Cavechat.org

Teresa wrote:There is nothing more tacky and screaming bourgeois than the tour bus.

While I agree with you that historical or innovative mass transit has a certain appeal, much as I hate to admit it there will always be a place/need for the almighty tourist bus.

Incidentally, Denali is one of my favorite parks and one I've visited a dozen times in all seasons over the past few years. In the summer season they do not allow tour buses or private vehicles beyond the visitor center. Instead they use a variety of modified school-type buses for mass transit on the parks 90-mile road. The system works well, and continues to appeal to (or at least attract) around 400,000 people a year. People can either take the bus, walk, or miss out. I usually do a combination of the first two.

Dogsleds at Denali would be cool.

Have you been to Denali? Of course they have sled dogs! Backcountry rangers use dog teams to patrol remote areas of the park in the winter, and then spend the summer demonstrating the sleds (with wheels) and introducing the dogs to tourists. Several private mushers also have permits to use sled dogs to transport equipment for climbers and carry tourists looking for a unique Denali experience in winter. If you ever have the opportunity to work with a team of sled dogs in the Alaskan wilderness at 20 below zero, I promise you'll never forget the experience.

NZ, dogsleds? What about "Watch out where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow"

Anyway actually most places are over peopled and maybe what is needed is some sort of a test to get any kind of back country permit. You know, not let the Gummy bear wrapper testers of fires being out even get off the tarmac. If you haven't a clue, stay with the clueless.........

Jon wrote:Anyway actually most places are over peopled and maybe what is needed is some sort of a test to get any kind of back country permit. You know, not let the Gummy bear wrapper testers of fires being out even get off the tarmac. If you haven't a clue, stay with the clueless.........

Coincidentally... I think Denali is a model example of this. No test per se, but anybody wanting a backcountry permit must watch the comprehensive backcountry travel/bear safety video and attend the ranger briefing once per season. In addition, one must discuss one's itinerary, fill out a resume of experience, list an outside contact person, and identify the color of tent, pack, raincoat, etc. The quota system limits the number of people allowed to overnight in each unit, and each group is issued bear cans for storing food. They even loan snow shoes out in the winter. Denali is predominantly a trail-less wilderness, with dispersed camping.

Oh, and this whole backcountry process is totally FREE. As it should be. Standard park entry fees of $20 do apply, unless you have the annual pass.

NZcaver wrote:Coincidentally... I think Denali is a model example of this.

Agreed, but the model is not scalable. The Denali model works because the overall visitor pool is lower. You could use the Denali policies for the Grand Canyon and Yosemite if they were located in the Brooks Range....

Oh, and because the DC bureaucrats have no stomach for such things.

AA

NZcaver wrote:

Dogsleds at Denali would be cool.

Have you been to Denali? Of course they have sled dogs! Backcountry rangers use dog teams to patrol remote areas of the park in the winter, and then spend the summer demonstrating the sleds (with wheels) and introducing the dogs to tourists. Several private mushers also have permits to use sled dogs to transport equipment for climbers and carry tourists looking for a unique Denali experience in winter. If you ever have the opportunity to work with a team of sled dogs in the Alaskan wilderness at 20 below zero, I promise you'll never forget the experience.

No. You have to recall that I'm an American. I've never been to Alaska, Hawaii or half of the states. Less than 40 miles into Canada or Mexico. That's why we did the train to convention...to see some parts of the landscape we haven't. If it weren't for the NSS, I might not have got out of Missouri/Illinois.

Um NZ don't you have to tell them if you will be using nickel plated or solid brass bells?

Jon wrote:Um NZ don't you have to tell them if you will be using nickel plated or solid brass bells?

You mean "dinner bells?" They're just annoying tourist souvenirs.

Ah yes dinner bells.... maybe a little hot sauce on the side? Nope not the guy from Jersey, these are brass not plated and there is no pepper smell. Such is the life of a CSI in poop investigator. (CSI ... Consumed, Stupid, Idiot)

Commercial caves, more properly known as "show caves" serve an important purpose in introducing people to caves. I expect that a sizable percentage of NSS cavers were introduced to caving by visiting a show cave as a child. Today many show caves in the US are owned and operated by cavers. Show caves are a good way to protect some of our nicer caves from additional vandalism. Millions of American's tour a show cave each year. Support for cave conservation projects and clean ground water are increased by exposing a big segment of the total population to caves. Most people are not going to be hardcore cavers. I think it rather smug and arrogant for cavers to criticize show caves because they have colored lights and try to entertain the general public while underground. A cave seen by cold "LED" lighting is only beautiful to those of us who have an unusual love of caves.

garyroberson wrote:Commercial caves, more properly known as "show caves" serve an important purpose in introducing people to caves. I expect that a sizable percentage of NSS cavers were introduced to caving by visiting a show cave as a child.

Very true. I sometimes forget these things since I was first exposed to caving in wild caves.

garyroberson wrote:Show caves are a good way to protect some of our nicer caves from additional vandalism.

This is also quite important, though some may argue that wiring and lighting and sidewalks and railings and stairways and signs and restrooms and salad bars are a form of vandalism. They are certainly better than broken formations and spray paint and trash.

garyroberson wrote:Most people are not going to be hardcore cavers. I think it rather smug and arrogant for cavers to criticize show caves because they have colored lights and try to entertain the general public while underground. A cave seen by cold "LED" lighting is only beautiful to those of us who have an unusual love of caves.

I think my criticism comes from selfishness intead of arrogance. I always wish I could see these fine caves in their "natural" state. I suppose my "unusual love of caves" has made me overlook the benefits others may get from their being commercialized. Consider me corrected.

garyroberson wrote:Most people are not going to be hardcore cavers. I think it rather smug and arrogant for cavers to criticize show caves because they have colored lights and try to entertain the general public while underground. A cave seen by cold "LED" lighting is only beautiful to those of us who have an unusual love of caves.

Here is an aside: a newly opened show cave in Southern Missouri (Cave Spring Park and Current River Cavern) has the coolest LED lights out there: little portable battery powered LEDs. Instead of going the wiring route, these fixtures would fit into a 4 inch cube. Don't like where one is for a photo? Pick it up, move it, take your photo, replace. They are turned on and off when a tour moves through a cave.

When I was doing an article on the cave for Traveler, I was to take photos. One of the little alcoves had a light bang smack in the middle of it. Having been attuned forever to looking for a good angle I moved around this way and that to avoid the fixture, and then had the aha moment. Sort of like when Harrison Ford guns down the swordsman in Indiana Jones.

I would definitely say show caves have a place. I grew up visiting show caves in Missouri and my first interest in caves was born there. BUT that doesn't mean that these types of caves are actually good for conservation or the cave itself. I would say most are good, or at least well intentioned, but my experience with some of them has left a bitter taste in my mouth. Like when a 16 year old kid working a summer job is trying to tell me cute stories about how it formed and misinformation. Typically too I've found these guides have no passion for the cave, or at least how they present their information shows no passion. How do you make people care about a place if its nothing more then a cute sideshow. Once again though i will say this is not the case at all show caves and a lot do work really hard to protect it but its not always the case. Especially when you are in a situation where you have to make money to survive.

There is nothing wrong with making your cave entertaining. Just don't throw researched science and conservation out the window because its not what one might think the casual visitor cares about. I guess it kind of comes down to is whether people are coming to your cave to visit the cave or whether their coming to see your gimmicks.

sawicks wrote: BUT that doesn't mean that these types of caves are actually good for conservation or the cave itself.

I respectfully disagree. Show caves protect the majority of wild caves, because, by furnishing a "tamed" experience, untold tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of wild cave visits are deflected to the show cave. The show cave is usually "hardened" (walkways, railings, sometimes fencing) that keeps the visitor away from the speleothems. So they protect wild caves from traffic, and kleptomanic visitors from themselves.

How do you make people care about a place if its nothing more then a cute sideshow?

A)I've never seen a "cute" cave. B) The cave is usually the main attraction. The gem panning, boat rides, etc. are the sideshow.
C) You catch more flies with sugar (entertainment) than with vinegar (lecture and scientifically precise boring accuracy.)

Once again though i will say this is not the case at all show caves and a lot do work really hard to protect it but its not always the case. Especially when you are in a situation where you have to make money to survive.

So do scientists and cavers. The bottom line is the bottom line. Always. If the cave is trashed, the information inaccurate, and the presentation amateurish the cave won't survive, either.

There is nothing wrong with making your cave entertaining. Just don't throw researched science and conservation out the window because it's not what one might think the casual visitor cares about. I guess it kind of comes down to is whether people are coming to your cave to visit the cave or whether their coming to see your gimmicks.

Maybe the gimmick is the science and conservation? It works for a lot of caves. But they still have rubber tomahawks in the gift shop.