ABSTRACT

The members of the Perkins Cave Conservation and Management Society are steadfast in maintaining their philosophy of the primary value of preserving the unique quality of Perkins Cave in Virginia. Secondary values such as restoring a potential Gray Bat maternity colony site, using the cave as an educational tool for significant leaders and opinion molders, mapping and documenting the cave photographically, encouraging scientific study, and supporting other worthwhile uses have been undertaken with varying degrees of compatibility with the primary objective. The dilemma sets the ideal primary value against the everyday, practical reality of implementing the goals in an imperfect world.

The recently opened second entrance will enable the primary goals, objectives, and methods to be supported with less conflict between primary and secondary goals and values. The structure, rules, procedures, and goals have had varying degrees of success in the protection of Perkins Cave.

THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING VALUES - 1988

Major decisions are often reached through a process of resolution of conflicting values by determining which are the most important. These decisions are often done within the framework of a value system, as opposed to the philosophy of antinomianism, which is a non-system with no basic values or predetermined rules of morality. Most systems may be classified as either legal or situational. Systems based on the philosophy of legalism usually have many codified values, with many delineated, important values of equal rank. Legalism never has only one highest value. Situational systems have only one or sometimes two highest values, with all subsequent values dependent upon the highest good or value. Situationism requires greater judgement skill to practice and provides greater freedom and responsibility to practitioners. Legalism requires less judgement, more memorization of laws or rules, and allows less freedom and responsibility of its practitioners. Fletcher (1977), in Situation Ethics, made the case for love, (i.e. agape, one of four Greek words translated as love in English), as the primary value. Situationism requires that the results of all decisions be compatible with the highest value. Legalism, as a system, is generally difficult to use in resolving dilemmas. As a system, situationism is very well suited to dilemma and conflict resolution. It is the system used to resolve dilemmas in cave management. The debate by philosophers and theologians on the merits of situationism has not resulted in any final conclusion (Cunningham, 1970). However, most of the issues of conflict between situationists and their opponents is not likely to apply to the issues likely to be considered in caving and cave conservation. The one exception is with the concept that it is wrong not to take action to correct a wrong, as opposed to the position that wrongs are done only when one takes action. When stated another way, this latter value taken by legalist states that not doing anything is always better than choosing the lesser of two evils.

APPLICATION OF THIS VALUE SYSTEM TO CAVE MANAGEMENT

Situational methodology, as applied to cave management and conservation, is structured as follows:

1. Determine your highest value.

2. Define your highest value in terms of cave management.

3. Define these values in terms of the particular cave management situation.

For PerCCAMS, the highest value is agape. PerCCAMS holds that the highest value in terms of cave management is our concern for Mankind and for his quality of life. Quality of life develops as we participate in life, from learning and understanding ourselves and our environment, working toward an understanding of Man and the environment, and appreciating the aesthetic nature of our world. It comes from a positive relationship with other people. As this value for the quality of life is applied to the management of Perkins Cave, we can see how the dilemma of use versus conservation is resolved. If we care about Mankind, we care about his environment, his aesthetic environment, a part of which are these natural living laboratories we call caves. The need for their protection becomes clear based on the evidence of damage to popular unprotected caves (Wilson, 1977, 1978, 1982). However, we do not know the long-term extent of the value of each cave and the extent that the cave can be used to enhance the quality of life in the future. The challenge becomes one of establishing a program that follows the intent of these values without all data being known. Caves are valuable resources that are almost always irreplaceable and non-renewable, with unknown future value. The very nature of cave use in caves like Perkins is that the cave resource gets used up or worn out in the process of use, yet the use is necessary to know the value and to help determine the rationale for expending the resources needed in managing and protecting the cave. In many cases, use is also necessary to generate the support needed to manage and protect the cave.

The application or these values to Perkins Cave requires that we carry out the goal of preserving the unique quality of Perkins Cave for the benefit of Mankind in the present and future. This primary goal has lead us to the establishment of several secondary goals as a means of achieving the primary one. These secondary goals include: using the cave as an educational tool for significant leaders and opinion molders, inventorying the resource, mapping and documenting the cave photographically, showing these photographs to those interested for their aesthetic enjoyment, encouraging scientific study, and restoring a potential Gray Bat maternity colony site. The accomplishment of these goals requires enlightened support from a few people who are willing to give their time, skill, good judgement, and effort in carrying out the objectives, without necessarily having any material gain or other immediate benefit.

The concept of using the cave as a resource in building the manpower resources needed to carry out the objectives is an obvious alternative, one that is often used in association management. It has the risk that those who become interested in the cave and its management organization will expect to use the cave resource heavily for relatively little in return. In many less sensitive caves, this may not be a problem; however, a heavy influx of cavers who are interested in immediate gratification through caving could be catastrophic for a cave such as Perkins. It was determined early in the establishment of PerCCAMS that Perkins Cave could be managed with all volunteers. This was a decision due in part to the low probability of large amounts of cash being available to manage the cave any other way and a belief that the desired values among the membership could be attained.

In order to encourage the support of altruistic people while discouraging involvement of people who primarily wanted immediate self-centered needs met, the structure was established that required all trips into Perkins Cave to meet certain standards, such as limiting trips to specific purposes and informally limiting the number of trips to reduce the caver impact on the cave. Every trip into the cave must be lead by a PerCCAMS member. Another intent behind these requirements was to build a base of volunteer members whose values are compatible with those of the society. This value building may develop with each person who is acculturated into the group and becomes cognitive of his own interest in conserving the value of the cave. If this selection process works as desired, people who are altruistic enough to give to others and to posterity a cave that has been protected will dominate the membership and the group norms will be one of self-discipline.

Everyone who has been involved and interested in the cave may be placed into one of three classifications:

1. An altruistic person who may or may not be a caver or scientist, and who understands the value of this cave and will make some effort of contribution toward its protection. This type of individual is described by Kolberg, (1973) as achieving the highest level of moral development. McCelleland, (1985) refers to this type of person as having reached the mutuality level of moral development. Mutuality is learned over an extended period of time; and under both systems, it represents the highest level of emotional and ethical maturity. Thus, it is possible that people may reach these higher levels of moral maturity as they learn and experience the advantages of mutuality. That is, people may learn moral maturity.

2. A caver or scientist who is primarily interested in caving or science and who is practical enough to understand the need for protective procedures and is willing to act within the established system.

3. Spelunkers who are primarily cave users, with less interest in conservation than spelunking. Most people in this group can be deterred from harming the cave by an effective gate, enforcement of no trespassing laws, and good community relations. A few people in this group may attempt to meet the requirements for caving under the procedures established by PerCCAMS. One of two things is likely to happen, either he will remain a member of a non-conservation minority in a conservation group and will drop from the group, or he will be socialized and adopt the group values and change his behavior to be compatible with the majority behavior (Mullen, 1987). In fact, few sport cavers or spelunkers who have expected to meet their spelunking desires with minimal cost in time and effort have stayed involved in PerCCAMS. PerCCAMS is evolving into a more mature group. The average age has increased. The moral maturity is a little more difficult to measure but now appears closer to McClelland's stage 4.

The most important value for the management of PerCCAMS can be summarized from the following statement based on the primary Christian values, "Know what is of value, learn how to love others and respect their needs and values, and wisely give away what you love". This value requires us to love this cave and give it wisely to others, not just today but to the many who will come in the future. We will be expected to have managed wisely and to have given them this cave in a manner that will enrich their lives. Our goal is to give this cave in a form that will add to the lives of all who follow us in hope that they will also manage it wisely, and in turn give, it to those who follow them.

Each decision is made based on the merits of the proposal within the framework of agape.

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

We were fortunate that Perkins Cave was never a popular spelunker's cave. This made it much easier to manage effectively when compared to the typical popular cave. We were not faced with the problem of stopping an established pattern of visitation by large numbers of sport cavers (Wilson, 1977).

Photographic cave trips were done primarily to document the cave, allowing more people to see it without having to actually enter the cave. Most cave trips for mapping and exploration were intended either directly or indirectly to find an alternative route for primary use of the cave. A few trips were for the education of cavers and the public.

One of the main problems in managing the cave is that some of the most sensitive parts are directly on the main and only practical route into the cave. The Humming Room, the Bat Bone Passage, the Mud Cracks, First Discovery, the Forest Trail, both Flowstone Slides, the Miniature Helictite Passage, the Fourteen Hundred Foot Walk, and the 800 Foot Crawl are damaged in some way by trips through them.

Resolution of the use/protection dilemma centers around reducing the impact of the user on the cave in carrying out the most significant goals. One way to solve the dilemma is to create an alternative route for people to use in getting to the different project locations in the cave. For eight years, we had hypothesized the existence of a second entrance that would contribute to the resolution of the dilemma. After approximately fifteen trips working to make a connection through detection of surface air or by digs and rock removal, a stream crawl connection was made in late 1987 between the new (Wilsons') entrance and Perkins Cave. Later, a short dig bypassed the stream but is too muddy to use for most purposes, because mud on the cavers gets spread throughout the cave. With moderate work, an upper level connection is now likely to be made. This second entrance, along with several other modifications, will allow greater use of the cave with less damage. It will require tunneling through approximately 30 feet of breakdown of various sizes, a climbing aid at a 20 foot drop, and enlargement of a couple of tight places on the lower stream passage. This project will allow direct access to the 800 Foot Crawl leading to the largest known portion of the cave and the section that has received the least evaluation, study, and documentation. This entrance could allow visits to several aesthetic portions of the cave with substantially less impact on it.

Often, the floors of caves are completely destroyed by people walking all over them rather than staying within clearly defined trails and people areas. The PerCCAMS solution to this problem has been to designate trails and people areas with nylon string. This system is inexpensive and easy to install, but the string tends to break and need replacement. An alternative under consideration is to color code the designated restricted areas in a three level system with an appropriate marking tape. 1. White would be used to mark normal routes and maintain paths in needed areas. White indicates those areas that probably will not be significantly damaged by human passage, presence, or infringement. 2. Yellow would be used for designating restricted areas that would not be entered without prior consideration from the Board. It indicates those areas that probably will be moderately damaged from human passage, presence, or infringement. 3. Red would be used for designating permanently restricted areas that are off limits to everyone except for exceptionally important reasons. Red indicates those areas that will probably be significantly damaged by human passage, presence, and/or infringement.

The maintenance of the farm house, or should I say rebuilding, has taken considerable time, and is somewhat of a trade-off, as the improved facility has resulted in year round support for cave management and caving. This project, along with projects such as the construction of the "The Famous Wilson John", have also involved considerable support from the membership.

DISCUSSION

The PerCCAMS Board is willing to pay the cost of being the authority that limits access to the cave. This is the risk associated with taking responsibility, as opposed to doing nothing. That is one of the key tenets of situationism. Legalist generally try to avoid open ended situations associated with risk of error.

The risk associated with cave management, if the plan or its implementation is seriously flawed, is that the cave resource may be lost when used as a tool in carrying out other goals of improving the quality of life. For example, this could happen by proceeding with surveying, photography, and/or scientific study at an accelerated pace without sufficient feedback of the impact on the cave from these activities. The loss of information and aesthetic value due to poor or nonexistent management may be greater than the value we presently place on these resources, as new uses may be developed or discovered for undisturbed caves which are not presently known. This concept of considering the managed resource at a higher value than its present value may be appropriate for caves, but it may meet with greater resistance in the management of other types of resources. The difference between the cave resource and many other resources being exploited is that a case can be made that the present exploitation of some resources accomplishes a desired social good and improves the present quality of life. The exploitation of oil and gas are examples, although these resources eventually may have far greater value as the cost of energy increases. Their exploitation is generally deemed worthwhile, because of the great social need of supplying current energy needs. The tragedy of most cave resources is that they are being lost for a pittance, at best, and are usually destroyed without compensation to society. What benefit does Mankind receive from a group of spelunkers who, out of ignorance, damages a cave or harms or contributes to the extinction of a species? How is the offending spelunker helped by his behavior? These questions may be better answered if they are asked another way. What alternative is available to cavers or spelunkers that could adequately allow them to meet their immediate caving desires and still provide them with a cave experience that has other long term benefits? Such societal benefits could include an increased knowledge and understanding of geology and other sciences and an appreciation of the environment. How much does the selling of cave formations and artifacts improve the life of the poor rural American who might sell these formations? Would caves provide more wealth over time by being properly managed for tourists or even cavers and scientists?

The first dilemma is the decision to manage or not. For many people, meeting their own perceived needs is of top importance, even if meeting those needs consumes a non-renewable resource. In our society, this value cannot necessarily be quickly dismissed, because of the importance of the related value of individual freedom. For other people, valuable renewable resources merit protection, conservation, and judicious management. Thus, the conflict between opposing values results.

One additional obstacle for the cave manager to consider is the cost to himself through involvement in conflicts that have high emotional impact on some of the people affected. For example, when the cave manager is also a caver, some other cavers and spelunkers appear to apply a double standard to him as opposed to other cave owners.

HISTORY

Perkins, or "Killer Cave" as it is referred to by those who mapped it, has been known for a long time by the locals but was "discovered" by organized cavers in 1968 (Roehr, 1972). The known cave grew from approximately 1000 feet to over 10 miles by 1972. Some of the history of the original mapping has been captured by Tom Roehr in the "Ballad of Killer Cave". This late discovery, the extremely long crawls, and complicated mazes have generally protected this very beautiful and sensitive cave from local vandals and speleothem miners. The Historic section which includes several thousand feet of passage around the main entrance had received moderate vandalism prior to the installation of the main entrance gate. A small section with foot prints near the Wilsons' Entrance may have been passable cave at one time, but no recent human had been in it until 1987. If anyone entered the cave, it was not through the same route now used.

The cave had been in the Perkins family for over 100 years. Three brothers, hoping to preserve the cave, bought the property with plans to control access. These plans never worked well, and their personal financial problems led to the foreclosure by the Farm Credit Association. John M. Wilson purchased the property form the trustees and worked to establish the present management society. PerCCAMS has a gentleman's agreement with the owners to manage the cave. (NSS NEWS, February 1978).

The Perkins Cave Conservation and Management Society (PerCCAMS) was founded on 4 February 1978. It has approximately 20 members, with over half the membership composed of people who joined in the first two years.

PerCCAms has chosen a labor intensive system of cave management.

This has reduced the amount of traffic into the cave and the rate of deterioration. The determination of the group to effectively manage the cave may have lead to some new approaches to cave management. Rather than take the earlier approach that cave gates deliberately have a weak link so that a forced entry does not minimal damage to the gate, PerCCAMS has escalated the quality of the gate as necessary. In addition, legal, promotional, and economic means are used to prevent break-ins. Each gate has been successfully breached once, and then, the weak areas were strengthened. Another gate is planned at the main entrance to bring it up to contemporary standards.

The requirements for management of people in the cave who are not specifically trained to avoid protected areas and conduct trips into the cave include guidelines that require:

1. knowledgeable PerCCAMS members to assist non-members on all Perkins Cave trips,

2. trips into the cave must be for acceptable purposes, and

3. records to be kept of all trips in a cave register and often on trip report forms. Additional guidelines are listed in Appendix C.

PerCCAMS is managed by a Board of Directors with active input from the membership. (See Appendix D for a current list of the membership.) This group has done most of the things necessary to manage the cave effectively, such as: obtaining working control of the cave, establishing goals and purposes, and developing methodology for carrying out these goals (Wilson, 1978). The efforts of PerCCAMS indicate that a group of cavers working with a cave owner who is very much interested in protecting and managing his cave can be very effective in accomplishing desired goals. Unfortunately, there are not enough resources among cavers to do this for every significant cave.

CONCLUSION

For PerCCAMS, the highest value is agape. PerCCAMS holds that the highest value in terms of cave management is our concern for quality of life. Decisions requiring either the best option or the "least bad" of two bad options are made from the prospective of the primary value in the context for the given situation.

The very nature of cave use in caves like Perkins is that the cave resource gets used up in the process of use, yet the use is necessary to know the value and to help determine the resources needed in managing and protecting the cave.

The application or these values to Perkins Cave requires that we carry out the goal of preserving the unique quality of Perkins Cave for the benefit of Man. This primary goal has lead us to the establishment of several secondary goals which include: using the cave as an educational tool, inventory of the resource, mapping and documenting the cave photographically, encouraging scientific study, and restoring a potential Gray Bat maternity colony site. The accomplishment of these goals requires enlightened support from a few people who are willing to give their time, skill, and good judgement, without necessarily having any material gain or other immediate benefit. Some specific solutions to conserve the cave have been to limit the use of the cave while finding alternative passages for use of the cave.

If our love of this cave and its value can add, at least in some small way, to the quality of life and lead us to manage wisely and then give it away to others in the future, we will be pleased.