "we're frustrated that people who have been our friends for years aren't talking to us"; you have to talk to them- regularly. And offer to be useful for them. They're under no obligation to go, "hey, haven't talked to Jo Schaper in awhile- ought to blow in a call to her to see what's goin' on..." not gonna happen. Every land management agency is understaffed and overworked and ain't gonna get any better any time soon.

I just happen to think that, at this point in time, some agencies are considering cavers under MOU as the only "good guys," which I simply do not believe is true, and which I think flies in the face of their mandate to consider their entire public constituencies in their decisions.

I'm unaware of any evidence- anywhere- that MOUs make anyone a 'good guy'. If a group has entered into a MOU with an agency, all it means is that the group has an opportunity- and an obligation- to do something that the agency finds useful.

To consider those folks involves talking to them and both sides figuring out what is and is not possible.

If by 'considering those folks', do you mean that agencies should reach out to cavers who aren't interested in mapping/monitoring/inventory? Correct me if I'm mistating you there.

To me, the expectation that a land manager should reach out to me(if I had no interest is providing services the agency finds useful) is no different than a private cave owner extending invitations to cavers that they've never met, or cavers inviting other cavers they've never communicated with to a cave that they've never visited.

That sentence is a bit cumbersome. Back in 2003, there was a tempest in a teapot about access to a large cave in the upper Midwest. In my fruitless search to find people who had actually been denied access to the cave, I did encounter two people who considered the cave closed because they were never invited to the cave- !!!

I asked- did they know anyone, or contact anyone who had been to the cave? No. Did they ever contact the landowners? No. But they didn't get invited. So the cave must be closed.

Seems like a Zen koan- a person, invisible to all of us, felt slighted because he was not invited.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I would argue that cavers have to be available and useful to cave managers- which means letting cave managers know that you are available and useful- and letting them know that regularly.

And, given the pressures land managers are currently under, if you cannot be useful, then you may have to simply do nothing. The WNS issue has clearly illustrated that no one- managers or users- wants to do nothing.

[Teresa]

I give up. You've made my point about what the problem is more eloquently than I ever could have.

[Cheryl Jones]

These NSS MOUs might be of interest.
NSS - USFS
NSS - NPS
NSS - CRF - BLM

Cheryl
but helpful.

[PYoungbaer]

Hey, Folks,

Thanks for all the nice comments. Just got back home and am catching up. Unfortunately, the CBD wasn't as complimentary. This from their most recent press release:

The need for cave closures has been hotly contested by cavers, one of whom testified today that closures weren't warranted. Scientists at the hearing, however, contradicted that claim. Dr. Justin Boyles of the University of Tennessee, a bat biologist and white-nose syndrome researcher, testified that cave-closure policies for white-nose syndrome were “warranted and prudent,” and that human-facilitated movement of the disease could be “disproportionately devastating” to bat populations because of the possibility of long-distance jumps into new regions, creating new disease epicenters.

“This hearing should lay to rest once and for all the question of whether cave closures are needed to help stem the tide of this devastating disease,” said Matteson.

The whole press release can be read here:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/white-nose-syndrome-06-24-2011.html

Makes it sound like Mollie testified - she did not. Also, we said "blanket" cave closures were the issue, and that there was no evidence they had done anything to stem the spread of the disease. If CBD believes that the presence of no evidence of success is what is sufficient to "lay to rest once and for all" any issue, then I clearly need to take a refresher course in logic.

Matteson also clearly did not have access to the questions that were posed to the witnesses. Specifically, we were asked to evaluate how the blanket closures of caves and mines had helped to stem the spread of the disease. Some of the other witnesses, Boyles included, stated their opinions that they thought they helped, but presented no evidence. We stated that we had seen no evidence they had worked - a simple statement of fact, not opinion. However, we did go on to let the members of Congress know that there were other ramifications to the closures, including economic damages to travel and tourist sectors, as well as state budget coffers, a position that was strongly echoed by the director of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Dr. Jonathan Gassett.

Boyles also said that my statement was correct, but went on to say it couldn't be proven that the closures weren't working.
Which is another way of saying there is no evidence. It also reminds me of the story of the guy standing on a street corner whistling, and another man comes up and asks, "Why are you whistling?" The first guy replies, "To keep the elephants away." "But there aren't any elephants around here! " the second man exclaims. To which the first guy says, "You see, it's working!"

[wyandottecaver]

Justin is the guy that thinks artifically heated boxes in caves are a good idea....for milking the USFWS out of grant money for an idea that is the biological equivilent of "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly.."

As for the MOU discussion. All MOU's are dictated by the haves and have nots. If your essentially begging for access and the agency doesn't need much from you, the agency can drive the process. If the the agency truly NEEDS you for data or work then you get to drive a lot too. Of course if your group has a suck-up then you might be trading too much power to the Agency. But possession is 9/10's and ultimately if the Agency doesn't like your deal, or the land managers are just lazy then they can say no.

John,
I think Teresa's point is that public land managers are NOT owners. Thus non-destructive uses compatible with the resource and the rights of other users should be allowed by default...Like caving for fun. Use should not be dependent on if you make a good enough case or trade MOU Deliverables. giving something back to a landowner is NOT the same as giving something back to a land manager....at least in theory if not practice.

But, having been a land manager for public caves I understand your point. Public land managers act like owners, sometimes treat user groups like supplicants to the throne, and generally function as owners in most cases. They are concerned about liability, the resource, minimizing their hassels, and "getting someting back".

Personally, I see MOU/Permit caving (which I've done a fair amount of) as little different than property taxes. You own the land, but the government says they provide services you need (but you cant decide not to use them) so you gotta pay for what's already yours...and thats life.

[BrianC]

Oh Well!

[Steve Pitts]

Which makes the whole thing worth contesting.

[PYoungbaer]

Setting aside the issue of unrestricted access for the general public, including those wishing to just do recreational caving, the CRF's MOU with Mark Twain National Forest permits a lot of caving. CRF directors informed me that this year a WNS monitoring function was added, so there is apparently plenty of opportunity for people, if they go through the CRF. MTNF cannot possibly do all the work on their own caves, so this is a mutually beneficial arrangement.

It's the same sort of arrangement the NSS has with Mammoth Cave for the Mammoth Cave Restoration Project. Lots of things to do for folks of all skill levels, as long as folks go through the designated channels.

I received an email the other day from an administrator of US Forest Service, Region 8 (southeast region), discussing the extension of the blanket cave closure order. While he acknowledges it's not optimal, he is more than willing to issue permits for caves in the region. Here's what he said:

The cave closure does not preclude me from authorizing a local grotto of serious cavers who know about WNS and decon their gear to enter a cave for a specific purpose. The FS does not have a lot of folks that are expert cavers and many of our folks don't like to go underground. We need info on caves to properly conserve them and don't have a way to gather that info in technically difficult caves.

For example, I could authorize a local grotto to enter cave x for the purpose of mapping, installing data loggers, surveying for bats and other biota, looking for archeological artifacts, and photo document the site. I could also authorize a researcher that works in a given cave on arthropods to enter to continue their research as long as their gear has not been in another cave or is completely decontaminated. None of this would occur during the hibernation season. On the flip side of this, I couldn't authorize a grotto to just go on a caving trip. This would give the perception of exclusive use and there would be no benefit to the government or cave resource. Lets face it, the FS and probably most federal agencies know very little about their caves and we could keep NSS folks underground for years gathering data we need to properly manage the cave resources.

The point of the closures is to keep folks out that are clueless and not interested in cave conservation. The ones that leave their beer cans behind or the ones grottos have to rescue. I see no reason a cave closure would preclude us from working with the NSS on conservation issues.

For NSS grottos working to figure out relationships and access on USFS lands in the western regions, there are models, both local and regionally, that can provide mutually beneficial situations. Doors are not closed, and if folks can take a step back, opportunities are there, even in the current WNS environment. No, this is not unfettered access, but neither is it no access.

[John Lovaas]

Todd-

I fully understand that land managers aren't the owners. We are the owners.

It's the definition of "We" that we- cavers- sometimes forget. We- people who own helmets with lights mounted upon them- do not possess any exclusive access to, or ownership of, caves, just as 4WD enthusiasts don't exclusively 'own' the public trails they run, or hunters exclusively own the land they walk during a day of hunting. As much as I loath to say it, the biostitutes at CBD have as much ownership in public lands as we do.

And that is all part- as you aptly illustrated, Todd- of the balancing act that land managers have to perfom.

Pre-WNS, land managers really didn't get hassled by too many of the "owners" of caves and their resources, minus resource impact concerns from archaeologists, biologists- can't think of too many others, except perhaps a few obstructionist "cavers" ;-)

Post- emergence of WNS? We all know what all the "owners" of caves and cave resources think about cave access- and we know full well that many of these "owners" don't know a goddamned thing about caves, cave resources, or cave ecosystems.

Perhaps- and this is an inexact analogy- MOUs are a "safe sex" analogy for the era of WNS. CBD preaches abstinence. Cavers who enter into MOUs with agencies are engaged in one form of "safe caving".

If cavers can enter into MOUs to safely engage in the survey/monitoring/inventory of an agency's cave resources, why can't cavers enter into recreational MOU agreements with agencies, agreeing to abide by USFWS decon protocols, under threat of breach of contract if they fail to do so?

After all, every bat biologist in the country who works on private land is simply expected to abide by USFWS protocols, under threat of- well, nothing, actually.

Why can't cavers enter into recreational MOUs with agencies to negotiate responsible access? I can nearly guarantee that it won't happen if someone expects the agency to talk to them. Cavers are going to have to talk to the agencies- repeatedly. Recreational MOUs won't happen unless someone starts writing one. I'd be happy to help, but administrative language is as indistinguishable as Sanskrit to me.

Too bad a national caving organization can't budget funds for efforts like this. I have an organization in mind, but they are deeply focussed on moving into a larger building than the one they currently own- and as the foreclosure sale signs appear up and down my street like mushrooms, I wonder about the folks who had sold their smaller home and 'traded up' to a bigger home- because, after all, bigger is better, isn't it? And don't all the 'best' and 'successful' people have big homes? Of course! Then again, the $3,000,000 homes in our town are empty(turns out the best and successful people overbought too) , their prices have been marked down to $1,500,000, and they're still empty.

[boogercaver71]

On the flip side of this, I couldn't authorize a grotto to just go on a caving trip. This would give the perception of exclusive use and there would be no benefit to the government or cave resource.

This is the kind of attitude that I find distasteful from our government. Pretty much since it's inception the Forest Service has been a "multiple use" agency. It has been there for hunters, fisherman, oil and gas permits, mining permits, source for lumber, hikers, and till recently cavers. The above land manager stated that if recreational permits were given,it would give the perception of exclusive use. How? If they give out a certain number of permits/week, and were awarded on a first come basis, how is that exclusive? CRF, biologists, etc could still get their permits, and grottos wanting to take their members on a recreational trip would all be served. This has worked quite well for caves such as Fitton in Arkansas in the past. What benefit do hikers, hunters, fishermen , ATV riders bring other than "recreation". I hate to tell this land manager that "non cavers" are not respecting the closure, and never will. I think John brings up a good point, I think it is up to individual grottos to start asking for recreational permits, and when turned down, start writing your Congressmen and Senators asking for an explanation to why cavers (the very people who found the caves most likely) are being shut out. It is time to make our voices heard.

[BrianC]

On the flip side of this, I couldn't authorize a grotto to just go on a caving trip. This would give the perception of exclusive use and there would be no benefit to the government or cave resource.

This is the kind of attitude that I find distasteful from our government. It is time to make our voices heard.

You could wait another year or four as most cavers have then make voices heard?