In last month’s B.B., a sentence in the article ‘Towards a
National Council?’ caught my eye.  The
author says “Perhaps the most difficult part of this matter is to produce an
argument of substance against a national Council.  Should this be formed, and then followed up
with affiliation to the C.N.P.R., it might mean that we poor cavers would be
able to obtain grants from the state to build ourselves luxurious caving huts.”

With all respect to the author of the article in question, I
suggest that it is only difficult to produce arguments against this type of
thing if one sticks to a purely materialistic view.  Once this viewpoint is challenged and the
outlook correspondingly shifted, counter arguments can be produced thick and
fast.  Here are a few samples….

Firstly, all arguments in favour of a National Council which
are based on some form of increased efficiency such as better dissemination of
scientific data; national availability of scientific experts and other forms of
increased efficiency presuppose that it is a good thing for caving to be run
the same way as an efficient factory or scientific institution.  The thing that seems to be in danger of being
forgotten is that caving is a PASSTIME – not a vital part of the export
drive.  Ask yourself a moment.  Would you really like it if all the problems
connected with caving were solved or within sight of solution?  If, for example, a foolproof cave locating
machine were developed so that there could never be any more speculation as to
whether a particular dig might ‘go’?  If
such a powerful amount of scientific push had been brought to bear that there
were no worthwhile questions left to ask? If communications: tackle: lighting: clothing: diving equipment etc.
were all completely perfected?  If
surveying, photography etc. had been so well developed that these processes had
been reduced to a completely routine following of instructions?  The worker in leaves does so primarily for
his own amusement and a drive to work him out of a job might be fun while it
lasted, but what then?

Secondly, all arguments based on the provision of bigger and
better huts; government subsidies and helping hands of one sort or another
presuppose that rich clubs are better than poorer ones.  If we must generalise here, the reverse is
probably nearer the truth.  Any club
which is spoon fed soon loses its initiative and becomes mentally fat and
indolent.  Clubs need a certain amount of
difficulties to overcome.  If one grants
the ‘luxurious caving huts’ mentioned by the author, one must suppose that the
inhabitants are much too comfortable to do any actual caving from them.  The alternative seems to be the erection of
vast caving barracks, full of brainwashed, regimented cavers.

Lastly – as I feel this should be kept reasonably short –
there is no point of expanding caving just for the sake of having greater
numbers of bods around.  Caving is – or
was – more of a way of life and the best cavers have usually been those who
have discovered the sport for themselves rather than those who have been ‘sold’
it.  Caving needs individualists and a
move to turn it into a mass sport will frighten off these people into some
other – less crowded – pastime, in which there is more room for them to be
themselves.  This will be a great loss to
caving.

To sum up.  There are
those whose hobby is caving.  There are
also those whose hobby is organising. The latter are, by definition, parasitic on the former since they must
have a group of people to use as their ‘raw material’ for their queer
hobby.  Such people will be happy
organising any group of people who are weak minded enough to let them climb on
their backs.  Both mice and cavers go
underground at times.  Let us make sure
that the resemblance goes no further.

 “Alfie”

*****************************************

The Royal Geographic Society are preparing a pocket size
handbook by Lt. Col. J.M. Adam, R.A.M.C. This is to be published by Hodder & Stoughton at about 10/6.

The book has been prepared by medical and non-medical men
with considerable expedition experience and is designed to meet the needs of
expeditions out of range of medical assistance.

R.S. King.

Notice

Don’t forget the date if the A.G.M. and Annual Dinner!  These will be held as usual on the FIRST
Saturday in OCTOBER (which this year is October 1st.).

Mendip Rescue Organisation

The Mendip Rescue Organisation is an ad hoc body which
exists for the purpose of effecting cave rescue.  It is run by a committee of wardens, who see
to the purchase and replacement of equipment, the posting of notices at cave
entrances and keep lists of cavers willing and able to help.  Their main function is to operate the call
out system so that a rescue may be undertaken smoothly and expeditiously.  The record for the last complete year – as
published in the Hon. Secretary’s Annual Report for 1965 – shows that this is
done and that is why the Organisation receives the support of cavers on Mendip,
both as individuals and through their clubs.

But there is more to it than that.  Everybody who caves on Mendip is considered
to be a member of the Organisation.  All
are responsible for making cave rescue possible and are liable to be called for
help.  This can best be done if the
individuals have had some experience of rescue work and a minimal knowledge of
First Aid.  To this end, the Mendip
Rescue Organisation actively encourages the carrying out of rescue practices.

These are best done by a party of eight tough cavers, who
normally cave together and know one another well.  Such groups are normally found within a
single club, and for this reason clubs are encouraged to form such groups.  This should be done whether or not the group
can be called out in such an emergency, or whether the cavers come from nearby
or a distance.

The correct drill is for the group that wants a rescue
practice to fix a date and time, choose a cave and subject, provide the team
and let the Hon. Sec. of the M.R.O. know in plenty of time (two months is
usually enough).  The Hon. Sec. will then
arrange for a warden to attend the practice in the role of umpire or adviser
and to bring the carrying sheet and hauling ropes and demonstrate the correct
method of using them.  Ladders, lifelines
and leadership should be provided by the team.

Practices on these lines have been held by the B.E.C., the
U.B.S.S., the

Wessex,
the Axbridge, the London C.R.O., the Border and Oxford University Caving
Clubs.  Others are contemplating
following suit.  Everyone who has the
welfare of his fellow cavers at heart is asked to try to do likewise.

The absence of the drainpipe of the Forty Foot Pitch in
Swildons has created a hazard which has resulted in many cases of cavers being
unable to climb.  Some of these result in
M.R.O. callouts while others are managed by cavers on the spot.  It is felt that more could be done in latter
way, now that the M.R.O. is keeping a pulley permanently on the iron bar in
Suicide’s Leap.  The parties will need a
hundred foot full weight nylon line, which they can usually provide themselves,
and the ladders must be hung from new fixtures on the far side of the pot.  The iron bar must not be used for
ladders.  It was put there for rescue
purposes only.  Instructions on how to
rig the hauling pulley have been posted in
Maine’s
Barn, and it is intended to leave with Mr.

Maine a spare hauling ripe and carrying
sheet.  If it is used, then Nr.

Maine will give a
standby warning to M.R.O.

O.C. Lloyd.  Hon. Sec.

Editors’ Note     The above is an extract from last years
report and B.E.C. members will know that a great amount of time has been put in
by club members on perfecting rescue techniques in Cuthbert’s – work which paid
off when it was used on a real rescue recently.   Members may not, however, know that our
Caving Secretary and Assistant, Dave Irwin and Keith Franklin have both been
made Wardens of the M.R.O.  The extract
from the annual report has been published in the B.B. at the request of the
Hon. Sec., M.R.O. to give B.E.C. members a little more information about the
M.R.O. and its activities.

*****************************************

Are you keeping SATURDAY OCTOBER 1ST. free (For
you-know-what?)

*****************************************

Cave Photography [1]

From time to time, articles on Cave Photography have
appeared in the B.B.  The first of these
was in B.B. No. 39 for September 1950 and was for the benefit of
beginners.  It was called “Starting Cave
Photography” and was written by the late Don Coase, who was amongst our best
cave photographers at the time.

The second article appeared in B.B. No. 69 for May 1953 and
was written by “Pongo” Wallis, who was on of the first members to take up
colour photography and who described some of the techniques of colour
photography in caves.  The third article
– again by Pongo – appeared in B.B.’s No 115 and 116 for August and September
1957 and was on Stereoscopic Photography. All these articles are still worth reading and copies of these B.B.’s
are to be found in the club library.

By way of contrast, the author of this article is not in the
same class today as Don and Pongo were in their day, and he has only two
excuses to offer for writing on this subject at all.  One excuse is that it has, after all, been
some time since a general article on cave photography appeared and things have
changed quite a lot in the intervening period of time.  The other – and more pertinent reason – is
that there is a temporary shortage of material for this particular B.B. as the
Editor used up nearly all the stockpile last month.

The Camera

Let us start by looking at cameras.  Very few people choose a camera just for
taking down caves, but some may think of buying one or moving on to a better
one, with caving particularly in mind. As Don pointed out in his original article, it is possible to get very
reasonable results down a cave even with a cheap camera providing it is used
within its limitations.  In general,
there is a vast range of cameras available today and any attempt to do a
Which?” would need more space than the whole of a B.B. so a few general remarks
are all that can be made.

Firstly, what size film do you want to use?  35mm is very popular and perhaps more in use
than any other now.  Reels come in 20 or
36 exposures and colour slides work out about 1/- each.  The large number of exposures on one reel is
useful, if a little frustrating at times. With fast black and white film using available lighting (not flashbulbs)
it is possible to be extravagant with film at very little cost.  A further advantage of the 35mm size cameras
is that, when taking colour, nearly all projectors will take the 2” x 2” slides
which result.  On the other hand, larger
sized films give better definition and have the additional advantage that, when
taking colour (which is very expensive compared to 35mm!) shots can be trimmed
down to 35mm size and better pictures composed by this method.

Having more or less decided what size film you are going to
use, the most important consideration is the price you are going to pay for a
camera.  These days, cavers are often
seen with cameras which, in Don and Pongo’s day, nobody would have been able to
afford, however keen they were.  You may
only want to do some cave photography as a sideline and not spend too much on
the camera or have lots of other things to spend the money on.  Apart from second hand cameras – which can
sometimes be bought at very favourable terms – there are roughly three main
price brackets.  The first are cheap
cameras up to roughly £10.  Some of these
are quite reasonable for cave photography as there is no point in having a
complicated shutter in any case and, if a reasonably fast film is used and lens
stopped down, a cheap lens can perform quite well under these circumstances.

The next price range is roughly from £10 to about £35.  For this sort of money you will get a good
lens and a multispeed shutter (which you don’t really need) and some of the
cheaper reflex cameras come within this range – at any rate at second hand
prices.  The last category is the “sky’s
the limit” and for more money you get interchangeable lenses, coupled
rangefinders, pentaprisms, built in exposure meters and a host of other
gadgets.

Now it happens to be an awkward fact that – if you consider
a camera just for caving purposes – nobody makes anything like the ideal
camera, and so any camera you choose is bound to be a compromise, unless of
course you have picked it mainly with non-caving photography in mind.

The ideal caving camera would be tough, and able to stand at
least the occasional knock without damage. It would have to be a good quality lens, preferably interchangeable so
that a wide angle lens could be used when required.  It would be a reflex so that you could see
exactly what you were going to take, even in the poor light available (many
‘ordinary’ view finders can hardly be used in caves as there is not enough
light) and you would also be able to check that the scan was correctly in
focus.  On the other hand, the ideal
caving camera would only have a simple shutter (since really short exposure
times are rarely necessary in cave photography) and would not have a built in
exposure meter (apart from flash, all other lighting is far too dim to register
on an exposure meter) and neither would it have any form of double exposure
prevention.  Most cameras today have a
single lever or button which cocks the shutter and winds on the film.  Flashguns are not always the most reliable of
devices in the damp atmosphere of a cave and this means that, if the flashgun
doesn’t go off, a frame of film has been wasted.

It has already been said that a camera along these lines
cannot be bought and so the choice must be a personal one.  In the opinion of the writer, the best choice
would include facility for changing lenses and for the camera to be a
reflex.  Failing that, he would plump for
a reflex with as wide an angle single non-interchangeable lens as possible, and
failing that again, a camera with any good lens.  In the cheap camera category, he would go for
as good a lens as possible and a robust form of camera construction. 

 (to be continued).