THE BELFRY BULLETIN OCTOBER 1965 – No 212 Monthly Journal Of The Bristol Exploration Club
Vol. XIX No.10
Editor’s Notes. As part of the process of tidying up the B.B., a distinction will be made between notes about the B.B. (like this one) and the occasional ‘Editorial’. The latter type of article will appear from time to time under the title ‘Comment’ and the first of these appear in this B.B. These articles will normally represent the personal opinions of the editor, but the one which follows has been written at the request of the recent A.G.M. Whilst it cannot be held to represent the views of the club word for word, its general tone may be so regarded. “Alfie.” _______________________________________________________________________________________
Comment As most readers will know, the pipe – which for many years deflected the flow of water away from the ladder on the Forty in Swildons – was recently removed by some cavers who, presumably, wished to increase the ‘sportiness’ of the cave. A similar situation has occurred in Eastwater, where the M.R.O. guideline has been removed for, one imagines, a similar reason. The provision of fixed aids in caves is one of the perennial talking points amongst cavers and one which will always find supporters and opponents. This is one of a number of related topics in what might be called Cave Ethics to which there is no absolute answers. Unless special arguments can be produced in any particular set of circumstances, one imagines that the guiding principle must be that of catering for the majority. Both Swildons and Eastwater are open to all cavers from all areas, whether club members or not. In the case of Swildons users of the cave include novices doing their first real pitch, as well as highly experienced cavers engaged in exploration and extension of its lower limits. One imagines that both these groups would approve of the pipe on the Forty. In the first case it is pretty essential – there has already been a callout on the 19th September due entirely to the pipe’s absence – in which a novice was unable to climb back against the flow of water. In the second case, the cavers involved have undoubtedly had enough strenuous caving not to worry about the easing of their return journey up the Forty. The situation in Eastwater is somewhat different. With our entering into a discussion as to whether the Ruckle should have been interfered with in the first place and whether or not it would have been more or less stable by now than it is, the fact remains that its present stability is highly questionable and that it has already claimed one victim. The guideline is for cavers’ safety and one wonders how the removers would feel if someone else had pranged as a result of the removal. Can it be that some so-called ‘Tigers’ – however much courage and fitness they posses – are rather weak on imagination? There are places in most Mendip caves where tigerish feats can be performed without increasing the difficulties of either novices or rescue parties or those who are passing through to do a strenuous job further on. Cuthbert’s has a multiplicity of fixed aids and yet this leaves room for feats like the recent climbing of High Chamber to a height of 200 feet. Enough to satisfy any person with ambitions to become a tiger. (There are also places where one can become a ferret too!)