Moderator: Moderators
graveleye wrote:I was talking with a long time, life-long prominent caver, while visiting a prominent caving place just the other day (how's that for vague? :-) ) and we got on the subject of cave vandalism after chatting a bit. I was a little taken back when he mentioned that perhaps there should be "sacrificial caves". Just let the locals tear it up. At least while they are trashing the local beer-swilling spot, they are not trashing the good caves...just a thought. I'm not really sure I like that idea either, but it sort of made sense, especially when there really isnt much you can do about it.
Sean Ryan wrote:graveleye wrote:I was talking with a long time, life-long prominent caver, while visiting a prominent caving place just the other day (how's that for vague? ) and we got on the subject of cave vandalism after chatting a bit. I was a little taken back when he mentioned that perhaps there should be "sacrificial caves". Just let the locals tear it up. At least while they are trashing the local beer-swilling spot, they are not trashing the good caves...just a thought. I'm not really sure I like that idea either, but it sort of made sense, especially when there really isnt much you can do about it.
I don't know of any instances where caves were intentionally picked to be sacrificial. It just happens in certain caves, mostly close to major roads and population centers. The unintentional and beneficial side effect is that these whipping boys take year after year of punishment that otherwise could be distributed through that area's pristene caves. The spray paint and chisel crews usually don't seek out a second cave once they already have one to go to.
JD wrote:Look, I don't like grafitti either, but is taking a sand blaster in and peeling off the the outer layer of cave wall, and its patina, really the right approach here? I think not. In fact, it damages the host rock and speeds up erosion. Maybe you think it improves the aesthetics of the site, but for how long and at what cost?
What really ticks me off is that these so called "conservationists" think they are doing good when they are damaging resources (whats under that grafitti anyway, stoke marks? glyphs? historic signatures?) Then the cave is not access protected and it leaves a blank slate for future vandalism. But by then any cultural material underneath is gone and the exterior host rock is badly damaged.
Sand blasting is terrible for cultural, biological, and yes even geologic,
resources in caves. Sandblasting has no place in American caves. Period.
Dawn M Ryan wrote:...What about the paint that is blasted off? Does it just go into the ground? That is bad for the cave too.
Eve wrote:Conservation vs. preservation ... we can't always do both. The argument that every human trace is somehow precious and ought to be preserved suggests that we humans think we are awfully special, and in the end I believe it us unsustainable. If we are going to leave every smoke stain, where does it end? .
JoeyS wrote:I mean, the guy who explored so and so cave a put his name in the wall with a carbide lamp back in 1920 is worthy of preservation whereas someone who did the same thing in 1980 with a can of orange Krylon is bad? What is the difference? None of it is of any significance to me because it's all just plain old defacement. I mean, what histotrical date is the cut off for good graffitti? 1940? 1950? 1960?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users