Moderator: Moderators
hewhocaves wrote:So not to dredge up this comatose subject but...
I eventually picked 50 feet as an answer (White and Rauch's paper used 100'). for the study area, this was considered the best comprimise between length and sample.
Teresa wrote:hewhocaves wrote:So not to dredge up this comatose subject but...
I eventually picked 50 feet as an answer (White and Rauch's paper used 100'). for the study area, this was considered the best comprimise between length and sample.
So?
I don't understand why the states don't go along with the federal definition. It includes all the big stuff, while omitting obvous vugs and other karst features.
(1) CAVE.-The term "cave" means any naturally occurring void, cavity,
recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any vug, mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or other man-made excavation) and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or man-made. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or other feature which is an extension of the entrance.
I mean, if hewhocaves only wants to study his particular subset, that's fine-- but subsets do not include the entire set.
Teresa wrote:Think of this applied to creeks. How many little rathole creeks are there, but since they are all parts of watersheds, there is some justification to make people deal with them, even if they don't carry water year round.
Teresa wrote:Well, if we did go with the federal definition, and we did count every little enterable karst rathole in the country-- I bet caves would get more respect as an "important resource."
That's just the way the world works.
Think of this applied to creeks. How many little rathole creeks are there, but since they are all parts of watersheds, there is some justification to make people deal with them, even if they don't carry water year round.
Teresa wrote:
I don't understand why the states don't go along with the federal definition. It includes all the big stuff, while omitting obvous vugs and other karst features.
(1) CAVE.-The term "cave" means any naturally occurring void, cavity,
recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any vug, mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or other man-made excavation) and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or man-made. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or other feature which is an extension of the entrance.
Ponorplumber wrote:What about areas that have many small caves? Do we discard them? I "think" Ontario (yes I realize not a state but close ) goes by the minimum of 3o ft (could be 50,I will check)as long as it is all out of the twilight zone.
While we have a couple 11 km plus maze caves a LOT of our caves are not really long.That being the case,squeezing through 14" high small caves certainly takes skill and a light.Our most extremely decorated cave (Root) is closed to the public and is fairly short but has some really rare and wild formations.It might barely make a list based on size only.
IMHO if it goes completely dark it is a cave and they all have their own individual characters and merit.
I would however like to eradicate crevice caves from the list,but that is just me
Teresa wrote:Um, what you said may be the USFS definition. What I posted was cut and pasted from the 1989 FCRPA actual law they are supposed to be following. I know every agency has tweaked that wording to fit their own purposes. I still think this every state survey for itself isn't a good idea.
Teresa wrote:hewhocaves wrote:So not to dredge up this comatose subject but...
I eventually picked 50 feet as an answer (White and Rauch's paper used 100'). for the study area, this was considered the best comprimise between length and sample.
So?
I don't understand why the states don't go along with the federal definition. It includes all the big stuff, while omitting obvous vugs and other karst features.
(1) CAVE.-The term "cave" means any naturally occurring void, cavity,
recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any vug, mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or other man-made excavation) and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or man-made. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or other feature which is an extension of the entrance.
I mean, if hewhocaves only wants to study his particular subset, that's fine-- but subsets do not include the entire set.
Teresa wrote:
I mean, if hewhocaves only wants to study his particular subset, that's fine-- but subsets do not include the entire set.
hewhocaves wrote:Jeez Teresa, was there any reason to be dismissive like that? I mean your argument is simply 'lets use the Federal standard simply because thats what the government tells us to use.' Well, that's great for Washington, but last time I checked 1600 Pennsylvania Ave doesn't have veto power over science.
IMHO the federal government's definition is too broad from a cave point of view and not inclusive enough from a karst point of view. It is exactly what you would expect from something vetted by a roomful of lawyers.
Most amusingly, the definition includes 'ANY natural void', but excludes vugs. Well, what is a vug except an isolated natural void?? I mean, there are no signs inside of vugs saying 'this is a Vug, not a cave'. And what if you have two vugs close enough together that they connect? Is that a cave??
Furthermore, if were to apply that definition to New Jersey, I could easily come up with a thousand caves in the state. Maybe even two or three. New Jersey is great for little five foot isolated segments exposed to the surface. This is a state where there are about 30 caves longer than 300'!! Does NJ have 1000 caves? Heck no.
As I pointed out in my previous post, if volume / length is to be used as a gauge, it helps weed out the noise within statistical trends if you put up a minimum length. Thats all I was saying.
Return to Survey and Cartography Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users