In Print...Directions...

[cob]

to a cave.

(link removed)

The link takes you to an article in (newspaper name removed), in which their are directions to 2 caves (go to "Ozark Trail; days 4 and 6) The first cave is gated, and under no threat (ATVer's were tearing it up) but the 2nd is a little known cave (admittedly, not much to it)(hardly "extreme") but still...

sigh....

tom

[Wayne Harrison]

So now the cave directions are linked on the NSS Forum. Tom, could you discuss the article without linking to it? It would be much appreciated.

[wendy]

I removed the link, maybe cob can PM the link to those that want to read the article.

[cob]

What's to discuss? Apparently cavers don't care (look at the replies to this thread)

Wayne, how do I discuss it if people don't know what it is we are discussing?

Wendy, how do I know they are not a troll?

Really guys, I appreciate what it is you are trying to do, but the damage is done. It is in print, and it remains on the internet... and it will continue to be so, because now cavers can not protest to the St Louis Post Dispatch the posting of cave locations, HOPEFULLY changing this situation.

And maybe educating the editors in the process?????

I have to say, better the link remain here, so that we can get it removed from there.

tom

[cob]

And for the record, a copy of my letter to the Post is attached:

Re your article at: (Link removed to save the moderators the trouble of doing it (and making sure you cannot reference to it either))

As a caver, I have to say a couple of things...

1st: Caving is NOT an extreme sport... in fact, it is not a sport. There is no competition, and the only "goal" is to "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints, kill nothing but time", also to map, photo document, bio-survey, etc.

2nd: Caves are EXTREMELY sensitive environments, subject to irreperable damage by the most seemingly innocent act. We do NOT share locations with the world (hence Holmes Hollow Cave being gated to keep out ATV'ers who were driving up inside of the cave)(and just in case you can not figure it out, Holmes Hollow is one of the caves mentioned in the article)(Laxton Cave, the 2nd cave mentioned in the article, is not similarly protected) And so we cavers try to make sure people are serious about caves, before we share information.

3rd: as a member of the Pioneer Forest Caves Project, I am forwarding this letter to JH and GI (names remomved to protect their privacy) of the Pioneer Forest (who, in case you have not figured it out yet, OWN the caves in question). How they will feel about this breach of private information, I do not know.

What I do know, is that the Pioneer Forest is the largest private landowner in the state of Missouri. They are a "sustainable use forest project". They allow all visitors who respect their land to come and visit, to hunt, to fish and to hike, and they try very hard to protect the land that is in their care so that they may hand it down in its present condition or better, to generations yet to come.

That includes the caves.

Thomas A Panian
Bourbon, MO

[wendy]

What's to discuss? Apparently cavers don't care (look at the replies to this thread)

Wayne, how do I discuss it if people don't know what it is we are discussing?

Wendy, how do I know they are not a troll?

Really guys, I appreciate what it is you are trying to do, but the damage is done. It is in print, and it remains on the internet... and it will continue to be so, because now cavers can not protest to the St Louis Post Dispatch the posting of cave locations, HOPEFULLY changing this situation.

And maybe educating the editors in the process?????

I have to say, better the link remain here, so that we can get it removed from there.

tom

I think the concnern Wayne had about posting the link here on cavechat is that its a violation of the TOS to post cave locations and also we don't want someone searching the internet looking for cave directions to get them from our site (wayne correct me if I am wrong)

As far as knowing whether or not someone is a troll, if you don't know them, don't send them the link. If its someone without an NSS number and a low number of postings here good chance it may be someone just looking for directions

[wendy]

*deleted at request of forum member

[Wayne Harrison]

Very good letter, Tom.

I understand that the cave locations are given on the newspaper Web site. The NSS has a policy about listing cave locations. We've extended it in this forum to also include linking to cave locations, since we are on the Internet. Lots of people come here looking for cave locations (you should see the number of searches for "cave locations around so-and-so" we get on the Caving swicki). The moderators strive to make sure no posts violate our linking policy. That's all.

To answer your question, Tom, about how you would discuss it without linking to it -- and for future cave location posts by anyone here on the forum -- you could summarize the offending article (leaving out the name of the cave)... and give the name of the source, without linking to the source. That makes it a bit harder to find the article and doesn't make it just one click away from our caving forum. By linking directly to the cave directions article you are, in effect, allowing people to read the directions -- the very thing you are complaining to the newspaper about. Think of it this way: if you were calling in to a radio talk show to complain about the newspaper article, would you give the directions to the cave over the radio as part of your complaint? You'd probably just say, "an article in so-and-so newspaper" and then go on to explain why it's a no-no.

The newspaper probably doesn't have a policy about this sort of thing. We do -- so we are a little more strict about it.

[Komebeaux]

Question.

Why was my thread where I was trying to get a cave location removed from Google Earth completely deleted instead of just the one offending post being edited?

[Wayne Harrison]

It actually wasn't deleted. We try not to delete posts but move them to a private area available only to the moderators. I wasn't the one who did it, but I have edited it and moved that discussion to the caves and caving forum: http://forums.caves.org/viewtopic.php?t=4619

Thanks for the reminder.

[Komebeaux]

Thanks. I remember seeing the post in that thread that threw up the red flag and wincing a bit feeling like I had just caused more problems than solved. That said, I understand why it was moved.

[Teresa]

Tom,
The reason there haven't been too many replies (including from me at this point) is who determines what is sensitive? We think cave locations are sensitive. The article also includes historic Klepzig Mill (hey, if you're a yahoo, there's a vandalism target) and the raised fen--oooh...wouldn't it be fun to churn up that muck with an ATV? To heck with the rare plants...

Following that line of logic, no travel articles should be allowed, because everything is sensitive to someone. That simply isn't going to happen.

But how did we find these things to protect in the first place? We either stumbled on them, or someone told us. While I am sensitive to the problem of explicit cave locations and directions, saying there are caves in the Ozarks is sort of like saying there are mountains in Colorado.

Admittedly author could have had a more explicitly conservation tactic-- she is an outdoor writer, and should have known better, and I'm as disconcerted about caving as a X-treme sport as you are, but as long as they run trails by caves, people are going to find them. Even if they don't run trails by caves, people beat trails to them.

There weren't any GPS locations or explicit measurements in the article (that *would* have gotten me hot!) and many hikers on the Ozark Trail are going to run across these caves anyway. All Etling did was give them names.

I commend you bringing the caver's viewpoint to the P-D's attention-- just as I have about a misguided article which said rock collecting in caves was OK. This is good. But one of the side effects of caving secrecy is that the general public (including many outdoor writers) don't understand our thing about hiding cave locations. (They understand why not to reveal favorite fishin' holes, though.) As an outdoor writer myself, I'm working on educating the media from the inside.

Once again, our secrecy approach bites us when we least expect it.

Teresa

[cob]

Too tired to say much more tonite (a LONG day) but wendy... you just gave them everything I did. People aren't stupid. By your own rules, you should delete your own post.

Tomorrow I will debate this subject some more. I say again, with all due respect, I understand what it is you are trying to do... but you don't get there this way.

tom

[Wayne Harrison]

Once again, our secrecy approach bites us when we least expect it.

Or stings us. Read the comments after the incident report on a Feb. 2, 2005 caving trip in Arizona (p. 42 of NSS News -- American Caving Accidents -- May 2007 Part 2).

A caver aquaintance of mine, Pete Fine, was involved. Another caver was attacked by killer bees at a cave, even though other cavers knew there were killer bees there. "Due to the Arizona cave crecrecy ethic of some cavers, this information was not made available. Sometimes cave secrecy has serious safety consequences."

[Wayne Harrison]

Because it's not hotlinked. It's the difference between mention Harrison Cave somewhere and linking to directions to it. All anyone has to do is Google the cave name to find the link. Our policy is not to hotlink to the directions.

I agree someone could find it by Googling... but we can't prevent that. If we had to delete everything thing mentioned that could Googled for more information we wouldn't even be able to mention a cave's name.

It's linking vs. not linking.