# The Wild Trees: Injury, Safety, Death



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 9, 2008)

In arborist 101, someone posted about "The Wild Trees" book by R. Preston.

Aside from the redwood stuff, how many of you have read the book, and what were your thoughts about the aspects that relate to this forum:

Inuries & Fatalities

??

The book recorded at least one severe fall resulting in injury at Portland, Oregon's West Hills area. During a late evening manuever. It recorded one fall and death of a government forest tree climber. And it mentions at least one other partial fall resulting in a dislocated shoulder. Oh, yeah, the 500 lb. or so piece that dislodged and followed a rope down to the ground after one of the climbers quickly decended and got away.

It seems that every one of those events in the book could almost be a discussion in itself.

It was interesting to read what the book supplied about the various kinds of injuries and body parts. As well as how many incidents or close-calls could surround the lives of just a small niche of people involved with trees.

Early in the book, seems to me that near certain death should have happened to at least one of the people in the book. I'm guessing that more than half of us may have done something just as close to death's door in our lives either foolishly or unknowingly. In one way or another.

Sort of reminds me of how NASCAR evolved from moonshine-running into a high-tech profession with the best materials available. Focusing on the gear aspect, that is.


----------



## RedlineIt (Feb 9, 2008)

When you say "us", you mean "you". 

And, never, ever, refer to NASCAR as high-tech.


RedlineIt


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 9, 2008)

RedlineIt said:


> And, never, ever, refer to NASCAR as high-tech.



opcorn: 

Even an initial query showed so many results about high-tech woven into NASCAR - there must be 1000 references. Aerodynamics for traction, metallurgy, computerized diagnostic equipment, synthetic materials, composite bodies.

Now back on topic with the ease of a side step ...


----------



## splittah (Feb 10, 2008)

RedlineIt said:


> When you say "us", you mean "you".
> 
> And, never, ever, refer to NASCAR as high-tech.
> 
> ...



:looser: 



And obviously you, as they say.. "don't know diddly squat" about nascar.


now go back into your :censored: corner and be quiet.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 10, 2008)

Wonder how RedlineIt will take your reply to him.

Anyway, being a minor tangent off the topic, no crisis.


----------



## moss (Feb 10, 2008)

Sillett started out as a self taught climber using rock technique. He wouldn't be the first and won't be the last to go that route. I think that any self-taught tree climber is going to go through a period of extreme vulnerability to the possibility of serious or fatal injury.

The other class of climber's who are potentially in danger are the more experienced ones who hit an intersection of overconfidence and bad decision making at some point in their climbing career. Luckily for most climbers the accident that results is more likely to causes bruises than death.

There's always the potential for the random (not quite random if your rope disturbed a hanger) event of a huge chunk of tree just happening to come down on you, as described in The Wild Trees.

The big fall in The Wild Trees by a very experienced climber was from the most dangerous hazard in climbing: fatigue leading to unclear thinking.
-moss


----------



## 046 (Feb 10, 2008)

correct me if I'm wrong.. formula 1 is hi-tech.. Nascar is lower tech on purpose to reduce cost of fielding a team. 



splittah said:


> :looser:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 11, 2008)

046 said:


> correct me if I'm wrong.. formula 1 is hi-tech.. Nascar is lower tech on purpose to reduce cost of fielding a team.




Nobody needs any correcting. Both forms are using high tech - each for it's own needs. There was so much high tech in NASCAR, I even deleted the links I posted earlier in reply to RedlineIt. I deleted them, because they were pointless considering the simplicity of the original point.

That's why the initial critic about the high-tech and NASCAR in the 2nd reply was sort of out in left field. Not because of NASCAR compared to Formula 1, but because my 1st post compared NASCAR's current technology to the "bootlegging" days. There ain't no way that the NASCAR technology is close to it's origin anymore. 



moss said:


> Sillett started out as a self taught climber using rock technique. He wouldn't be the first and won't be the last to go that route. I think that any self-taught tree climber is going to go through a period of extreme vulnerability to the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
> 
> The other class of climber's who are potentially in danger are the more experienced ones who hit an intersection of overconfidence and bad decision making at some point in their climbing career. Luckily for most climbers the accident that results is more likely to causes bruises than death.
> 
> ...




You mentioned something very interesting. Because I've taken an interest to want to climb. And my choice is to learn from someone who is very good, and not self-teach myself.

But in the last few weeks, I've seen posted comments elsewhere from some folks hinting - or more than hinting - that I learn to climb myself. And it's a very uncomfortable concept to entertain. I'd rather have someone else teach me.


----------



## Adkpk (Feb 11, 2008)

I don't have the book with me so I can't be more precise but about the guy who fell due to fatigue and a failed attempt to think clearly rushing into darkness. Wasn't the fall like 150'? Like it took a paragraph to fill the time it took the guy to hit the ground. What is this compost layer made of out there?


----------



## lxt (Feb 11, 2008)

M.D. Vaden said:


> You mentioned something very interesting. Because I've taken an interest to want to climb. And my choice is to learn from someone who is very good, and not self-teach myself.
> 
> But in the last few weeks, I've seen posted comments elsewhere from some folks hinting - or more than hinting - that I learn to climb myself. And it's a very uncomfortable concept to entertain. I'd rather have someone else teach me.



You have an interest in climbing uhh? MMmmmm if I recall, someone invited you to come out so they could learn from you!! LOL.

M.D.... come on out to PA, this time of year( Feb 11th) its a balmy 3deg, with windchill at around - 15, good training weather!!! As a Professional courtesy I wont even *charge* you!!! just get here!!


LXT................


----------



## moss (Feb 11, 2008)

*Crater*



Adrpk said:


> I don't have the book with me so I can't be more precise but about the guy who fell due to fatigue and a failed attempt to think clearly rushing into darkness. Wasn't the fall like 150'? Like it took a paragraph to fill the time it took the guy to hit the ground. What is this compost layer made of out there?



Page 106, chapter: Crater (feel like I'm quoting from the Bible) The climber fell from "nearly 100 feet". Most notable aside from the height and the fact that he survived to climb again is that the only thing he said as he started falling was "Headache!". A truly professional climber.

It took 3 paragraphs to describe, it was a heck of a fall.
-moss


----------



## moss (Feb 11, 2008)

M.D. Vaden said:


> You mentioned something very interesting. Because I've taken an interest to want to climb. And my choice is to learn from someone who is very good, and not self-teach myself.
> 
> But in the last few weeks, I've seen posted comments elsewhere from some folks hinting - or more than hinting - that I learn to climb myself. And it's a very uncomfortable concept to entertain. I'd rather have someone else teach me.
> 
> What you mentioned about the danger in climbing, the fatigue leading to unclear thinking, is why I don't have a firm standard in business anymore that we finish out an 8 hour day in landscaping. Every day is determined individually.



Respect fatigue is one of the basic tenets of tree climbing safety.

This thread on TCC is an excellent introduction to the risk faced by a self-taught climber:
Rec climber serious injury

My main points about the climber's fall is that it was not an accident, there were several key decision points where the climber made the wrong ones. At each wrong decision they became more likely to fall until it became inevitable. A great lesson for everyone I think, experienced or beginner.

It is very possible to teach yourself but there are some basic safety concepts that are difficult to re-invent on your own. It is best to find a mentor or take a course. No climber can teach you to be a safe climber in one day so your mentor needs to be someone that you can climb with many times. Also they have to be able to understand what you are trying to accomplish. It might take a little time to find the right person but in the mean time you'll see some different climbing styles which will help you find yours.
-moss


----------



## Adkpk (Feb 11, 2008)

moss said:


> (feel like I'm quoting from the Bible)
> -moss



You may have well, we are talking about a miracle here. 




moss, I am half way through, "The Baron in the Trees". Great book for anyone who ever looked at a tree and felt passion. Thanks






I try to resist but... Nascar is as technical as WWF. :monkey:  :biggrinbounce2:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 11, 2008)

Adrpk said:


> What is this compost layer made of out there?



That's one that I can partially explain because I grew up and lived in that area. Variables could include if it was mulched with barkdust and then needles on top, or if it was in a natural area.

It was near Portland west hills, and even if it was a "natural" area, I'm not sure if the "duff" layer of needles and decomposed twigs would be much deeper than 2 to 4 inches. I grew up on a couple of acres with some really big Doug firs a few miles away, and the largest in the woods didn't seem to have more than 4" of natural compost.

Usually it feels a bit spongy, so even a couple of inches would make a difference.


----------



## moray (Feb 11, 2008)

Adrpk said:


> ... I am half way through, "The Baron in the Trees". Great book for anyone who ever looked at a tree and felt passion.



Hey, cool, Adrpk! I just finished the Baron a couple of months ago, myself. Thoroughly delightful.


----------



## moray (Feb 11, 2008)

M.D. Vaden said:


> ...You mentioned something very interesting. Because I've taken an interest to want to climb. And my choice is to learn from someone who is very good, and not self-teach myself.
> 
> But in the last few weeks, I've seen posted comments elsewhere from some folks hinting - or more than hinting - that I learn to climb myself. And it's a very uncomfortable concept to entertain. I'd rather have someone else teach me.



This is a very interesting question. The obvious short answer is: if you're uncomfortable with learning yourself, don't do it!

The comprehensive answer is much too long to put down here. But I'll mention that I am self-taught. It is not for everyone. I have learned dangerous skills in my life where I was properly trained, and I'm glad I was. Other dangerous things I learned on my own, and I am still here. I think it may be a personality thing more than anything. 

Being self taught doesn't mean you just go out and do it. There is a large extra burden on you to do the research to learn the issues you face, and then practice in a fashion than only slowly increases your exposure to more challenging situations. This is a slower route, but very gratifying. If it weren't for the availability great resources like AS and TCI, I very likely would not have trained on my own, which means I very likely would never have learned at all.

I have just read the accident report linked by moss and the subsequent discussion. With all due respect to the survivor, this was a case of very poor judgment. Nevertheless, climbing trees puts you at risk, and self-trained or not, you cannot eliminate all risk. Your best judgment never amounts to certainty.


----------



## moss (Feb 11, 2008)

moray said:


> Hey, cool, Adrpk! I just finished the Baron a couple of months ago, myself. Thoroughly delightful.



One of my all time favorite books, last read it about 25 years ago, time to revisit it! Glad you guys are into it.
-moss


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 11, 2008)

moray said:


> Hey, cool, Adrpk! I just finished the Baron a couple of months ago, myself. Thoroughly delightful.



If the book is semi-popular, Amazon probably has a review.

But would you like to paraphrase or explain what it's about in a paragraph or two?

I like to read.


----------



## Adkpk (Feb 12, 2008)

M.D. Vaden said:


> That's one that I can partially explain because I grew up and lived in that area. Variables could include if it was mulched with barkdust and then needles on top, or if it was in a natural area.
> 
> It was near Portland west hills, and even if it was a "natural" area, I'm not sure if the "duff" layer of needles and decomposed twigs would be much deeper than 2 to 4 inches. I grew up on a couple of acres with some really big Doug firs a few miles away, and the largest in the woods didn't seem to have more than 4" of natural compost.
> 
> Usually it feels a bit spongy, so even a couple of inches would make a difference.



If this is the case, I don't get how this survived. I am going to have to say writers license here. Tall tail, bs. That guy would be dead as a doornail. 

I was bushwhacking in the Adirondacks once at just over 4000 ft. I stepped on some moss and my leg went through up to my crotch. When I pulled myself back up I looked into the whole my leg made and saw something amazing. It was completely hollow in there. Like 4' of roots and covered in moss. The sub surface was sheer rock and it had water streaming down the face of it. No soil to be seen. And this was not just a small area, it was most of the face of the mountain. For those of you familiar with the Adirondacks this was Dix. And also explains the large areas of landslides on the northface. 

As for the Baron.  This is a well written tale about a boy who lives his whole life in the canopy of tress. He does it to escape his fathers unconditional strictness. It is written by Italo Calvino.


----------



## moss (Feb 12, 2008)

Adrpk said:


> If this is the case, I don't get how this survived. I am going to have to say writers license here. Tall tail, bs. That guy would be dead as a doornail.



It's not a tall tail. Preston is the most serious fact checker on the planet, his excellent reputation as a writer is based on it. He is extremely thorough.

I've only been in doug fir old-growth forest one time but I was impressed that there was not a clear point where you could say that the soil began and ended, the surface and subsurface was a porous tangled web of roots large and small, fern mats, rotted wood, mosses etc. I can see how it could absorb a fall. It's simple good luck that he didn't land on a protruding knob or stump. Remember also that he was hitting branches on the way down which absorbed impact and slowed him down. It also helped that he was a pro climber in very good physical shape.

An account of the same incident was published by a friend of the climber before The Wild Trees came out. There were multiple witnesses, and the guy was taken out by helicopter, difficult to get away with making that up. Because of my involvement with the book I know that Preston interviewed multiple sources for each subject area of the book. After he was done interviewing and wrote initial drafts a professional fact checker went back and reinterviewed to verify. It is amazing how much work goes into a book like this.
-moss


----------



## lxt (Feb 12, 2008)

M.D. Vaden said:


> If the book is semi-popular, Amazon probably has a review.
> 
> But would you like to paraphrase or explain what it's about in a paragraph or two?
> 
> I like to read.




why would you want him to paraphrase the book? M.D...Im sure you have read it, you like to read!! you seem to have a lot of book knowledge!!, so im just curious as to if the asking for the paraphase is for; entertaining a possible purchase or so you can tell him his interpretation is wrong & go off on some explanation why in an attempt to make yourself look intelligent.


LXT................


----------



## Burvol (Feb 12, 2008)

I don't care for Nascar, but you guys have obviously never seen what goes into developing those machines.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 12, 2008)

moss said:


> It's not a tall tail. Preston is the most serious fact checker on the planet, his excellent reputation as a writer is based on it. He is extremely thorough.
> 
> I've only been in doug fir old-growth forest one time but I was impressed that there was not a clear point where you could say that the soil began and ended, the surface and subsurface was a porous tangled web of roots large and small, fern mats, rotted wood, mosses etc. I can see how it could absorb a fall.



That's a good point.

The soil really changes under some of those trees after many years, and it does seem to be soft beneath the needle layer.

Even the rotted twigs become soft and spongy.

I don't recall the book mentioning ivy, but it's common in Portland's west hills where that happened. The ivy gets thick like a soft mattress sometimes. But that's speculative. I only recall the duff being mentioned.


----------



## moray (Feb 13, 2008)

*the big fall*

You can get some feel for the necessary softness of the forest floor by making a calculation. First the assumptions:

Assume, because limbs slowed his descent, he actually fell the equivalent of 80 feet.
Assume he landed on his back, the best survival attitude.
Assume he could survive 46g of deceleration. This is the maximum recorded by Colonel John Stapp during his rocket sled tests in the 1950's. He was facing forward for the record test because he was interested in pilot survival in actual crashes. There have been survivors in race car crashes where the calculated accelerations were far above 100g.
Assume the ground causes uniform deceleration, i.e., it produces exactly 46g of acceleration until the falling body is stopped.

Then the body will sink 21 inches into the decelerating sponge of material at the base of the tree.

If we assume instead that the deceleration uniformly increases from zero to a maximum when the body stops, and that maximum is 46g, then the body will sink 42 inches into the sponge.

The numbers certainly seem plausible to me.


----------



## moss (Feb 13, 2008)

Another variable to factor in is that he actually thought about it as he was falling and intentionally punched the ground at impact to protect his neck from breaking. He shattered his forearm (and wrist I think) which took something off the impact to his vital organs. Breaking ribs also absorbed shock (the rib cage doing its job). Can't remember what else broke, pelvis maybe, possibly a leg. Not a pretty or predictable way to survive. It was not survivable without timely advanced medical care.
-moss


----------



## techdave (Feb 14, 2008)

*get some Moray, nice calcs*

Good to see someone applying some physics to the bull session Homey!


----------



## Adkpk (Feb 14, 2008)

Moray, good to hear you read the baron. 

I see, I stand corrected. Moss I could tell Preston did his homework. (I think moray does his homework too.) One of the things that is amazing about the book is it's chocked full of interesting details. It was great how well he wove the story.


----------

