Has PGC has gated caves on their land that have few bats?

This is true. However, temperature studies indicate that those 2 caves ARE suited for hibernating bats. The PGC not only manages wildlife, but does a considerable amount of research, and that's about what Schofer and Strangford are. These two caves also presented a considerable management problem for the PGC in terms of vandalism, party activity, and illegal driving on gamelands. So a gate fit right in with PGC law enforcement and land management. [back to topic list]

Why is the access plan a problem with some PGC caves anyway?

When you think of writing a access plan to satisfy a landowner, usually need to satisfy him/her and his/her spouse. With the PGC you have the same situation, you need to satisfy the goals of PGC Wildlife Diversity section (the folks studying the bats) AND the goals of their spouse - Land Management. The current dialogue between the MAR and the PGC has put a proposition on the table that satisfies the Wildlife Diversity Section, but Land Management put their foot down and labeled it unacceptable. Where this goes next is currently unknown, but it boils down to this...

1) Limited summer access will not disturb the bats (May 15th to Sept 15th) and woodrats will be ok with access during this period. In Schofer no swimming/wading in the pool. The Bureau of Wildlife Diversity backs this plan and has no problem with access during this period. Land Management is OK with these dates because they do NOT conflict with hunting season.

2) Land Management is the branch that has to handle access. They think this whole thing is trouble waiting to happen, and the available access options are the following.

Solution A) Let the MAR/a grotto have the keys to these sites to handle access. If they let the MAR or a grotto control access then you have a private organization controlling access to a chunk of state property for recreational purposes. That's bad. Lawsuit waiting to happen when the MAR fails to accommodate someone who wants access.

Solution B) Lock the caves open for 4 months. Illegal camping/partying/driving become a problem again. (and the caves get spray painted) This can also lead to increased gate vandalism by folks who had unlimited summer access and want in in the winter. It may also open the PGC to suit if a minor is hurt and the suit states that the PGC recklessly left the site open when they had access management technology in place that could have prevented injury.

Solution C) Go with some sort of permit system. This seems to be the case now, which could be fine, but cavers don't really have one contact to get a permit okayed. The permit requirements are rather strict (educational and rescue training access is not permitted). It seems that a little more work is in order to get the permit system tweaked to cavers liking and make a friendly flow of information between cavers and the PGC work.

PGC owned gated caves may never be easy to access, however the PGC owns few caves. The crux is in the PGC's assisting with the gating of certain private caves. With the system Chris Sanders developed at Seawra and Mt Rock as a working example I think that future non-state owned land can be managed for bats without much conflict. [back to topic list]

What are the groups involved with this discussion?

There are essentially three camps working towards a common conservation goal. Local Pennsylvania caving clubs (collectively known as the Mid-Appalaichian Region of the National Speleological Society, or simply MAR) , the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) which owns several caves and is active in protecting this type of habitat, and the "PGC Cavers" people who do cave and bat work for the PGC and who are stuck in-between the two. To understand this battlefield middle ground, Jim Kennedy writes:

"The thing to keep in mind about the PGC cavers (and I speak with authority, since I was the first PGC caver back in '85, and stayed with the agency for 10 years) is that they are CAVERS first and foremost. They have a unique perspective that the rest of the agency does not have, but unfortunately they have little power to influence decisions on a state-wide scale. On the other hand, they also have a unique perspective (knowledge about bats and other wildlife, and PGC policy) that other Pennsylvania cavers do not have. Cavers are no less easy to influence than the Commonwealth, but at least they are easier to approach. The common bond here is the love and care for caves. When cavers ask questions instead of making ill-informed accusations, those questions are answered. They may not be the answers the cavers want to hear, but they are still valid answers. When I worked with the PGC, I tried very hard to give the other cavers great credit for the information provided, landowner contact, guiding the team to the caves, assistance during bat counts, and volunteer efforts during the few gate-building sessions that occurred. (Unfortunately, the actions of a few cavers totally undermined the image I was trying to build within the agency.) In return, I made sure that anyone who wanted to go on one of our bat-counting trips, even to a gated cave, was welcome. Very few took advantage of the offer, and many bat counts were done by just two of us "PGC cavers". Many of those that did volunteer were eventually offered jobs (Chenger, Christenson, Sanders, and others). I was fortunate to have my bat experience with the PGC lead to a dream job with Bat Conservation International, where I am now the cave resources specialist. I got out of the PGC/MAR feud (mostly), but now I deal with similar situations around the country! From this bigger perspective, it's amazing to me that this whole issue still has not been resolved. There are (unfortunately) a few very vocal cavers in the state who think they know more about the good of bats and about cave management than others of their number working for the agency charged with protecting all wildlife and managing the most important habitats. -Jim "Crash" Kennedy, NSS 26791 FE" [back to topic list]

I have heard tales of PGC representatives using liability fears as a tool to intimidate landowners into complying with the desires of the PGC. Had the caver group not intervened, Seawra and Mt. Rock would be locked tight, as the rest of PGC gated caves are.

Close, but a little misunderstanding here. The PGC early on (around 1987) identified priority caves in need of protection due to the number and species of bats present and the amount of human disturbance and other threats. When possible, such as already being on state property of managed by sympathetic companies/organizations, these caves were gated. Others, no less important, were carefully watched. Grottos were encouraged to spread the word to stay out of the caves during the critical months. Some were asked to be "watchdogs" for particular caves. Eventually, more money became available. The PGC generously offered to fund gate construction ON PRIVATE PROPERTY if a local Grotto would make the landowner contacts, provide the manpower, and maintain the gate. Basically, the grotto would gate the cave, with the PGC providing the bucks and the expertise. The grotto would hold the key. Mt. Rock and Sewra were high on the priority list. Despite such a generous offer and the urgency, it was until 1998 when Huntingdon Grotto made the landowner contact, did ALL the landowner access plans (with the grant terms included, as provided by Chris Sanders). Sanders made it clear that with the caves expanding bat population, use profile, and the discovery of a federally endangered bat that this was a good chance to do this and that the PGC would contact the landowner if he didn't. The only other private sites the PGC gated prior to this were mine sites which are not covered under the landowner liability act. Most of those landowners are overjoyed that someone is willing to deal with their problem (an open mine).

The next year a caver reported that Mt Rock's entrance had been bulldozed shut. Sanders tracked down the landowner and made that contact. The cave was not completely shut so people and bats still had access, but the air movement and temperature conditions had been drastically changed. The landowner had the dirt and stump mound removed (via backhoe) and we built the gate. Nittany Grotto controls the lock switching responsibility and they offered the summer key to any interested PA grotto.

The PGC DOES NOT and WILL NOT want to control caves on private property. They DO want to visit some of them every couple of years to assess the health of the state's bat populations. [back to topic list]

I can maybe see some liability concerns here for the landowner (which technically I would think should be addressed by the revision to the landowner liability act to include caving, as well as hunting and other recreational activities), but an access issue? So long as the owners are accommodated in their wishes, if MAR or whoever regulates access decides not to let some third party in, how can that third party have a legal beef? If I am the designated caretaker on a piece of land owned by someone else, and the land access is restricted as per the wishes of the owner, how can someone who wants to trespass but is not allowed force a lawsuit? I would think the key here is for the state to clearly stipulate what types of groups may access (say, NSS affiliated groups for instance), and what may not. Am I missing something?

Yes. The PGC is a state agency, mandated by law to manage wildlife and the lands under their jurisdiction. They CANNOT just hand over control to a private organization. In fact, if they are opening up their management decisions to public input, they must go through a whole series of public meetings and comment periods and all the associated b.s. that goes with it. Bottom line, private organizations cannot tell the government what to do, or do their job for them. That doesn't mean that concerned citizens have no voice and cannot assist with the management of the resources. On the contrary. On the federal level we have things like "Challenge Cost-Share Agreements". That's basically a "contract" to do something the agency is mandated to do, with the cost-share partner providing work ("in-kind services"). This is more-or-less what would be necessary for cavers to be the Cave Stewards and Keepers of the Keys. In the event that this actually becomes a reality, there is also the sticky situation with access. Not for the cavers necessarily, but for others. Imagine the scenario where some youth group (or Little League team, or satanic cult, or [you get the picture]) want to visit the cave and are denied permission by the cavers who have the key. This is clearly a case of a special interest group controlling "public" property, and will get the agency sued faster than anything. The agency itself (with input from cavers and other specialists) needs to develop a scientifically credible access policy, that can be justified to any questioning. It must also be rigorously followed -- no bootleg trips by the keyholders. Any such policy must be fair to all, or at least equally unfair to all as the current "no caving" policy is. [back to topic list]

I've heard rumors about Coon Cave, Lemon Hole, and Barton Cave. Yes, there are bats there in the winter, and yes, we cavers voluntarily stay out. Yes, some groups are not aware of the voluntary winter closure, but has the bat population in there been decreasing? Vandalism is not much of a problem because of the vertical entrance. Liability should be covered the same as hunting is. Because cavers appreciate the bat situation there, if it is gated, can we be included in the access?

These are three of the largest hibernacula in the state, housing a disproportionate percentage of the population. It is possible that at least Coon and Lemon Hole also had Indiana bats, but we have no records that go back that far. (Indiana bats are notoriously sensitive to disturbance, and would not be found in those caves now with any unrestricted winter visitation. Putting a gate on the caves may allow them to be occupied by that species in the future. The temperatures are already quite suitable.) Out of the ten historic cave sites for Indiana bats recorded by Charles Mohr in the early 30s, at least four (Laurel Caverns, Penns, Historic Indian, and Woodward) have since been commercialized, making them unsuitable for bats. One in particular, even with heavy modifications such as the addition of buildings over entrances, new entrances, blocked passages, fires, and winter disturbance, it is still one of the top 10 hibernation caves in the entire state. This example just points out how rare suitable hibernacula are and how desperate these bats truly are! Just keeping the conscientious cavers out in the winter is NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!! Disturbances from the renegade cavers and the hordes of would-be "spelunkers" is suppressing the bat populations far below what they should be (and have been). Understand that the loss of these larger, accessible caves might put more pressure on other caves. HOWEVER, if cavers have been "controlling" these caves a little better and educating landowners and the public better, it wouldn't be coming to this. It is felt that cavers, at least, will have limited access to these caves except during the sensitive season, espically if they have a purpose for going there other than recreation. [back to topic list]

One rumor I heard is that Casparis Cave is the target for a gate because, even though it has few bats now, and even though it may be too cold for bats, one study supposedly suggested that if all entrances but one were filled with dirt, to reduce the airflow, then the cave might warm up enough to maybe attract some bats. The fact that this cave is on private property makes me have even more of a problem with such proposal, and to me this one seems really "reaching". I also heard something about the mine, but to me the mine is a different story then the cave. I was sorry to see the road up to it blocked, as I use the mine as a resource to teach my youth group the difference between mines & caves, and why they should stay the heck out of mines.

Nobody wants to block up entrances to Casparis Cave. In fact, no bat people ever want to alter caves solely for bats, since they realize that caves often have complex ecosystems and mineralogy that may be affected by such drastic alterations. (They do, however, often restore cave entrances to historic proportions when they are altered by collapse or commercialization. This restores the historic temperatures and humidities and, hopefully, the cave ecosystem -- including bats.) The talk was about modifying the entrances to Casparis MINE, which is on Game Lands and therefore not a private property issue. In fact, it is a MAJOR liability issue. Given the choice of unlimited access to the mine leading to a potentially fatal accident and the complete closure of the mine by backfilling and/or blasting OR closing several entrances and bat-gating the others to provide a substitute sanctuary for the beleaguered bats who have lost many natural roosts due to development, commercialization, and visitation, most rational people would take the second choice. Casparis would be a big experiment though. The PGC has been looking at the Dunbar Sandstone Mines as a prototype before tackling the huge Casparis project. They are also on Game Lands, and the entrances aren't -quite- so big. There is also a bunch of temperature data from the unaltered mines, and from the mines with a plastic-sheeting "air restrictor" at the main entrance. No moral problem with altering mine environments, since they are short-lived artificial features with limited scientific and recreational value. It is possible to modify caves to make them more suitable for bats. [back to topic list]

When does a hole need a gate and when not? One extreme I am hearing seems to say that every hole that could possibly house bats, say determined by a temperature study, even if we need to alter the cave environment a little, should be permanently gated and ideally no one should ever go in again except to monitor bats.

The PGC's recommendation for caves with bats is close them from Sept 15th till May 15th this leaves 4 months of access for recreation. Many caves have profiles that make them unsuitable for bats. Lots of caves are too warm, flood, are too cold, etc. We have had great success with working out many conflicts. Woodward cave a commercial cave is very pro-bat and has a 2,000+ bat population including the state threatened smallfooted bat, with great PGC & caver relations. Regardless of prior trends all the high access caves the PGC has gated have had large population increases post gating. Increasing bat #'s in a high use cave often are a indicator that the bats in the area are truly desperate and need to have protected habitat. Seawra had almost no bats in the mid 80's and has increased steadily to the current pregate (approx) 2,000 bat count, despite being increasingly popular with recreational cavers year-round.

Yes the PGC has been experimenting with closing caves that look good (but have few bats) to see what happens (i.e. Strangford and Schofer) BUT ONLY the caves they own. No experiments of this kind have been run off PGC owned land. This is partly how we have gotten to the stage where the Biologist side of the PGC has said that there is no problem with summer access to these caves.

Cave modification - Yes it is possible to modify caves to make them more suitable for bats. Other than adding gates the PGC doesn't do this. We can, have, and will modify mines, tunnels, and other man made structures to make them more bat suitable, but have no goals, ambitions, or intentions to do this to caves. [back to topic list]

Shouldn't the PGC justify closing caves before doing it?

The issue to note here is that the courts have upheld in several places that the government has to prove that it is not impacting a species before disturbing a site. For example, the Allegheny National Forest (ANF) where environmentalists effectively stopped a couple million dollars worth of logging because the ANF "might" be impacting Indiana bats (this was even before there were any known bats on the site, and even now there was only one male Indiana ever caught there, with no photographic documentation). A similar situation is occurring today with local "groups" using the Indiana bat as a roadblock for construction of the proposed I-99 corridor through Central Pennsylvania, despite no proof that there actually are any Indiana bats roosting in the proposed corridor!

In the cavers' case this is turned around, as the government is actually doing their job and protecting sites which "might" be of concern, while the "environmentalist" cavers think that the PGC should have to prove that the gate is necessary. The courts have pretty much shown that the government has to protect species that are listed (federally endangered or in PA, state threatened). The burden of proof lies with whoever wants to disturb the animals to prove that their disturbance will not impact the animals. [back to topic list]

Is it necessary to gate caves year round which don't have bats, solely because studies indicate that the cave might get bats if people stay out in the summer?

No known cave or mine in Pennsylvania is warm enough to serve as a maternity roost. If gates are left locked in the summer, it is for other reasons, not for bats. [back to topic list]

Got to talking with some people about the mine which has bats but which a certain cave club refuses to give up the location of. Their point seems to be "it is really difficult to get to, even we never go, it's unsafe, and it has absolutely no recreational value at all, so why even bother to gate it? It doesn't need it." 

Could be 100% true. The PGC does NOT gate every tunnel/mine/cave with bats in it. The second largest Indiana bat site in the state has no gate and there are no plans to gate it. The landowner would be happy with a gate, but the access is rough and there is no need. There is a need to document these sites and monitor them for changes. When sites are officially surveyed they end up in the PA Natural Diversity Inventory. This is checked when permits for quarries, powerlines, highways, etc. are issued. If a site is unknown it will be missed in this preliminary protection. Also, if an entrance is unstable, as many mines are, it may completely collapse forcing bats into less suitable hibernaculas (possibly popular recreation caves, thus perpetuating future bat/human conflicts). Since the PGC knows that cavers are withholding a potentially important bat site, they are justified in believing that the cavers are not worthy of access to their caves. [back to topic list]

Hey, I have another liability question. When the girl fell in Con Cave in 1992 and got hurt, the story I got was that someone on her behalf sued the landowner, and that was one of the final straws for him closing all the land up there. Is that true? Had the liability law been modified by that time to include caving? If not, would such a lawsuit successfully happen today?

What really happened was that the girl (actually, it was her father) that sued the landowner. Cavers sided with the owner over that one, and even testified on his behalf (mostly Loyalhanna members). The liability law was in place then, and the judge sided with the landowner. The land closure had not much to do with that accident, and everything to do with greed. He wanted to put in a multi-million dollar stone quarry which would eat up half the mountainside, destroy caves, and severely impact the surface and ground water. Naturally the landowner does not want a bunch of "environmentalists" sniffing around. All this, the Con Cave thing and the Tasman Quarry deal, are extensively documented in the Loyalhanna Troglodyte and the NSS News. [back to topic list]