ASSESSMENT OF NEW ZEALAND TOURIST CAVES

L.O. KERMODE, New Zealand Geological Survey, D.S.I.R., P.O. Box 61-012, Otara, New Zealand

In this paper I do not construe the term "tourist cave" to mean "commercial show cave". If that were the case the information and opinions would be very out of balance because New Zealand has only eight commercial show caves. I have taken "tourist cave" to mean any cave that is visited by many people each year, and also any cave where the cave itself or its visitors, or both, would benefit from changes in management. The New Zealand Lands and Survey Department is very aware of the fact that more people are visiting more caves each year and through its various divisions, branches, authorities and agents is attempting to stimulate public interest in unique or beautiful landscape and in the protection of scientific, historic, recreational or ecological sites, and is encouraging other controlling authorities to do likewise.

In New Zealand there are hundreds of interesting and beautiful caves, but although about 8% of the land is set aside as National Parks only Fiordland National Park contains a commercial show cave - Te Ana-au, operated by a concessionaire and it was included in the park by accident and not because people at that time felt strongly about caves. A further 1% of our land is set aside as scenic reserves and several of these in karst areas include limestone caves. The commercial show caves at Waitomo are beneath scenic reserves administered by the Tourist Hotel Corporation, and will be discussed in a separate paper by David Williams. All eight commercial show caves are described in my paper "Tourist Caves of New Zealand" presented at the 6th International Congress of Speleology, Olomouc, 1973 and reprinted here.

Before considering cave tourism and management one presumes that there has been some sort of selection to decide which caves, and for whom. In New Zealand no such selection has been made. This immediately highlights questions of ownership and control.

Examples of the diversity of cave control are tabulated.

Controlling Authority

Cave Examples

National park (Fiordland) National Park concession (Fiordland) Scenic Reserve (Lands and Survey) Scenic Reserve (Tourist Hotel Corp) Scenic Reserve (THC commercial) State Forest Park (NW Nelson) State Forest (Tawarau) Regional Reserve (Auckland, Waitakere) Quarry Reserve (NZ Railways) Road Reserve (One Tree Hill Borough) Maritime Park (Hauraki Gulf) Maori tribal land (Ruarangi) Public Domain (Mt Wellington) Historic Reserve (Historic Places Trust) Private land Private land (commercial) Corporate land

Luxmore Te Ana-au Metro, Waipuna, Hollow Hill etc Gardners Gut Aranui Gorgoroth Honolulu Whatipu Wiri Thousand Pressups Rangitoto Burial Ruapotaka Frenchmans Gully Flower, etc, etc Te Anaroa Matawhero

All the caves listed are known to the controlling authorities and management interest has been expressed by them.

This conference gathers together a diversity of representatives who may be merely custodians of caves, or managers of lucrative tourist enterprises. The control exercised by you may be by direct purchase and development of the cave, or by accident of legislation which has made you responsible for the protection of one or more caves and also for the visitors that are attracted to them.

I do not know how far the Commonwealth or individual States have progressed with an inventory of caves from which to make a wise selection of caves worthy of protection or development. Any such list must be open-ended because not all caves are known at present. In New Zealand the Lands and Survey Department is furthering data with the help of the Geological Survey, the Speleological Society, other Government departments, and the universities. I will not enumerate the many possible details of cave documentation that are necessary or desirable, but merely say that the physical cave, its decoration, its biota, and its human use, both past and present should be considered. It is obvious that the eight commercial show caves in New Zealand do not adequately represent our total speleological heritage, and that many other caves must be considered to allow for future uses which should include preservation, research, sport and tourism. The concept that access and protection are mutually incompatible is untenable, and conservation through commercialisation has been favourably discussed by several authors.

The reasons for management are basically twofold.

1. The protection of caves from people and their activities.

2. The protection of cave visitors from cave hazards.

Any management classification that does not separate these two major purposes, yet still allow for their interaction, will quickly create confusion. Therefore I have prepared two lists for consideration.

1. System of cave classification according to the degrees of CAVE PROTECTION needed.
   1. unclassified caves
      usually unexplored or even undesired; only the entrance known; inferred from resurgence; detected by geophysical methods; etc.
   2. endangered caves
      threatened by:- quarrying, outwash from accelerated erosion, damming of rivers, etc
   3. unspoilt caves
      no despoliation or modification whatsoever; caves into which very few visits have been made; no disturbance of microclimate; must have a gate and that must be environmentally acceptable.
   4. references caves
      full record of effects of all visits that have been made; can be used as a regional baseline for physical or biological research; should have a gate, and that must be environmentally acceptable.
   5. research caves
      caves or parts of caves in which controlled and recorded research can be done; should have a gate, and that must be environmentally acceptable.
   6. potential tourist caves
      undeveloped caves in which controlled and recorded investigations for uncommitted future tourist development have been made; controlled entry necessary.
   7. commercial show caves
      caves in which environmentally acceptable development of facilities has taken place with sufficient capital to make the results aesthetically pleasing and therefore a permanent asset; gated if necessary.
   8. indestructible caves
      caves that cannot easily be damaged or defaced, even by the most enthusiastic vandals; usually undecorated, or the decoration is so massive and continuously flushed by seepage or flood water that no deterioration can be noticed; gate not necessary.

   The physical protection of caves can be achieved by various methods. In New Zealand the following controls are used:

   Gates, fee and guide Fee and guide Gate Natural barriers Permit and honorary ranger Public notice Voluntary Speleo. Society ban Access made difficult Lack of knowledge Wishful thinking

   Ngarua Marble Te Anaroa Motupipi Harwood Hole Hollow Hill Waipuna Yanks Gardners Gut Honolulu Waipu

   How does an authority control caving activities in karst with as many as 20 known sport caves per square kilometre, or as many as 200 dolines, each a potential cave, per square kilometre?

2. System of cave classification according to the degree of VISITOR PROTECTION necessary.
   1. unclassified caves
      only entrance known; same as 1 (a) above.
   2. dangerous caves
      any accessible caves that have active ceiling collapses, frequent sudden floods etc.
   3. unexplored caves
      extent and character vaguely known usually because of difficulty; more speleological work needed.
   4. severe adventure caves
      well explored caves of severity greater than the average caving party would encounter i.e. needs aqualungs, winches, underground camps etc; often very cold; rescue difficult or even impossible; foreign speleo visitors must have experienced local speleo guides.
   5. experienced adventure caves
      the usual caving club sporting cave; most problems can be handled with adequate and suitable clothing, lamps, food, equipment, common sense, etc; well screened small parties could use these caves for commercial venture tours if gear were provided.
   6. unskilled adventure caves
      no previous caving experience necessary; decorated areas protected; regular checking of cave for vandalism; rescue simple from all parts of the cave; could easily take commercial venture tours if gear were provided.
   7. do-it-yourself caves
      simple pattern, no drops, secure ceiling, clear floor, no flooding; could be commercialised on a bring-your-own-gear basis.

   The protection of visitors, whether they are speleologists, cavers or tourists, from the hazards of caves is simply achieved if the cave is gated, well documented and inspected regularly. However, the protection and rescue of cavers in ungated caves is a very wide and separate topic that in New Zealand is usually covered by education, training and organisation within caving clubs without any interference from Government organisation. The rather inadequate "Certificate of Proficiency" issued by the New Zealand Speleological Society makes one wonder how far supervised training and examination should go. Does New Zealand or Australia need caving licences like Austria? Would this be any more artificial than the pseudo-scientific projects that some of the Australian park authorities insist on before cave entry is permitted?

CONCLUSIONS

Every classification system must have a clear purpose. If caves are to be managed for their protection, is it because the caves are important natural assets? or is it because the caves happen to be caught up in a park planning programme? If visitors are to be managed for their protection does the control enhance their enjoyment of the cave as speleologists, cavers or tourists?

Visitor-use studies and cave documentation for nation - or state-wide - comparisons are both important continuing programmes that should lead to wise selection of caves for future use as physical or biological reference baselines, future sport or future tourist development.

REFERENCES

GURNEE, J. (Editor) 1967: Conservation through Commercialisation. Rio Camuy Development Proposal. National Speleological Society Bulletin 20 (2): pp 27-69.

HAMILTON-SMITH, E. 1977: An Introduction to the Management of Caves and Karst Areas. Journal of the Sydney Speleological Society 21 (1): pp 3-15.

HOBSON, D. 1976: The Waitomo Caves Dossier. New Zealand Speleological Bulletin 5 (100): pp 585-620.

KERMODE, L.O. 1970: Cave Index Cards. New Zealand Speleological Bulletin 4 (1974)L pp 408-11.

KERMODE, L.O. 1974: A Philosophy of Cave Conservation. New Zealand Speleological Bulletin 5 (92): pp 350-3.

KERMODE, L.O. 1977(a): Tourist Caves of New Zealand. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Speleology, Olomouc 1973 VII pp 215-20.

KERMODE, L.O. 1977(b): Conservation and Cave Development. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Speleology, Olomouc 1973 VII: pp 209-13.

MacGREGOR, I.D. 1975: Waitomo Reserves. New Zealand Speleological Bulletin 5 (95): pp 469-72.