by Roppelcaver » Nov 14, 2007 3:48 pm
A skeptic I am -- I think there is a big difference between a hypothetical and real world scenarios. The good moral argument has been well made in this topic, but in the end I would say it really depends.
First off, I have been on both sides of this issue. In Roppel, we have manically pushed passages for new cave, including digging and other chemically-aided techniques, although the latter is a significant minority. The noble virtues being espoused in the thread often go out the window when one is off the living room chair and in the cave staring down a passage with blasting wind and potentially miles of cave beyond. I wonder if this is still a clear "do not proceed" situation. But in Roppel, I only speak for myself and a few others I cave with; after all, I don't dismiss that we could be in a minority (although I don't think so).
I have also turned around with formations ahead, for wanting to avoid damage, but in that case I considered the promise of new passage to be nominal. That would make me a hypocrite I think.
Is it okay to pop one formation? Or, is there a mininum number where it is not acceptable? Is three the right number? Is popcorn a formation? Does it have to be pretty? What if it is ugly and covered with mud? And so on.
This is all silly, really. The real question has nothing to do with bashing formations. The question should be is it okay to modify the cave to find more of it? That is not so easy. I would argue (successfully) that bashing corners off sharp bends in a small passage, flutes from a canyon wall, or smoothing the annoying popcorn from the wall of a crawl are transgressions on par with busting lily-white soda straws. The fact that the latter seems to be more morally suspect is purely the subjective nature that something is "pretty".
I knew one accomplished caver (now deceased) who argued that since formations were all secondary deposits in a cave, it was a sign that the cave was "dieing" and no scruples of bashing them should exist. Indeed, it was a self-serving statement, but it drove home the point that a cave is a cave and damage is damage regardless of our subjective opinion of what is pretty (or not)..
The concept of asking permission from the owner before hammering the formations is an interesting idea, too. It certainly can be used to validate our own subjective opinions to others, unless hammering an offending corner rises to the same bar. I think not. I am convinced that for an owner, I could spin it either direction to achieve the desired results (in most cases). I can see situations where one would be compelled to ask permission for such a thing, but I can think of many, many more where one would tend to not to. If we were faced with this moral dilemma in Roppel, I don't even know who we would ask (owner? Which one? All of them? The owner whose land we are under?). In this hypothetical example in Roppel, we fortunately have a self-policing organizational model that works pretty well. I have found that in the end we are all acting sensibly. And, no, we generally don't ask persmission, although we DID ask permission to dig or blast open our entrances. Of course we would do THAT.
I don't want to give everyone the wrong idea. At Roppel, we are actually fairly conservation minded, protecting pretty areas, sensitive biota, sleeping bats, and try to avoid making tracks where not necessary. But, we have dug and blasted on occassion. And likewise, we have had trips where we have established low-impact routes through the cave (flagging sensitive areas for example). I would like to say we are practical.
I don't know if confessing my "hypocrisy" makes me a lesser person or not, but I do believe that "in situ" the decisions are not nearly as clear cut as being portrayed in this thread, nor is the issue only about formations.
Again, it all depends; and most experienced cavers know the right thing to do when they see it.
Roppel caver
(If we had not blasted, Roppel Cave would be zero miles long, rather than 88 miles of Mammoth Cave. Some would say, "so be it". It would be hard to argue that point)