# 2 Ways to give Arboriculture a Black Eye



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 2, 2009)

One reply in the Recreational Climbing forum, prompted me to start this topic, because a lot more people read these forums than tree workers. I've met homeowners who have read these forums for years. They both learn and select professionals from here.

1. Working illegally without required license, bond and insurance - according to the *requirements of each area*.

At least in Oregon, when people get in trouble for working illegally, it does nothing to serve the advancement of the arborist profession here. It makes the profession as a whole, seem worth a bit less, and it raises the license fees for responsible arborists because of enforcement issues. On the public relations end, it's bad because so often the illegals are making the news more often than the good arborists doing daily good deeds.

2. Climbing Recreationally without required permits.

Within the past 1/2 year, more than one tree worker has been posting about recreational climbs in Rockefeller Forest area, on a couple of forums. Photos, videos and commentary. Promoting illigitimate climbing, again, is one more way to lessen the arborist profession as a whole.

Both #1 and #2 are irresponsible acts that tend to give arboriculture a black eye, especially if the individuals or companies are advertising being professionals. If they are Certified, such habits transform certification into dirt.

It's not that some folks don't have the skills to do that stuff, but where, when, and how it pops it's head up, may be a little bit like what "Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas".


----------



## Slvrmple72 (Jan 2, 2009)

Good post M.D.!


----------



## mckeetree (Jan 2, 2009)

Excellent post.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 2, 2009)

So mario, what damage has been done to Mr. Rockefeller's forests by these illigitimit climbers? I don't think any of my 4 certs has the slightest speck of soil from that. Cert is imo compromised far worse by pontificators who lack practical experience, and unqualified risk assessors covering their dumb butts by recommending removal because they don't understand much else..

Before you flip into denial mode re TreeCo's observation, note that you refer twice to climbers as "tree workers", as if these persons were distinct from and somehow lesser than 'arborists". As a CTW and a BCMA I'm offended doubly by that. :censored: It looks to me like an arborist who does not care to climb is hampered just as badly as a climber who does not care to learn about biology.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 2, 2009)

treeseer said:


> So mario, what damage has been done to Mr. Rockefeller's forests by these illigitimit climbers? I don't think any of my 4 certs has the slightest speck of soil from that. Cert is imo compromised far worse by pontificators who lack practical experience, and unqualified risk assessors covering their dumb butts by recommending removal because they don't understand much else..
> 
> Before you flip into denial mode re TreeCo's observation, note that you refer twice to climbers as "tree workers",



Why don't you answer the question ?? Do you have a conflict of interest on this one?

One climber I'm referring to, lists himself as "Certified". That seems like a poor side-by-side display when the certification is within visual reach of questionable activities. There is even a bigger difference between sneaking around climbing ninja style hushed, versus openly advertising that fact while simultaneously promoting oneself as a professional.



TreeCo said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> I don't think what rec climbers do has any reflection on arboriculture or on Certified Arborist.
> 
> I'm thinking a large part of what bothers you about the rec climbers is related to the fact that you are not a climber.



A large part is maybe that you don't understand what a World Heritage site is - also, most recreational climbers don't have proper training to know what they should or should not disrupt in the largest and tallest of protected forests.

Considering that other climbers from research, to arboriculture to recreation take issue with illigitimate climbing, do you have anything else that is relevant to responsible conduct in the forest?


----------



## Labman (Jan 2, 2009)

Are unlicensed people more prone to topping butchery?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 2, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> Unless they are doing damage to the trees in question I don't see a problem. I consider it a non violent expression of their love of trees...and their disdain for stuffed shirt rule makers!
> 
> So is your complaint that they are hurting the trees?
> 
> ...or that they are just breaking the rules?



Was I supposed to explain what a Stop sign means? The meaning of a Don't Enter Sign? Maybe what two solid lines in the middle of the road mean? 

As I wrote, they likely don't have the training to recognize what they may potentially affect. For the rest of your statement, it sounds like you are saying that if people know how to do something, they don't need to follow the laws and rules.

It's completly realistic, that a recreational climber could ignorantly waltz their way into a canopy, and damage a trap or device for scientific research that they did not see. And in doing so, could put an experiment or study months behind schedule, just from the selfish desire to climb where they have no permission to be.

Since I've read posts elsewhere about a recreational climber spotting what they thought were scientific research equipment within a short distance, this kind of accidental vandalism is very possible.

Would like to reiterate something from the first post at top:

"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"

Illegal climbing really has no place in the protected redwoods. But if an arborist is going to succumb to a climb, then it may be best to keep it in Vegas.



Labman said:


> Are unlicensed people more prone to topping butchery?



The question is not really on topic, since this opened with requirements for specific areas. I could give you an answer for my specific area of Portland, but I think any licensed - especially Certified - arborists in this city need not be told the answer to your question. If you don't know the answer for your specific area, it's probably best to keep a track record locally for a few years.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 3, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Since I've read posts elsewhere about a recreational climber spotting what they thought were scientific research equipment within a short distance, this kind of *accidental vandalism is very possible*.



LOL, so is an asteroid hitting you in the head! (possible but not probable)

Hysteria and hype, making mountains out of molehills.

You've been grinding the stone on this rec climbers in the Redwoods a lot since you waltzed in and started selling pictures right? Maybe they're getting a better view than a land lubber arborist can?  

Perhaps the scientist need to sign out there equipment so everyone knows where it is?

Perhaps areas need to be allocated for it.

Perhaps there's other solutions MARIO besides being a stick in the mud.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 3, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> One climber I'm referring to, lists himself as "Certified". That seems like a poor side-by-side display when the certification is within visual reach of questionable activities. There is even a bigger difference between sneaking around climbing ninja style hushed, versus openly advertising that fact while simultaneously promoting oneself as a professional.


OK Mario so next time if the guy wore another shirt would that be okay?


> A large part is maybe that you don't understand what a World Heritage site is - also, most recreational climbers don't have proper training to know what they should or should not disrupt in the largest and tallest of protected forests.


Well maybe you could explain this in advance. If a small area is part of a study then it should be marked off, or individual trees labelled so rec climbers could go elsewhere.

How big is this site?


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 3, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> Unless they are doing damage to the trees in question I don't see a problem.



In some micro-ecosystems entry alone can cause damage. Often times they are prone to compaction, or rope setting can disturb canopy environments.

Most rec climbers are "hey, big tree, let's climb it" mosses and such get disturbed at best.

There should be areas where no one should go. Where only knowledgeable people should enter for management of invasives and system health assessment. I'm of the same mind about ATV's, bikes and even hiking in some areas.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 3, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> In some micro-ecosystems entry alone can cause damage. Often times they are prone to compaction, or rope setting can disturb canopy environments.
> 
> Most rec climbers are "hey, big tree, let's climb it" mosses and such get disturbed at best.
> 
> There should be areas where no one should go. Where only knowledgeable people should enter for management of invasives and system health assessment. I'm of the same mind about ATV's, bikes and even hiking in some areas.



So tell me JPS, how many decades worth of damage was caused by arborists, certified or not, everytime they set their climbing lines and worked a tree prior to the cambium saver being developed in the 90's?

That's a mighty high horse you're talking down on folks from.

jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 3, 2009)

The simplicity of professionalism and legal - yes means yes, right means right, stop means stop. The ease of it removes arguing. Simplicity has done all the work.

opcorn: 

Ekka supplied questions. But the redwood forest is the land of what is, no the land of what if.

JP Sanborn chimes in with something productive, building on the subject.

There are simply two sides.

One side seems to argue for illegality in the same way someone might argue for legalizing prostitution. And the other side is not really arguing as much as just laying out the facts or boundaries.

Treeseer ... wherever you leave home base of tree knowledge and rules and regs, and go to shirt color questions, we're not even in the same arena of topic.

jomoco ... noticed that you hinted at trying to point at other people or points in history as the standard. Suggestion - the boundaries of the playing field avoid penalties.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 3, 2009)

jomoco said:


> That's a mighty high horse you're talking down on folks from.
> 
> jomoco



There is a great difference between an old growth stand and a 70 year old euc or oak in a residential setting. You get into these ancient old growth trees and they are micro-obligate ecosystems unto themselves. Mosses and epiphytes plants animals...

This is the hew and cry for the rainforest, and a very good reason for leaving our few remant forests alone.

Let's look at the small trees for a second. The oldest known tree is in a National Forest in CA, nicknamed Methuselah. The exact location is kept secret, to avoid people disturbing it and the other very old trees around it. 



> August 15, 2003 - Washington, D.C. - A seedling grown from what is believed to be the world's oldest living tree is about to find a new home at the U.S. Botanic Garden in Washington, DC. For some 4,700 years, a bristlecone pine called “Methuselah” has lived in a California forest. Its location is kept secret, for fear of vandalism and soil erosion from foot traffic. But with permission from the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the forest where Methuselah is found, the Champion Tree Project and the National Tree Trust grew a seedling of Methuselah that is being donated to the Botanic Garden.



Should anyone be able to go in and touch these trees, just because they are there?

There are other exceptional trees people can climb, some ought to be restricted, just as one would get detained for climbing a national monument.

I would even be for confiscation of equipment used in the offense. it is simple trespass, if you trespass on my property i should be able to confiscate your vehicle.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 3, 2009)

If someone is climbing in an area off limits, its against the law. Certified or not doesn't matter. People that look for arborists and such don't look in here to find them. They look in the phone book or newspaper. And how this hurts the industry is made up. How does it hurt the industry? What it hurts is the small guy trying to start a company on his own amongst a group of people that are maybe casting a shadow on him. the big companies don't care what the little guys are doing and their "industry" is fine. All this industry destruction talk is just crap.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 3, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> The simplicity of professionalism and legal - yes means yes, right means right, stop means stop. The ease of it removes arguing. Simplicity has done all the work.
> 
> opcorn:
> 
> ...



I just object to hypocrits on high horses lecturing on disturbing the moss on a tree when he used to punch holes in the tree itself to treat it "professionally".

I've got bigtime beefs with the ISA, the new NAA and the current modern mess that is the tree industry in the US, so you guys shouldn't feel like I'm picking on you, I got beefs with the entire friggin industry.

The biggest black eye we have today is our dirt cheap labor standards driving our noble profession into ruin. It's depressing and disheartening to the extent that I've advised both my sons to pursue other professions, because the tree industry is declining into a low wage loser.

The second most dangerous industry in the US, takes on a new light when you compare the average wage of a crab fisherman to the average wage of a treeworker.

How many more groundmen will get chipped alive before this industry gets it's act together enough to ensure it's not my son or daughter?

jomoco


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 3, 2009)

Some first rate stodgy old bickering going on here today boys! opcorn: 

I really want spring to get here already, lol.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 3, 2009)

jomoco said:


> I just object to hypocrits on high horses lecturing on disturbing the moss on a tree when he used to punch holes in the tree itself to treat it "professionally".
> 
> I've got bigtime beefs with the ISA, the new NAA and the current modern mess that is the tree industry in the US, so you guys shouldn't feel like I'm picking on you, I got beefs with the entire friggin industry.
> 
> ...


 i gotta agree with the above postid rather take a couple black eyes than watch and feel the affx of our profession being driven into ruin by the cheap anti American no citizenship immigrants and our greedy big corp. CEO's. GIVE EM HELL & RUN EM OUT!!


----------



## John464 (Jan 3, 2009)

jomoco said:


> The second most dangerous industry in the US, takes on a new light when you compare the average wage of a crab fisherman to the average wage of a treeworker.



Us employers are stuck too. All other industries are raising their prices. Our prices have had to drop. One tree 15 years ago I could of worked on for $1500, now I have to work on two trees on the property just like to get that same kinda money. We are able to do it faster than we did 15yrs ago since we use bucket trucks and grapples and bigger chippers, but still. We should be getting more money, not less, for this high risk work than we do.

Inflation rises and tree care deflates as more competitioon enters doing sub standard work with no insurance or proper safety training. Thats what killing our industry, not some guy rec climbing in the tree not charging $, just having fun. I could care less what the rec guy do, they aren't doing any treatment and not charging it does not have any effect on tree care operations who are doing it to provide a livelihood. 

Rub all the moss you want, make sure to give the tree a reach a round, you may find something that turns you on. Friggin huggers now complaining about merely touching trees, give me a break!


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 3, 2009)

*Soil compaction issues*

Yeah I hear you on the moss rubbing john 464, tried to rep you for that whole post, but it says I gotta spread some around.

Another thing to consider however is soil compaction issues and potential damage to buttress roots if one of them dirty hippies falls from that high!!

Is petulie oil a potential hazard to the forest ecosystem??


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 3, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> ... Another thing to consider however is soil compaction issues and potential damage to buttress roots if one of them dirty hippies falls from that high!!
> 
> Is petulie oil a potential hazard to the forest ecosystem??



Did you ever see the crying tree hugger video at Youtube? Your reply about the oil or aroma reminded me of one video response to that one ...

Youtube Video Response to Crying Tree Hippie Types

Fairly amusing.

opcorn:



jomoco said:


> The biggest black eye we have today is our dirt cheap labor standards driving our noble profession into ruin.



Could have named the topic "3 ways" then ...


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 3, 2009)

*Thanks for that vid MD*

".....practically beg the local Grizzly population to deficate on us", lol.


----------



## Brush Hog (Jan 3, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> One side seems to argue for illegality in the same way someone might argue for legalizing prostitution.



Now we're talkin'


----------



## treevet (Jan 3, 2009)

Our county's government was founded in the climate of breaking unjust laws.

You say not to climb these trees just because it is against the law.

Laws were made to be broken (or at least changed).

I sit on my town's Urban Forestry Board. I am the only one of 7 that knows anything about trees and their care. But this does not stop them from legislating. The main thing in their minds is that they just "love those trees" even tho they haven't cared enough to crack a book in their honor.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 3, 2009)

Prostitution is legal here, thought it was in most places, cant believe people still argue about it.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 3, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> In some micro-ecosystems entry alone can cause damage. Often times they are prone to compaction, or rope setting can disturb canopy environments.
> 
> Most rec climbers are "hey, big tree, let's climb it" mosses and such get disturbed at best.
> 
> There should be areas where no one should go. Where only knowledgeable people should enter for management of invasives and system health assessment. I'm of the same mind about ATV's, bikes and even hiking in some areas.



I could not disagree more. People, just like animals should be allowed to walk any wilderness they choose. Coons, Bears, Porkupines, etc... do whatever they want all the time, often wounding and killing trees. To worry about a human compacting the soil or rubbing some moss off a tree is missing the big picture.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 3, 2009)

So how big are these Heritage sites anyway? If reasonably small, respect the efforts of scientists and stf out. If a group has done the work to document a site and set up research, understand that these are the guys who advance our knowledge base about trees and hence our whole industry.

Makes sense to respect that. I've seen redwoods in Yosemite fenced off to limit compaction, and wondered what % of the rootzone they protected. Seems silly in a way but the idea is good so why not respect it.

I'm all for civil disobedience when the cause is just. "I wanna climb this protected tree instead of these other 10,000 unprotected trees" seems adolescent. :welcome:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 3, 2009)

Nailsbeats said:


> I could not disagree more. People, just like animals should be allowed to walk any wilderness they choose. Coons, Bears, Porkupines, etc... do whatever they want all the time, often wounding and killing trees. To worry about a human compacting the soil or rubbing some moss off a tree is missing the big picture.




Cool ...

What's your address - we'll start with that one, as we choose.

Since animals go into other animal homes, and take other animal stuff.


----------



## fishercat (Jan 3, 2009)

*i have to disagree.*

what gives us a black eye here is a guy(company) bidding jobs while touting all the credentials and insurance,then getting the job,not being on it but releasing all his drunk and stoned, incompetent workers loose on the unsuspectiong client(s) who thought they hired professionals.


----------



## treevet (Jan 3, 2009)

treeseer said:


> So how big are these Heritage sites anyway? If reasonably small, respect the efforts of scientists and stf out. If a group has done the work to document a site and set up research, understand that these are the guys who advance our knowledge base about trees and hence our whole industry.
> 
> Makes sense to respect that. I've seen redwoods in Yosemite fenced off to limit compaction, and wondered what % of the rootzone they protected. Seems silly in a way but the idea is good so why not respect it.
> 
> I'm all for civil disobedience when the cause is just. "I wanna climb this protected tree instead of these other 10,000 unprotected trees" seems adolescent. :welcome:



I can see staying off of a research site but not to be able to climb a tree just because it is old.....that sucks. If it were legal and the quality of the climb/climber was screened then more than likely beneficial things would occur by high level arbs contributing observations and offering solutions to maladies
( compaction would be easy to correct or control).

Maybe you see this as adolescent bcs you are just plain too old to climb anymore Guy? oke: and Vaden.....he's always been an armchair arb.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 4, 2009)

treevet said:


> .... just plain too old to climb anymore Guy? oke:


Hahahaha you crack me up Dave. Still climb regularly, thanks...just a little more slowly. :monkey: 

It's the break-in, illegal, ninja aspect that seems unprofessional, so Mario may have a point....beyond being jealous that he can't get the money shots (which are aerial, of course) oke:


----------



## treevet (Jan 4, 2009)

Me too, but I like to use the term "carefully" as I think loss of speed is made up for by experience in technique and pre engineering the climb/tasks.

As for the "ninja" aspect....wouldn't be the case if it wasn't illegal but a "ninja climb" has gotta be a little more fun than a regular old climb.:biggrinbounce2: :rockn: :biggrinbounce2:


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 4, 2009)

Nailsbeats said:


> To worry about a human compacting the soil or rubbing some moss off a tree is missing the big picture.



I think this view misses the bigg*er* picture. Conservation of commonly held property for generations, not just for us, now.

I want to go see it, so i should be able to drive my 4x4 in there.

Pretty orchid, or cactus I should be able to pick it and take it home.

Or even more simple and straight forward, why should everybody passing by the city park in the spring not be able to pick a daffodil or tulip? At least first come first serve til they are all gone.




> If it were legal and the quality of the climb/climber was screened then more than likely beneficial things would occur by high level arbs contributing observations and offering solutions to maladies



Too many cooks in the kitchen, and how many good climbers do you know who are not qualified to give an opinion on PHC?

There are some areas that should remain stay on the marked trail, or go to jail. (yes that was hyperboli, a stiff fine would be good)



> I just object to hypocrits on high horses lecturing on disturbing the moss on a tree when he used to punch holes in the tree itself to treat it "professionally".



once again, there is a difference between a tree in a NatPark and a residential setting. I've been in a couple big redwoods, and I've done a little rec climbing. I'm not saying do not do it, I'm saying that there are places we should not go.

To pick my statement about moss shows an ignorance about ecosystems, it is more then moss. It is more then the one climber going into the tree, it is the succession of people over time doing so.

For that matter, when the professional climber going into a forest tree on a rec climb, he is no longer acting as a professional. Especially if it is a nogo area.



> Our county's government was founded in the climate of breaking unjust laws.
> 
> You say not to climb these trees just because it is against the law.
> 
> Laws were made to be broken (or at least changed).




This is not civil disobedience we are talking about here. It is like the cracker "survivalist" driving on the roads without a license because he feels he is not bound by the laws of the land.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Jan 4, 2009)

After reading "The Wild Trees," I wrote the author a nasty letter. It thoroughly po'd me that this group of Ninja climbers (covered in the book), once they became older and became "The Establishment," took so many steps to make sure that no other climbers could climb "their trees," citing the usual environmental sensitivity issues. 

Look, if research is going on in a tree, post a :censored: ing sign at its base and let others know not to climb it, for now. I really, really hate the elitist bs that the guys in the book, as above, got into once they got their degrees, published some articles and gave some lectures, complete with TV appearances. Now they try to tell us all what we should or should not do. That's garbage! They climbed, and continue to climb, the giants in the forests. Of course they now make money selling their "view from the top" posters and such, but that is no reason to keep us from climbing those trees that are not being actively researched with canopy-placed monitors and tests.

My degree is in Biology, with heavy Ecology work. I know about microclimates and yes, you may effect the same when you climb a huge tree. The thing is, if you are not climbing it over and over again, the tree will get on with its business, over time, and life will go on. The odds of climbers seeking out the same tree are lessened simply by the fact that there are so many trees to climb. If a given tree is attracting groups to the extent that wear and tear issues come into play, then, and only then, should climbing restrictions be placed on it.

To try and stop people from climbing trees just because they have been around for centuries and may suffer some minor damage by improper rope placement, broken minor branches, etc., seems absurd. These trees have weathered, literally, the ravages of time and a few puny humans are not going to cause them to fall over at the drop of a hat, repeated climbing by group after group notwithstanding.

To make it clear: I am not saying that everyone should do just as they please, without any restrictions. Rather, by monitoring those trees that are being climbed, a given oversight body can take measures to make sure that the trees being climbed do not go into decline because of those activities. Certain trees should be off-limits if they are too stressed, but most trees will be just fine with a certain amount of climbing. In fact, if climbers pay fees for climbing, then everyone makes out better if those fees go back to the trees.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 4, 2009)

Sunrise Guy said:


> After reading "The Wild Trees," I wrote the author a nasty letter. It thoroughly po'd me that this group of Ninja climbers (covered in the book), once they became older and became "The Establishment," took so many steps to make sure that no other climbers could climb "their trees," citing the usual environmental sensitivity issues.



It's pretty cool that you sent Preston a letter. Now .. I don't agree with your particulalar reason. But I thought he could use a few words for some other stuff in the book. I still like the story, but there are certain things he wrote, and certain ways he decribed them, that seem worth a few words.

SUNRISE GUY ...

Did you read my Climbing Wear & Tear to Redwoods page?

*> * http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_climbing.shtml

Sounds like you might like the end of the page. There are some suggestions for ideas on how recreational climbers could get into the old growth more often. Not sure if the page might make Sillett want to pull some hair out, but the first version was only about researchers in the redwoods. Kind of a Wild Card subject. And the more I thought about it, the more I thought that Recreational Climbers should be added.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 4, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Cool ...
> 
> What's your address - we'll start with that one, as we choose.
> 
> Since animals go into other animal homes, and take other animal stuff.



Why don't you come on over, we'll go for a long walk.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 4, 2009)

Nailsbeats said:


> Why don't you come on over, we'll go for a long walk.


lmao there's a couple blk eyes fer ya M.D.oke: yer an animal Nails!!!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 4, 2009)

> Certain trees should be off-limits if they are too stressed, but most trees will be just fine with a certain amount of climbing.



That is pretty much what i am saying, if the area is restricted to foot traffic then no one should be allowed to enter.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 4, 2009)

Nailsbeats said:


> Why don't you come on over, we'll go for a long walk.



Your reply seems to contradict your ealier statement that people can go and do as they wish.



(WLL) said:


> lmao there's a couple blk eyes fer ya M.D.oke: yer an animal Nails!!!



I don't know ...

When I was just 16 years, these big football players - a Hawaiian and Samoan - from PSU football team ganged up on me simultaneously. Anyway, The Samoan vacated immediately after hearing screams from other guy. In months following, we got along pretty darned good. They were co-workers.

I don't believe in fighting. Fights are foolish. Defending is much more honest.

So your statement seems highly impractical - LOL


----------



## Blakesmaster (Jan 4, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Your reply seems to contradict your ealier statement that people can go and do as they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm glad we can all get together and have these nice chats.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 4, 2009)

Blakesmaster said:


> I'm glad we can all get together and have these nice chats.



Seems some of the best, are the ones we can get together with.

Last time was beer and Fish & Chips


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Jan 4, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> (snip)
> 
> SUNRISE GUY ...
> 
> ...



Good article, really good. I like the fact that you are not preaching hard for one approach over another. I think that a fee-based climbing permit that limits climbs and specifies trees is the way to go.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 4, 2009)

Sunrise Guy said:


> Good article, I think that a fee-based climbing permit that limits climbs and specifies trees is the way to go.


+1


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 5, 2009)

> > _by Nailsbeats _
> > Why don't you come on over, we'll go for a long walk.
> 
> 
> Your reply seems to contradict your ealier statement that people can go and do as they wish.



I think he is taking it that you are saying you will come in and take his stuff and he wants to leave you in a humic hotel room. 

So it would seem to me that he is advocating survival of the fittest. My question would be that if you were the one to walk out of the woods, would you get his stuff?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 5, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I think he is taking it that you are saying you will come in and take his stuff and he wants to leave you in a humic hotel room.
> 
> So it would seem to me that he is advocating survival of the fittest.



So you're thinking he's considering a different wavelength than the reply Oxman posted in the Recreational Forum?

I thought he was adhering of the same temple of thought as Oxman - not survival of the fittest, but go where you want, when you want.

Seen the Oxman / treedr site content before ...

http://treedr.net

Here's what Oxman replied in the Rec. Climb. forum ...



Oxman said:


> We doan need no stinkeeng permits.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 5, 2009)

> So you're thinking he's considering a different wavelength than the reply Oxman posted in the Recreational Forum?
> 
> I thought he was adhering of the same temple of thought as Oxman - not survival of the fittest, but go where you want, when you want.



I think they are on the same wavelength as to climbing on public land, but if you F'd with Nels property you'd be meeting his Brown Bess


----------



## lxt (Jan 5, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> One reply in the Recreational Climbing forum, prompted me to start this topic, because a lot more people read these forums than tree workers. I've met homeowners who have read these forums for years. They both learn and select professionals from here.
> 
> 1. Working illegally without required license, bond and insurance - according to the *requirements of each area*.
> 
> ...




I`ll agree on #1....BUT, even if one has all these it doesnt mean their workmanship is any good, so if some one doesnt have whats reqiured & does the work properly.....who really is giving the black eye?

#2 I disagree on...other than for the aspects of fun or some adrenaline junkie like fix..............it is for recreation!! irresponsible...maybe, but if your complaint is them being unknowledgeable & disturbing micro-ecosystems & such......then I ask you, how many knowledgeable people with permits (scientists) have went aloft in these organisms only to disturb that which they never Knew existed & threaten that which they knew did?

Now Mario......I have went round with you before in your question answering merry-go-round, lets debate the topic you have chosen, converse intelligently & not answer a question with a question!! OK?


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


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 5, 2009)

Just for the sake of looking at viewpoints, I was considering what would be fair from the side that thinks they should be able to climb the redwoods in the protected world heritage site.

Suppose they were given the go-ahead ...

In that case, any and everybody who is a recreational climber worldwide, would have free reign to climb those redwoods.

It seems that it would be just a matter of years until climbers from all over the country and worldwide, would be descending on the redwoods.

Odds are, it would greatly alter the atmosphere for people taking to the trails for enjoyment and photography. It could be, that every trail would have one or several climbers going up and down trees.

At least that seems to be how the other alternative would develop.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 5, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Just for the sake of looking at viewpoints, I was considering what would be fair from the side that thinks they should be able to climb the redwoods in the protected world heritage site.
> 
> Suppose they were given the go-ahead ...
> 
> ...




Somehow I rather doubt the bark and cambial damage on large redwoods from recreational climbing would be anywhere near the damage I saw firsthand in the sycamores at WO Hart park used for work climbs and aerial rescue by the WCISA here in socal in 1991 when I got certified.

Those sycamore trees had dying heads because of the severe damage inflicted on them by the WCISA to certify CA climbers over the years prior to cambium savers being invented by me that same year as a direct result of the damage to the heads of every tree I climbed that very day.

There's another irony here in that the recreational climber is far more likely to take his time and actually use a cambium saving device of some kind than the average paid tree climber would.

I'll bet that over half the pro climbers don't use any cambium saving device on their pruned trees to this very day, despite them being on the market now for sixteen friggin years!

The more the general public gets interested in trees and their well being including climbing them recreationally the better, it should be celebrated and encouraged in all it's many forms in my opinion. People need to get off their azzes and get some exercise anyway, and it shouldn't cost a dime to do it other than equipment and training.

jomoco
jomoco


----------



## treevet (Jan 5, 2009)

I'd have trouble passing up that wound without cleaning off the dead bark, with a hammer and chisel (delicately so as not to injure the woundwood) so a very advantageous environment for fungi and insects would be eliminated. Take a few moments and a little pay back for a free climb.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 5, 2009)

jomoco said:


> Somehow I rather doubt the bark and cambial damage on large redwoods from recreational climbing would be anywhere near the damage I saw firsthand in the sycamores at WO Hart park used for work climbs ...
> 
> jomoco
> jomoco



Cambial damage? Not certain that's the concern in the redwoods.

I think there is other stuff of greater concern. Like wildlife.

*What would happen to this > * Giant Fern Mat and Canopy Soil / Heart of Poseidon

How long would this kind of canopy epiphyte growth and habitat last, if recreational climbers are shooting lines into trees where they can't clearly see all the details? It's not like researchers that learn a tree and return. Recreational climbing of redwoods could result in dozens of people scaling trees that they were unfamiliar with.

That one example is in Poseidon, in the group called the Four Horsemen at Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 5, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Cambial damage? Not certain that's the concern in the redwoods.
> 
> I think there is other stuff of greater concern. Like wildlife.
> 
> ...



As long as the minor damage incurred during recreational climbing keeps the redwoods from being cut down and turned into decking, it's a good thing in my opinion.

jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 5, 2009)

jomoco said:


> As long as the minor damage incurred during recreational climbing keeps the redwoods from being cut down and turned into decking, it's a good thing in my opinion.
> 
> jomoco



That redwood and others are already protected and exempt from being cut down now.

So the question is still sort of on the table.


----------



## treevet (Jan 5, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> That redwood and others are already protected and exempt from being cut down now.
> 
> So the question is still sort of on the table.



If the question is still sort of on the table ....then my opinion...let em climb em.

(as long as they qualify with intentions to go low impact)


----------



## jomoco (Jan 5, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> That redwood and others are already protected and exempt from being cut down now.
> 
> So the question is still sort of on the table.



If that logic is extrapolated out in it's authoritarian intent sir, no-one would be allowed to climb mount everest or K2 because of the wear and tear their gear and excrements would inflict on those mountains, wearing the rocks and polluting the pristine environment.


They're there, and we are free to climb them if we can, be they mountains or trees.

jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 5, 2009)

jomoco said:


> If that logic is extrapolated out in it's authoritarian intent sir, no-one would be allowed to climb mount everest or K2 because of the wear and tear their gear and excrements would inflict on those mountains, wearing the rocks and polluting the pristine environment.
> 
> 
> They're there, and we are free to climb them if we can, be they mountains or trees.
> ...



There ain't no way that a few puny humans each year, climbing a mountain that is miles high and probably billions of cubic yards, even compares to a redwood, no matter how big the tree is.

And tree climbers are in constant contact with the tree and life attached to it, whereas climbers on Everest are not always in contact with the mountain.

A glacier is not part of a mountain, in the same way that bark is part of the tree. Bark cannot be replenished from the exterior, in the same way that a glacier can be replenished.

And there are far fewer takers for Everest anyway, since historically, 1 in every 10 people who have attempted Everest have died.

Is there a realistic comparison on the horizon somewhere ?

And the old "free to climb them" rhetoric, sounds a lot like the "laws were made to be broken" rhetoric. The main oversight for most people who retort "laws were made to be broken" is ignoring what handcuffs, fines and prisons were made for, too.

opcorn:


----------



## Slvrmple72 (Jan 5, 2009)

The more people allowed to climb these rare and unique trees the more unnatural damage they will be subjected to. Just because we can/ because they are there doesn't mean we shouldn't practice some measure of restraint. The greater interest people have in rec climbing of trees is good but as can be seen from the newer limits and restrictions on rock climbing the same thing will start to happen with rec. tree climbing. Hell, in my son's lifetime they may be bitshing about the soiling of the moon's pristine lunar surface from too many vacationers! Tread lightly, preserve for future generations, and conserve global resources.... b4 it is too late.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 5, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> There ain't no way that a few puny humans each year, climbing a mountain that is miles high and probably billions of cubic yards, even compares to a redwood, no matter how big the tree is.
> 
> And tree climbers are in constant contact with the tree and life attached to it, whereas climbers on Everest are not always in contact with the mountain.
> 
> ...



Perhaps the real irony lies in your whining about bark damage on one of the thickest barked trees in the world? I can pretty much guarantee you that the redwood trees themselves outnumber the humans with the balls and actual ability to climb them.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Jan 6, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> Write up the poll you want and I'll add it to the thread.



Why don't you put a poll on your thread?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Slvrmple72 said:


> The more people allowed to climb these rare and unique trees the more unnatural damage they will be subjected to. Just because we can/ because they are there doesn't mean we shouldn't practice some measure of restraint. The greater interest people have in rec climbing of trees is good but as can be seen from the newer limits and restrictions on rock climbing the same thing will start to happen with rec. tree climbing. Hell, in my son's lifetime they may be bitshing about the soiling of the moon's pristine lunar surface from too many vacationers! Tread lightly, preserve for future generations, and conserve global resources.... b4 it is too late.



What you just wrote, is very simiilar to what I meant earlier in this topic, or over in the Recreational Climbing forum, that illegal climbing by a few people, can be at the expense of the goals of the many responsible ones.

It's very possible that illegal activity could give non-participants who have influence, a bad impression of climbers in general.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> What you just wrote, is very simiilar to what I meant earlier in this topic, or over in the Recreational Climbing forum, that illegal climbing by a few people, can be at the expense of the goals of the many responsible ones.
> 
> It's very possible that illegal activity could give non-participants who have influence, a bad impression of climbers in general.



Ask yourself who gives arborists and professional climbers the real blackeye, recreational climbers or fly by night wannabe hackers in pickup trucks mauling everything they spike up?

You ate the wrong side of the shroom and are shrinking in the tempest of your own authoritarian teacup my friend.

jomoco


----------



## lxt (Jan 6, 2009)

jomoco said:


> Ask yourself who gives arborists and professional climbers the real blackeye, recreational climbers or fly by night wannabe hackers in pickup trucks mauling everything they spike up?
> 
> You ate the wrong side of the shroom and are shrinking in the tempest of your own authoritarian teacup my friend.
> 
> jomoco




Thats flippin funny!!

M.D why no response to post #49? especially the point presented in the latter part of #2

If you think that people from all over the world will descend upon the redwood forest, inhibit the trail hikers serene jaunt by way of cluttering up the walking paths with climbing debris & gatorades..... you need to go back to ground pruning of trees off an orchard ladder!! C`mon Mario....


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


----------



## RedlineIt (Jan 6, 2009)

MDVaden asked:


> Is there a realistic comparison on the horizon somewhere ?



Recreational diving of endangered/threatened coral reefs, delicate historic wrecks, etc.

Before you say that divers float and do not touch or interact with marine microecosystems, some divers make every effort in this regard, some don't.

The parallel between "damage" from marine research and rec diving also pretty fair, I'd say. Also the dive community's beefs with which certifications mean anything, which are meaningless, which independent regulating bodies are just a money-grab. Debate over whether every diver needs to hire a dive-guide for certain sites or whether to go what you would call "Ninja".

So how do you envision it Mario? All rec climbing of old growth redwoods off limits? Climbs limited to research only? Should climb-guide certs be issued, and climbing limited to guided climbs and only in certain trees?

If the dive scene is any parallel, you'll never get consensus, nor compliance, nor enforcement. Having said that, jomoco's got the key point: There are easily a thousand times as many divers that can make the plunge as there are climbers that will tackle the monster trees. Tempests/ Teapots.


RedlineIt


RedlineIt


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 6, 2009)

Slvrmple72 said:


> Just because we can/ because they are there doesn't mean we shouldn't practice some measure of restraint.




Welcome to the minority club  Next they will want to climb the Statue of Liberty 

As for rock climbing, there are many routs that are off limits to any climbing.

Many of the boulders in the Bolder CO area are because they are too soft a sandstone.

I believe in the ecosystem preserve model where there are varied levels of public access to different parts of the preserve.




> Tempests/ Teapots.



I have to disagree, he is not talking about every redwood in the forest, but remnant stands currently restricted to even foot traffic. Should every one be ably to walk up and touch the trunk?


----------



## ddhlakebound (Jan 6, 2009)

Shigo: "Touch Trees"

M.D. Vaden: Don't hurt the trees by touching them....

PFFT....This thread FAILS. 

As Jomoco stated, the more people we have interested in trees, touching trees, climbing trees, learning about trees, admiring trees, (from the top or the bottom), the better off TREES will be in the long run. 

And isn't that the goal of our industry....to help trees, directly through our work, and indirectly though the knowledge we pass on, so that others can care more for trees too? Or is the goal just to make money off the trees?

I feel theres a possibility that MD's ideas may be MORE destructive than current practice. 

If the trees are there, free to be climbed, the guy who's climbing them is doing so for the experience of being in the trees. He's much more likely to be patient and careful during his climb. He/she feels the natural instinct to care for the tree, simply because they feel the public ownership of it. 

Take away that feeling of public ownership, and now the guy climbing it is doing so not so much for the experience of climbing the tree, as for the experience of visibly saying FU to the authorities who arbitrarily decided that he/she wasn't allowed to climb. How much will that inspire patience and care?

Yes, rec climbing could possibly damage micro-ecosystems. So could wind, ice, and wildlife. Taking away the feeling of public ownership could damage the whole ecosystem. 

Would you rather have people freely experiencing nature, as god intended, or seal off those areas, so that they become the domain of those with illegal intent. (cooks, farmers, timber thieves, vandals). 

Seems to me the practical way to care for our treasured forests is to have people who care that they remain in them, touching them, climbing them, and overseeing that those who would do REAL DAMAGE are kept out, or to a minimum. 

I do realize that there are a few select individual trees that require protection, and should not be climbed. 

Go ahead, touch trees.


----------



## lxt (Jan 6, 2009)

JPS, provide some opinions then in regard as to who gets to climb & how it should be gone about,*As for the topic of giving arboriculture a black eye M.D is way off base in the Rec climb scenario!!!!* 

what I read in some posts such as yours is that because something can be disturbed means it will be ruined & therefore we shouldnt do it! or seems to be what some including yourself are hinting at????

If this is the point being made & you select few think that Rec. Climbers are going to do more damage than nature....think storms!! you are crazy! look at all the information Sillett/Preston & company got from their excursions.


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


----------



## lxt (Jan 6, 2009)

D#@n Good post ddh!!!  


LXT......


----------



## RedlineIt (Jan 6, 2009)

> Shigo: "Touch Trees"
> 
> M.D. Vaden: Don't hurt the trees by touching them....


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

lxt said:


> Thats flippin funny!!
> 
> M.D why no response to post #49? especially the point presented in the latter part of #2



Read all the replies? I already wrote about the difference between arborists entering a tree once and not knowing what's there, versus a continuous stream of random climbers, each new the tree. The scientists already know the tree.

The difference is so big between the 2 types of climbers, I'm surprised you did not already supply the answer.

Working with trees, it's amazing what I remember. I'll be in a tree where sunburn damage is only visible on the top of limbs, and I'll remember that it's there for years. Certainly the scientists are taking photos too, in addition to recollection.

In fact, they have the canopies mapped out.

You've never seen the website of the researcher outside the USA, who has a bunch of stuff on his site about tree mapping, have you? Even Dr. Sillett has the epiphyte locations mapped and recorded: sizes, elevations weights. The researchers have the trunk, stem and branches mapped and measured too, for many of the trees.

And you would even BEGIN to compare recreation climbers and scientist climbers ?



ddhlakebound said:


> Shigo: "Touch Trees"
> 
> M.D. Vaden: Don't hurt the trees by touching them....
> 
> ...



My impression is that you are rather new to the more refined aspects of arboriculture and forest management. Less than 7 years - right?

Especially after trying to quote one verse to make a point.

Pay attention to context.

Even Shigo wrote on one page that there was a perfect time of year to prune, and then on virtually the next page, said pruning can be done any time of year. Stick around for a while, and read the big picture.

jomoco's suggestion - in context - that climbers should climb at will, world heritage site protected old growth with endangered species, sounds like another form of tree butchery the way I see it. It would fit in the same tree guide book as painting pruning cuts, topping trees and using black plastic under mulch. Did you actually read to know just which particular trees we are talking about?

And pertaining to something else your wrote, there already are a few trees set aside not to climb. Set aside and protected by people trained to figure that out. It's their job, and they set the rules. The rules are not difficult ones.. You seem to have missed the premise for the topic.


----------



## treevet (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Even Shigo wrote on one page that there was a perfect time of year to prune, and then on virtually the next page, said pruning can be done any time of year.



Wrong!......Avoid pruning when leaves are forming or falling.

What book....what page?


----------



## ClimbinArbor (Jan 6, 2009)

alot of good points in here.... im almost (almost) bashfull about throwing in my 2 cents on this thread, due to the fragile nature of the subject....

i love trees.
i mean i really love trees...
i am also a rec climber, as well as prof. climber.

MDV has it right, for the most part...... There are countless climbers out there that do not truly understand trees as some of us do. these people SHOULD NOT be allowed to climb these landmark trees. 

BUT, what about the ones that DO know how to enter and manuever(sp) around a tree in the least damaging way??? 

If a scientist can place experiments in one than shouldnt a trained arborist be able to climb the same tree???

I believe that if a man (or woman) can climb a tree properly then they should not be denied the oppurotunity(sp) to experience the some of the greatest views of the world possible.


----------



## clearance (Jan 6, 2009)

Big old trees are mighty tough, I climbed old growth for a year, I know. Those trees are going to still be there, climbed or not, or like the trees I climbed, windfirmed and topped in the bush, with spurs. 
I have seen trees that have taken nasty beatings, like an 8' red cedar that got hit with a 200' tall Hemlock, that pretty well sidelimbed it ground to sky. Or spruces that once were well over 200' that had their tops ripped off by the wind at around 100' and 4' through. Still alive, still growing strong. 

You think some spurless tourists are going to hurt these trees ya'll are talkng about?

What a silly topic.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

treevet said:


> Wrong!......Avoid pruning when leaves are forming or falling.
> 
> What book....what page?



That's right ... be A Lert - the world needs more lerts.

That's the perfect time ... when those are not occuring. Again, what I refer to as the "Perfect" time.

But Shigo did NOT say it couldn't be done at all, because in the same paragraph he still said pruning can be done "ANY" time.

Got any more wheels you want to reinvent?


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Read all the replies? I already wrote about the difference between arborists entering a tree once and not knowing what's there, versus a continuous stream of random climbers, each new the tree. The scientists already know the tree.
> 
> The difference is so big between the 2 types of climbers, I'm surprised you did not already supply the answer.
> 
> ...



Has anyone considered the huge over-riding scientific contradiction inherant in Vadens authoritarian wish to ban us evolved apes from climbing the same friggin trees we did eons ago?

Symbiosis between man and trees is kinda difficult to achieve when they're kept apart sir.

My goal as a senior arborist is scienifically proving that trees are more than capable of providing man far more benefits and value in a living state, rather than a dead one.

Integrating cities and communities into the forests of the world rather than clear cutting them to build cities in THEIR place is a symbiotic thought worthy of a certain garden they claim existed in biblical times.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> That's right ... be A Lert - the world needs more lerts.
> 
> That's the perfect time ... when those are not occuring.
> 
> ...



Again, ....what book....what page...does he say pruning can be done anytime......#### breath.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

treevet said:


> Again, ....what book....what page...does he say pruning can be done anytime......#### breath.



A NEW TREE BIOLOGY.

Same page that he wrote what you were talking about, that you did not realize I was referring too.

I thought you had already opened to the page. Already shelved the book. It was in a pruning chapter 33 a ways into it.

He wrote "try" to avoid, but clearly left the door open to pruning "any" time.


----------



## treevet (Jan 6, 2009)

treevet said:


> Again, ....what book....what page...does he say pruning can be done anytime......#### breath.



You edited your post and I responded to the first one.


----------



## treevet (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> A NEW TREE BIOLOGY.
> 
> Same page that he wrote what you were talking about, that you did not realize I was referring too.
> 
> ...



You are a master of disguise (A$$) and I give up. Simply wanted the page before you edited/altered everything you postured up about.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> A NEW TREE BIOLOGY.
> 
> Same page that he wrote what you were talking about, that you did not realize I was referring too.
> 
> ...



Anyone that makes one pruning cut on certain species of trees during certain insect flight seasons needs to hand in his piece of friggin paper certifying his idiocy for using it as TP.

jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

jomoco said:


> Has anyone considered the huge over-riding scientific contradiction inherant in Vadens authoritarian wish to ban us evolved apes from climbing the same friggin trees we did eons ago? ...
> 
> jomoco



Apes climbing redwoods? Never heard of such a thing.

And these are today's redwoods - not Jurassic redwoods.

Grasping at straws aren't you opcorn:

We are in the present - not the past. There is no Reincarnate National Redwood Park.



jomoco said:


> Anyone that makes one pruning cut on certain species of trees during certain insect flight seasons needs to hand in his piece of friggin paper certifying his idiocy for using it as TP.
> 
> jomoco



More grasping at straws.

Looking for one of those few isolated exceptions to define a general rule. Not a wise path. General rules are general rules, and exceptions are exceptions.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

treevet said:


> You are a master of disguise (A$$) and I give up. Simply wanted the page before you edited/altered everything you postured up about.



Like I said - the book was shelved. If I already found the place once, I wasn't about to open the book and look for the chapter again to feed your manner of asking.

Figured you could find it yourself.

The chapter won't be leaving soon - the paragraph will still be there.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Apes climbing redwoods? Never heard of such a thing.
> 
> And these are today's redwoods - not Jurassic redwoods.
> 
> ...



The guy that puts racoon shielding on redwoods with nesting bald eagles in them could school you on the science of natural arboreal climbers using trees to survive MD Vaden.

jomoco


----------



## clearance (Jan 6, 2009)

clearance said:


> Big old trees are mighty tough, I climbed old growth for a year, I know. Those trees are going to still be there, climbed or not, or like the trees I climbed, windfirmed and topped in the bush, with spurs.
> I have seen trees that have taken nasty beatings, like an 8' red cedar that got hit with a 200' tall Hemlock, that pretty well sidelimbed it ground to sky. Or spruces that once were well over 200' that had their tops ripped off by the wind at around 100' and 4' through. Still alive, still growing strong.
> 
> You think some spurless tourists are going to hurt these trees ya'll are talkng about?
> ...



Well said Clearance, well said, I would rep you but I'm all out.


----------



## treevet (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Like I said - the book was shelved. If I already found the place once, I wasn't about to open the book and look for the chapter again to feed your manner of asking.
> 
> Figured you could find it yourself.
> 
> The chapter won't be leaving soon - the paragraph will still be there.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

clearance said:


> Big old trees are mighty tough, I climbed old growth for a year, I know. Those trees are going to still be there, climbed or not, or like the trees I climbed, windfirmed and topped in the bush, with spurs.
> I have seen trees that have taken nasty beatings, like an 8' red cedar that got hit with a 200' tall Hemlock, that pretty well sidelimbed it ground to sky. Or spruces that once were well over 200' that had their tops ripped off by the wind at around 100' and 4' through. Still alive, still growing strong.
> 
> You think some spurless tourists are going to hurt these trees ya'll are talkng about?
> ...



Did you look at the link I posted to the photo at Dunklin's album?

Or did you sort of skim the thread?

Did you think this was just about the redwoods?

And TREEVET ...

The old dude still has his eyes open, just like you had.


----------



## clearance (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Did you look at the link I posted to the photo at Dunklin's album?
> 
> Or did you sort of skim the thread?
> 
> Did you think this was just about the redwoods?



I skimmed the thread, I admit it. But whatever, they make a new tree every day, they grow back, they are tough, and so on. I will slink off now M.D., I am after all just a lowly utility guy.


----------



## ddhlakebound (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> My impression is that you are rather new to the more refined aspects of arboriculture and forest management. Less than 7 years - right?
> 
> Especially after trying to quote one verse to make a point.
> 
> ...



Yes, less than 7 years. Now shall we compare how many hours we've both spent in the canopy?

Most rec climbing on huge trees is done SRT. So the only friction to the cambium is when placing the rope, without any weight on it. Even Ddrt with a cambium saver, there's not enough damage to be concerned about. 

Soil compaction? Is a 4' wide path really so terrible as to ban people from walking on the forest floor? Better advise the wildlife too, they never use trails upon which the soil is compacted. 

Damage to micro-ecosystems, sure, it's possible. They survive storms, ice, animals, and regenerate over time if they do receive damage.

As in most cases, training the people who use the rescource to do so responsibly will create a better long term, all around outcome than simply saying, you can't do that, then trying to enforce it. 

By the way, I haven't seen any evidence posted from when/where rec climbers damaged or killed any trees, "important ones" or not. Got any? Or is this whole thread just ground level hyperbole?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

clearance said:


> I skimmed the thread, I admit it. But whatever, they make a new tree every day, they grow back, they are tough, and so on. I will slink off now M.D., I am after all just a lowly utility guy.



Really. That easy.

Some areas yes - others not.

Drive Howland Hill Rd. and let me know how many small redwoods you see, under 50 years old. Or along Boy Scout Tree trail.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

ddhlakebound said:


> Now shall we compare how many hours we've both spent in the canopy?
> 
> Most rec climbing on huge trees is done SRT. So the only friction to the cambium is when placing the rope, without any weight on it. Even Ddrt with a cambium saver, there's not enough damage to be concerned about.



Stick around in the trees for another couple of decades.

You don't want to do that comparison. I've been in trees since 1980.

And the protected redwoods climbing has little to do with who has the least years.

Now, the same reply to you as to Clearance - you may have missed the link in an earlier post to a photo album image at Dunklin photography.

If you are talking about cambium and redwoods here, you are in another arena of subject matter. There is something else up in the redwoods that a lot of concern is about.

John Paul Sanborn seems to be one of few who replied about the right aspect.

Either he's knowledgeable or paying attention - but he got it right.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 6, 2009)

***You don't want to do that comparison. I've been in trees since 1980.***

Climbing and working in the canopy or "into trees" since 1980, reading about them and working with them from the ground level?opcorn:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

capetrees said:


> ***You don't want to do that comparison. I've been in trees since 1980.***
> 
> Climbing and working in the canopy or "into trees" since 1980, reading about them and working with them from the ground level?opcorn:



There is much you are unaware of Padawan Learner.

Pay closer attention to what else I wrote, like the Dunklin album.

Because you fell down the same hole.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 6, 2009)

*Pssst: Covert "ninja" Redwood Climb: Apply here*

*OPERATION BLACK EYE*​
Extraordinary circumstances will provide YOU (the adventurous and skilled climber) an opportunity to sail amongst the world's tallest and oldest redwoods canopies.

Times, dates and locations are being kept secret. A small group of 6 climbers only, helo'd in and also extracted!

The climb starts in reverse, an abseil from 400' out of a chopper to the crown of the first tree.

Other group members likewise on other trees setting up tyrolean traverses.

To expedite ascent for extraction you will use The Power Ascender aka Scotty and easily climb at 22m per minute ... no sweat. Do note that this device is currently not available in the USA as the world likes to watch you sweat it out.  

The entire adventure will be filmed with preset cameras, you will all also have helmet mounted cameras and coms devices.

Footage will be streamed to the internet directly, real time via an array of proxy servers.

All participants will sign a legal defense to the organisers, you will not ever at any point risk prosecution. The organisers will idemnify you for any loss, injury or other acts which may arise regardless of the circumstances, _(after your fee is paid and you have set foot in the chopper)_.

Why is this being organised?

To show the world "We doan need no stinkeeng permits" :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Ekka said:


> Extraordinary circumstances will provide YOU (the adventurous and skilled climber) an opportunity to sail amongst the world's tallest and oldest redwoods canopies.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Was waiting for Ekka's reply. Almost posted in advance.

Ekka replies in way that shows the yo-yo factor.

The lesser forums were never good enough for him, but they must be better than he thought, because he finds more honey here.

Ekka is sort of like a Ramora.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

What's the "hands down" best Australian beer in your opinion Ekka?

jomoco


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 6, 2009)

Ekka, I would like to be the first to sign up for your climb. What's it gonna cost all told? Just drop me on the ground, I want to use a flipline and gaffs. Takin these Redwoods oldschool.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

Nailsbeats said:


> Ekka, I would like to be the first to sign up for your climb. What's it gonna cost all told? Just drop me on the ground, I want to use a flipline and gaffs. Takin these Redwoods oldschool.


 
On a few fat redwoods that I've seen Nails I'd put money on you not making it more than 40 feet bro!

Seriously, even with 4 other climbers strategically placed to help each other with their lanyards, their choreography would have to be very precise and extremely well timed.

jomoco


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 6, 2009)

jomoco said:


> On a few fat redwoods that I've seen Nails I'd put money on you not making it more than 40 feet bro!
> 
> Seriously, even with 4 other climbers strategically placed to help each other with their lanyards, their choreography would have to be very precise and extremely well timed.
> 
> jomoco



Then I will have to improvise. Springboards come to mind.:monkey:


----------



## ddhlakebound (Jan 6, 2009)

Nice MD, why don't you tell us how you really feel about us climbers? Oh, wait, you did.....


> "If you feel that people should keep their filthy little scummy hands off primeval redwoods, then shame on the climbers."



I've scanned the thread 3 times looking for the album you keep reffering to so.....link please. 

You're also being very vague about the altitude at which you've been in trees since 1980. Do you climb or not? Can I possibly be more direct?

I can easily admit that my perceptions may be wrong....(and I'm reading some of your linked info now), but good god man, stop running in circles and evading the topic you brought up....


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

Nailsbeats said:


> Then I will have to improvise. Springboards come to mind.:monkey:



But.....but.......you said old school confound it Nails!

jomoco


----------



## ClimbinArbor (Jan 6, 2009)

clearance said:


> Big old trees are mighty tough. Those trees are going to still be there, climbed or not.
> 
> You think some spurless tourists are going to hurt these trees ya'll are talkng about?
> 
> What a silly topic.



Very Well said for a line guy lol. Sorry to cut up yer quote there clearance.


M.D. Vaden said:


> Some areas yes - others not.



Also Well said.


Ekka said:


> *OPERATION BLACK EYE*​
> Why is this being organised?
> 
> To show the world "We doan need no stinkeeng permits" :hmm3grin2orange:



LMFAO!!!


I gave all my rep in this thread.... Why cant we all just get along?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

ddhlakebound said:


> Nice MD, why don't you tell us how you really feel about us climbers? Oh, wait, you did.....
> 
> I've scanned the thread 3 times looking for the album you keep reffering to so.....link please.




It's in post #54.

A note in bold print and one of these ">" has been pointing to it.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 6, 2009)

***Padawan Learner***

to steal a line from "Monster House",
"oh my god"
"What?????"
"You're a dork!""

And whats a Dunklin album? 

You still haven't answered the question from us, do you climb and work in the trees or just look with wishful dreams of those of us that do? Times up!


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Some folks get focused on wood and bark ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/pisi/full/12_CA_ferny-trunk1.jpg


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

Yeah, what the 'Caped" guy said!

Yu stinkin "Land Lubber" you!

I'll bet you've never been over 200 feet in a tree in your life!

jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Here ...

Maybe this should be worn down to a polished surface ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/pisi/full/9_CA_mossy-branch.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

jomoco said:


> I'll bet you've never been over 200 feet in a tree in your life!
> 
> jomoco



I'll bet you're insecure.

One more image ...

Lichens

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/psme/full/19_CA_Lobaria-on-branch1.jpg


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 6, 2009)

A good sharp handsaw could take that right off, easy to climb with too.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> I'll bet you're insecure.
> 
> One more image ...
> 
> ...



Only in my faith in authorities..........sir.

jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

One more example.

Doubtful that most recreational climbers would even know what they were getting into in this tree.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/psme/full/22_CA_cyanolichens-&-liverw.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Is it rare ...

Or is this abundant ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/psme/full/23_CA_Douinia-ovata-with-sp.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Another.

The realm waiting for the magnificent 7 of illegal climbing.

Send the butcher squad into this one ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/psme/full/25_CA_glycyrrhiza.jpg


----------



## capetrees (Jan 6, 2009)

Your silence is deafening! Its obvious that the worst black eye to the "industry" is someone with no idea of what they speak of speaking out against it. You do not climb, you do not work in the trees and you have no idea what really happens when someone does climb. Everything is theory to you. Book smart but inexperienced. those who can, do. Those who can't teach or in this case preach.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Here is one that looks free of wear and tear.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/psme/full/30_worms-in-pool.jpg


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Is it rare ...
> 
> Or is this abundant ...
> 
> http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/psme/full/23_CA_Douinia-ovata-with-sp.jpg



I'd love to see it up close, in person, smell it, touch it, wonder what it's there for?

Maybe even boil it and make some tea in my tempestuous "teapot"?


jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Ribes

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/segi/full/14_Ribes-epiphyte.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Bay Laurel ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/18_epiphytic-bay.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Oregon Spikemoss ...

Plant - not a moss ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/7_Selaginella-on-limb1.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Selaginella ...

Oregon spikemoss / 2

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/8_Selaginella-on-limb2.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Can already imagine recreational climbers shooting a line up into this.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/9_POSC-with-sensors.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Epiphytic Tan-oak ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/17_epiphytic-tanoak.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Epiphyte Spruce

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/15_epiphytic-spruce.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

More epiphytic Ribes getting a start near a burl ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/13_burl-with-Ribes.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Vaccinium ovatum epiphyte in a canopy fire cave ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/12_VAOV-in-fire-cave.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Another Evergreen Huckleberry photo ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/treestructure/full/29_small-fire-cave.jpg


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Oregon Spikemoss ...
> 
> Plant - not a moss ...
> 
> http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/epiphytes/full/7_Selaginella-on-limb1.jpg



You're doing a good job of proving that redwoods can develop symbiotic relationships with other species. They're obviously not racists. So where's the logic in thinking their excluding us provides them any real longterm hope of survival..........sir?

jomoco


----------



## ddhlakebound (Jan 6, 2009)

Isn't it ironic that MD would never even know any of this stuff existed if some filthy little scummy handed climber hadn't gone up there and taken pics for him to see? :monkey: 

Here's a quote from Stillet, found through MD's links....



> Sillett watched the motion of the redwoods in silence for a little while. "Despite the difficulty of doing science in these trees, there's always a moment during a climb when you can lose yourself," he went on. "You perceive time more clearly in redwoods. You see time's illusory qualities. When you get up into the crown of a redwood, you stop thinking about your life, you stop planning your future missions. You start feeling the limits of your perceptions of the world as a member of the human species. When you feel one of these trees moving, you get a sense of it as an individual."



Na....moments and insights like that aren't important to humanity.....much more important to make sure some moss isn't trodden upon.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 6, 2009)

ddhlakebound said:


> Isn't it ironic that MD would never even know any of this stuff existed if some filthy little scummy handed climber hadn't gone up there and taken pics for him to see? :monkey:
> 
> Here's a quote from Stillet, found through MD's links....
> 
> ...



Not bad Lake, that's some pretty profound prose there!

jomoco


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Animal this time ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/animals/full/3_Aneides2.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Squirrel ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/sese/animals/full/6_flying-squirrel.jpg


----------



## capetrees (Jan 6, 2009)

Other than show your ability to post links to pictures, do you have a point to all these pictures?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Not redwood.

Probably on a Eucalyptus ...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/photos/eure/full/13_centipede3.jpg


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 6, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Other than show your ability to post links to pictures, do you have a point to all these pictures?



Why do you ask?

What do you want to learn that has not been covered?

But if it clues-you-in for your question - did you read some of John Paul Sanborn's replies?

It's related to something he wrote.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 7, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> a lot more people read these forums than tree workers. I've met homeowners who have read these forums for years. They both learn and select professionals from here.



*HEADS UP USA HOME-OWNERS​*
Are you aware that not all "arborists" can climb a tree?

If indeed as suggested by the above poster that a person climbing a park tree without a permit (regardless whether they are an arborist or not) is giving the industry a black eye, then surely *calling yourself an arborist when you cannot climb would have to be a KO*. :blob5: 

Think about it, who would you prefer to work on your tree?

A) Some-one who climbs 300'+ redwoods
B) A land or ladder lubber

Are you aware that the ISA Cert Arb credentials DO NOT MEAN THE "ARBORIST" CAN CLIMB.

Here's a link to the various ISA credentials you'll need to observe.

http://www.isa-arbor.com/certification/certCredentials.aspx

In Australia we have a different system all together, and an ISA cert means little to nothing. We obtain qualifications using a competency based system, *actually doing the job* not ticking multiple choice question boxes. You simply cannot become a "text book arborist" as you need to do the job.

Personally, I would pick a doer over a pen pusher any day.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 7, 2009)

Ekka said:


> Here's a link to the various ISA credentials you'll need to observe.



Like I wrote about you a bit earlier Ekka - you are back at back at Arboristsite one more time for the better honey.

And off topic as I expected.

Come back for more honey again.

Please keep posting, to keep bumping it. Because most new readers will be reading the first few replies on the first page. I want to keep this topic on the surface for a while.

So drop on in to quench your thirst.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 7, 2009)

Mario, you are a full blown wanker!​

A gutless one, that cant put his money where his BIG MOUTH is.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 7, 2009)

Be carefulr Ekka or he'll scorn you again!  

Ekka's off topic? I don't think so brainiac. The topic was about those that give the "indistry" a black eye. You have gone to posting pictures of pictures someone else has taken, taking apparent credit for something someone else has done. Face it. You are a landscaper that does not climb, work wise or recreationally. You sub out your tree work to those that DO know what they are doing and again, take credit for their work simply because you were the contractor. You have desire to save interesting aspects of the forest and to do so, you have decided to blame and thus try to regulate the tree climbing "sport"/industry for your personal crusade. 

Get a life.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 7, 2009)

capetrees said:


> You have gone to posting pictures of pictures someone else has taken, taking apparent credit for something someone else has done. Face it.



Apparently you don't understand the forum's features or nomenclature.

Posting photos requires the IMG tag.

What you saw, are referred to as links.

Most people can see and figure out the source of the images, because the URL has Sillett/ in the address, not to mention the Copyright on some of them. The URL will clearly display in the address bar.

You did not realize what "humboldt.edu" means.

Now this is an example below of posting a photo: Photos display - but links offer visits to other websites and servers.

opcorn:


----------



## lxt (Jan 7, 2009)

Ekka said:


> *OPERATION BLACK EYE*​
> Why is this being organised?
> 
> To show the world "We doan need no stinkeeng permits" :hmm3grin2orange:




Im In!!!!!! Ekka, that is the best!! couldnt rep ya!! some one please rep him infinately for this post!! awesome!


Well folks...............once again the thread poster shows his stupidity in going so far off topic & comparing himself to people whos "hooks" hes not fit to carry!

M.D.....you been in trees since when? how`d ya get there? orchard ladder! You are a blowhole who likes the sound of his own voice or reading of his own writing.

What gives "ARBORICULTURE" a Black Eye is *YOU*!!!! a non answering, smoke & mirrors snake oil salesman who couldnt climb an extension ladder to set up a bird feeder!! You make a living off of BullSh*t & are proud! 

The only thing this thread is really good for now is sticking M.D.Vadens **** in the mud, so all together....start typing, M.D why dont you put this thread into your *TESTIMONIAL* link on your website? that way all Oregon can see you for the nit wit you are!


LXT............ My all expenses paid invitation is still on the table!! any of you guys remember that? LOL....


----------



## oldirty (Jan 7, 2009)

lxt said:


> LXT............ My all expenses paid invitation is still on the table!! any of you guys remember that? LOL....



yup.



good stuff ekka.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 7, 2009)

lxt said:


> The only thing this thread is really good for now is sticking M.D.Vadens **** in the mud, so all together....start typing, M.D why dont you put this thread into your *TESTIMONIAL* link on your website? that way all Oregon can see you for the nit wit you are!



:agree2: 

Did you know he also thinks he runs wikipedia. He was also the main culprit who removed links to many websites other than his own.

When his own forum became a "chalk board" he made sure links to all the others got pulled, yep, that's the sort of bloke you want going into bat for you. Mario's #1 priority is MARIO.

He likes to write a page of reference to some crap on his own site, then play wikiGod and link to it booting other peoples links off, that's our Mario.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 7, 2009)

"If indeed as suggested by the above poster that a person climbing a park tree without a permit (regardless whether they are an arborist or not) is giving the industry a black eye, then surely calling yourself an arborist when you cannot climb would have to be a KO."

I enjoy climbing a lot; 43 years and still love it. And I can still limbwalk and the rest as well as most can. 

But a lot of arborists--defined as professionals who can manage trees--don't climb. They don't have to--lots of tree work does not involve a saw.

If you think climbing is what makes an arborist an arborist, then I would not hire you to work on my trees.

The point is, if researchers got to a tree first and are gathering data for research that YOU and the rest of the industry will benefit from, then maybe you can find another tree to climb. There were plenty of big redwoods out there last I saw (last Nov).

Better yet, offer your services as a canopy data collector. Sillett ended his talk at ISA last summer by reaching out to the arb community to work together. It would be a poor response by us to sneak in and mess their stuff up. Pick up the phone, email the guys, let them know you're interested in researching trees and see what happens.


----------



## treevet (Jan 7, 2009)

Good idea Guy.... ....

Imagine going on his (Vaden's) pseudo intellectual forum and giving this kind of attitude?

....or...this being the "Commercial Tree Care and Climbing" thread and him being afraid to climb....imagine..

going on his landscaping forum (as an arborist) and telling those hole diggers they are all full of $heat and they shouldn't be allowed to plant for lack of expertise, disrupting the flow of the thread and insulting posters and (in my case) making condescending and offensive remarks and when a return post is made, quickly editing your post to hide what you said?

Speaking of Wikipedia...

TROLL: Someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off topic messages in an on-line community, such as a forum, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response, or to generally disrupt.....


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 7, 2009)

treeseer said:


> But a lot of arborists--defined as professionals who can manage trees--don't climb. They don't have to--lots of tree work does not involve a saw.
> 
> If you think climbing is what makes an arborist an arborist, then I would not hire you to work on my trees.
> 
> The point is, if researchers got to a tree first and are gathering data for research that YOU and the rest of the industry will benefit from, then maybe you can find another tree to climb. There were plenty of big redwoods out there last I saw (last Nov).



Good suggestion.

That's where the tree climbers page was headed, listed earlier.

 

Have no idea what Treevet is even talking about.

I don't have any forum.

Maybe he can figure out which other person posting is a forum owner and moderator ...



Now Ekka wrote something pretty much unrelated, but here's a thought.

Eric - aka Ekka - just replied something pertaining to his competiing tree forum LINK being removed from Wikipedia.

He did not point out that ommissions or inclusions of links on the Wikipedia arborist page, was posted under it's own sub-heading in the DISCUSSION page. The links changes were thrown into the arena of suggestions for any contributor at Wikipedia to discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arborist

Siince NO other editor / contributor wrote any other suggestion or objection, some links were culled. As you see, anybody had the opportunity to speak their mind.

In fact, it's been over 3 MONTHS for which feedback could have been added, and yet no objections to the suggested edit.

That discusstion page might be something Treevet is interested in reviewing, in light of his last post.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 7, 2009)

And still the non-response to the question persists.

Do you climb or not, jackwad?

BTW, be sure to tell me if I have spelled that correctly. Picture, links, IMG, JPEG. Point is once again, you like to use other peoples work to further your own crusade. Just keep this in mind yardape, "green side up".


----------



## Slvrmple72 (Jan 7, 2009)

When I started "tree work" I was a ladder climbing, limb topping idiot, butchering away, and gladly doing work for dirt cheap. Insurance? Proper cutting and pruning? Ha Ha Ha! I am ashamed of a lot of my so-called treework I did when I first started out. I have always jumped feet first into things often learning the hard way. Arrogant and stubbornly proud of our own pompous assurance in our abilities sums up a lot of us, heck pretty much sums up the human race. I guess the question each and everyone of us has to ask is "What am I doing through work,education, and even recreation to promote the beneficial symbiotic relationship with trees in the community I live in." I agree with M.D. on both points, I also agree with a lot of you that have brought up good points about the balance that needs to be struck between recreational /scientific use and preservation. We already know the most destructive species on earth is rampantly stripping the planet of resources and overbreeding at an alarming rate so this whole thread could be moot. 

Kinda like the idea that I can take my son to see those big trees out west, even climb one, and someday he could take his son/daughter to do the same thing. From his posts, Mr. Vaden, and others like him give me the impression that he cares for the trees in his community even if he doesn't climb. 


http://www.savetheredwoods.org/index.shtml

http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Donations/OrderGeneral.cfm


----------



## capetrees (Jan 7, 2009)

Problem is that Vaden is claiming the vagrant climbers are damaging the trees and canopies and really HE has no dead on proof, just conjecture and baseless claim. If he were a climber, maybe he would know exactly what it is that he's fearful is happening when really it most likely isn't. He's seems to be part of a bigger group of preservationists that want the trees for only THEM to climb. Fact is, these researchers are probably the ones doing the damage without knowing, yet blaming others. Been there, been accused of that. Matter of fact, just two weeks ago and then two weeks prior to that.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 7, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Point is once again, you like to use other peoples work to further your own crusade. Just keep this in mind yardape, "green side up".



It sounds like you want to get rid of the LINK & IMG tags on Arborist Site.

Because most links and img tags go to sites and photos of other people - most often.

Had you emailed to the owner of Arborist Site, that you would like to see others not refer to materials of others?

There should be a contact link on the main page.


----------



## treevet (Jan 7, 2009)

treevet said:


> Good idea Guy.... ....
> 
> Imagine going on his (Vaden's) pseudo intellectual forum and giving this kind of attitude?
> 
> ...



I was just referring to a hypothetical forum (or maybe not) that you might be on instead of this one you don't fit in with. 

You say you have been in the biz since 1980....you have not been in our business.

You just don't get it. I have been climbing for 40 years. Not about to do any rec climbing as my efforts have to be all production to pay costs of operating. 
I have to ration my energy and time off realistically.

I definitely can relate to the pro/rec climber tho. I will likely lay in my death bed musing about climbs in the largest trees with a pair of sneakers, shorts, no shirt, simple saddle (used to all be legal) floating around in cool breezy weather. It is what we do ...it is what we love.

I remember about 3 years ago a woman comes on here and her husband has lost use of both of his legs and she wants help in getting him one more climb because she knew him....and loved him. Some very caring arbs made it happen. They could relate to him and so could I. You on the other hand couldn't and never will.


----------



## lxt (Jan 7, 2009)

capetrees said:


> And still the non-response to the question persists.
> 
> Do you climb or not, jackwad?
> 
> BTW, be sure to tell me if I have spelled that correctly. Picture, links, IMG, JPEG. Point is once again, you like to use other peoples work to further your own crusade. Just keep this in mind yardape, "green side up".




LMFAO...jackwad..........I like that....someone Rep him!!! dots & Novas, Notice how Jackwad wont reply to me!! ya gotta call him out!! 

Cape...I do apologize for the use of "jackwad" please dont remove my IMG tags or other tags that have nothing to do with this thread!!

With Capes permission I say we hereby bust "jackwads" chops & Rep the Hell outta each other for a job well done!! someone 2nd the motion please!!


LXT................Novas all around!!


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 7, 2009)

treevet said:


> I was just referring to a hypothetical forum (or maybe not) that you might be on instead of this one you don't fit in with.
> 
> You say you have been in the biz since 1980....you have not been in our business.
> 
> You just don't get it. I have been climbing for 40 years.



I think one of Treeseers last replies pretty much corresponds to what you have been writing.

But what he wrote sounds totally different from what you seem to be saying.


----------



## masterarbor (Jan 7, 2009)

Labman said:


> Are unlicensed people more prone to topping butchery?



prolly


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 7, 2009)

Now here's a comment well worth a second look ...

~
~



John Paul Sanborn said:


> ...
> once again, there is a difference between a tree in a NatPark and a residential setting. I've been in a couple big redwoods, and I've done a little rec climbing. I'm not saying do not do it, I'm saying that there are places we should not go.
> 
> To pick my statement about moss shows an ignorance about ecosystems, it is more then moss. It is more then the one climber going into the tree, it is the succession of people over time doing so.
> ...



JPS sets a pretty good example.

One worth considering.


----------



## Slvrmple72 (Jan 7, 2009)

do not cast your pearls before swine?


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 7, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Problem is that Vaden is claiming the vagrant climbers are damaging the trees and canopies and really HE has no dead on proof, just conjecture and baseless claim. If he were a climber, maybe he would know exactly what it is that he's fearful is happening when really it most likely isn't. He's seems to be part of a bigger group of preservationists that want the trees for only THEM to climb. Fact is, these researchers are probably the ones doing the damage without knowing, yet blaming others. Been there, been accused of that. Matter of fact, just two weeks ago and then two weeks prior to that.



Hey cape, how long have you been climbing with the saddle now?? what a year or less?? seem more of an internet jockey than climbing authority to me.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 7, 2009)

> ***Padawan Learner***
> 
> to steal a line from "Monster House",
> "oh my god"
> ...



I had to agree, but there are many in the industry. I rolled my eyes a bit, but my calling him out would have been pots&kettles. Though I tend towards Monty Python quotes.

_AND NOW ... SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT_

Well actually back to our regularly scheduled programing...



> Its obvious that the worst black eye to the "industry" is someone with no idea of what they speak of speaking out against it.



I do say that the black eye thing is a bit of hyperbole, but I be we could find more then a few researchers who would have some bad things to say about hikers. 

I don't know Mario, but i do think *I* have a little more then a clue as to what I am talking about.

Here is a juxtaposition of the argument, how about having specific trees designated as climbable? Possible ones in areas where their long term viability is in question, or they are in a depleted ecosystem and do not have the diversity to need restricting.

Then they can have guided climbs where a responsible person is in charge of the climb so no one does anything stupid, like going for a 250ft rap on an eight (ME, got harry after around 150ft)

Look at MV's pictures of the canopy communities. One of us climbing through there is as bad as telling the average highschool kid to go trim a tree.



> Soil compaction? Is a 4' wide path really so terrible as to ban people from walking on the forest floor? Better advise the wildlife too, they never use trails upon which the soil is compacted.



If they keep on the path and do not try to climb the trees, but if you go to some of these high traffic areas, you see the wear on the buttresses and compaction all the way around. It does not take much foot traffic to do damage.



> Yes, rec climbing could possibly damage micro-ecosystems. So could wind, ice, and wildlife. Taking away the feeling of public ownership could damage the whole ecosystem.



Ice and fire are uncommon events, wildlife is part of the ecosystem so it is adapted to their presence, and often it is an obligate relationship. Like birds moving mistletoe or distributing seeds.

It would not take to many groups a year to cause problems with these small remnant populations. I climbed Devils Tower a number of years back, the Durance is one of the highest trafficked routes in the US, and the hard rock is word so smooth in places that is worn smooth.



> But whatever, they make a new tree every day, they grow back,



It takes a 1000year to grow a thousand year old tree. What happens when they are all gone?


----------



## lxt (Jan 7, 2009)

Look no ones saying throw on the hooks and give her hell, JPS...there will always be places we probably shouldnt go, no doubt! I imagine those that discovered america thought the same thing!

as long as man is alive the natural order of things will never be the same, thus the reason nature adapts & acclimates itself to mans ignorance.....sorry guys thats how it is!!

As far as Mario goes...for those of you coming to his aide/defense: understand we realize who we are dealing with, he goes of topic trying to impress with his BS, if he would stick to the thread topic: 2 ways to give arboriculture a black eye...without trying to make his opinion as a law for all & constant need to re word his opinion into a "im right you`re wrong" fashion things would be fine!

Personally I think Mario Vaden records his own voice and plays it back while pleasuring himself..............now that will give ya a black eye!

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


----------



## oldirty (Jan 7, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> Hey cape, how long have you been climbing with the saddle now?? what a year or less?? seem more of an internet jockey than climbing authority to me.



awesome.




John Paul Sanborn said:


> It takes a 1000year to grow a thousand year old tree. What happens when they are all gone?



i'm all for hugging a tree worth hugging, and these big fellas are worth the squeeze but

what? the tree next to this one a thousand years later wont be there?

cycle of life, no? 

i'm not saying go in there and lay waste but if its an ecosystem that is a living thing then you know what? yup. there's gonna be another thousand year old tree some where down the line right next to the one thats either two thousand years old or fallen over from age and creating a nice spot for the next thousand year old tree to grow.

as long as the sun is gonna shine and some water gets mixed in the tree is gonna grow. 

climb the mofo if you got the balls.


hey jps. just cause i dont know all the big words in the tree world you gonna ignore every question i ask you? boots in another thread....you to good to answer a fellow tree WORKING man's questions?


----------



## jomoco (Jan 7, 2009)

I'd like more of you guys to get a helmet cam and post your arboreal exploits like a few of the pros here have shamed me into doing.

Oregon Scientific's cam is less than 200 bucks.

I'm savin for the POV wide angle myself, only 700 bucks, and a consideraby better helmet cam.

jomoco


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 7, 2009)

jomoco said:


> I'd like more of you guys to get a helmet cam and post your arboreal exploits like a few of the pros here have shamed me into doing.
> 
> Oregon Scientific's cam is less than 200 bucks.
> 
> ...



I bet you would, lol. I can't handle the shame, spending so much time on this site is questionable enough, lol. 

On a side note, give me some time and I'll get one.


----------



## oldirty (Jan 7, 2009)

jomoco said:


> I'd like more of you guys to get a helmet cam and post your arboreal exploits like a few of the pros here have shamed me into doing.
> 
> Oregon Scientific's cam is less than 200 bucks.
> 
> ...




its my very next bigtime purchase brother. just because i dont speak the "language" and have all the badges and certs to doesnt mean i cant dance. gotta show that i aint full of sh1t.

maybe finally put together a "how to" video for hand filing in the field.

i am looking forward to this.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 7, 2009)

Nice cycle of life post OD, my thoughts exactly.


----------



## oldirty (Jan 7, 2009)

thanks bud.

you know me. deep and reflective.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 8, 2009)

lxt said:


> ..there will always be places we probably shouldnt go, no doubt!


Thanks, lxt. 

Hey jomoco what makes the $700 helmet cam so much better than the $200?


----------



## Ekka (Jan 8, 2009)

Time zones can be a bugger, so I got some catching up to do.

This Darth Vaden is dark sinister and illogical wanker. Here goes the evidence once again, and be ready for his usual 180 degree back flips.



M.D. Vaden said:


> Like I wrote about you a bit earlier Ekka - you are back at back at Arboristsite one more time for the better honey.
> 
> And *off topic* as I expected.
> 
> Come back for more honey again.



So I'm off topic yet you crap on about Honey and Ramoras, the topic is black eyes.


M.D. Vaden said:


> ...he finds more honey here.
> 
> Ekka is sort of like a Ramora.



Now to Treeseer.


treeseer said:


> If you think climbing is what makes an arborist an arborist, then I would not hire you to work on my trees.



That's about as intelligent as hiring Mario to prune a limb off 60' up the canopy over a roof (only climbing access) that was broken in a storm. What an idiotic statement, pull ya foot out of your mouth.  

Back to Darth Vaden:


M.D. Vaden said:


> Eric - aka Ekka - just replied something pertaining to his competiing tree forum LINK being removed from Wikipedia.
> 
> He did not point out that ommissions or inclusions of links on the Wikipedia arborist page, was posted under it's own sub-heading in the DISCUSSION page. The links changes were thrown into the arena of suggestions for any contributor at Wikipedia to discuss.
> 
> ...



First of all, I don't receive emails or reminders or jack crap from Wiki when wankers like you type rubbish, it's a really unfriendly awful piece of software.

But lets closely examine the Mario instigated culling of links. I have circled in red who the perp was, of course Mario, the timing coincides with the demise of his forum and popularity.

Likely one of the motivations was that he lost fair and square in this thread and is still today carrying the sour grapes. Website Links for more traffic.

Funny how around the same time he then goes to Wiki to bugger up other people links, because he is a wanker.

Here's the evidence from the discussion page.






Now, strangely other links did stay. Have a look.





Now the links that did stay are organisations that are funded with members, businesses in fact, businesses that aren't free access to all like forums. You wont get quick replies or help like you do at forums.

But Mario's mind doesn't think consistently when it is fuelled by the Dark side like it is.

You decide, see the facts, work the coincidences and decide for yourself what this wanker is all about.


----------



## RedlineIt (Jan 8, 2009)

Does anyone still give two shakes for wikiwhatever?

Doesn't every John and Jane realize it is written by the other Jane or John?

No one I know relies on wiki for anything, it's a bust.


RedlineIt


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 8, 2009)

Ekka must have spent 1/2 an hour on that one. One thing he omitted, is that he never went to that discussion page to recommend any changes in THAT SPECIFIC sub-heading. Nor did any other editing contributor.

I think the best example to illustrate what Ekka is complaining about, would be voting.

Suppose 100 people in a small town could all vote. And suppose they had 3 months in which to nominate someone for office or vote, but only 1 person voted - and 99 chose not to vote. Can you image months later, one of the other 99 who did NOT vote, whining about the 1 person who voted? Or one of 99 who did not nominate anybody, complaining that someone else did? That's sort of like the Wikipedia thing. It's open for everyone to vote and suggest changes and edits, and post for ongoing deliberation.



RedlineIt said:


> Does anyone still give two shakes for wikiwhatever?
> 
> Doesn't every John and Jane realize it is written by the other Jane or John?
> 
> ...



You nailed it.

Open to every John and Jane.

I think you explained it more clearly with your brief 2 sentences.


----------



## RedlineIt (Jan 8, 2009)

Speaking of the uselessness of imagery, and pretention, Mario, you have shown us at least a couple of images of Ribes growing out of Redwoods.

Do you consider these photos to exhibit unusual or rare situations?

RedlineIt


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 8, 2009)

RedlineIt said:


> Speaking of images, Mario, you have shown us at least a couple of images of Ribes growing out of Redwoods.
> 
> Do you consider these photos to exhibit unusual or rare situations?
> 
> RedlineIt



Depends on point of view.

There tends to be more of the huckleberry and ferns growing up in the canopy from what I see. And much less of the Ribes and trees like spruce.

So in the canopy it's rare, but in the forest, not rare.

I don't think those photos (those are all on Dr. Silletts' Humboldt Univ. site) showed the rare species that they have found in some redwoods. But there are some species of lichens in the canopy that are rare in the forest and rare up in the canopy.

Maybe a hypothetical situation might be interesting to consider.

Suppose sword ferns and trilliums only grew abundantly up in the trees. But down on the forest floor, there were only 2 sword ferns and 1 trillium in a 7 acre area. Would it really matter if the 2 ferns and 1 trillium got stomped - since there are so many up above? If that were a possible situation, the 2 ferns and 1 trillium would not be rare, due to the numbers up above.

That's a bit simplified though. And the fern mats and plants growing up in redwoods are going to provide a habitat for other species of animals too - including food at a different level.


----------



## RedlineIt (Jan 8, 2009)

Mario,

There is a good chance that there are more rare lichen growing on a mature Acer macrophylla than in the canopy of a Redwood forest.

Agree or disagree?

RedlineIt


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 8, 2009)

RedlineIt said:


> Mario,
> 
> There is a good chance that there are more rare lichen growing on a mature Acer macrophylla than in the canopy of a Redwood forest.
> 
> ...



In the right area - believable - so agree. New stuff is being learned all the time. Like wasn't it just in the past 6 years or so, that scientists learned about glomalin, the substance in soil and where it comes from? I think they knew it was there, but did not understand it. Know of any rare lichen patches on maples? B.C. must have a lot of nice big old ones scattered around the province.



Only once have I seen a rare plant that grows in one geographical location. I mean like a few hundred acres or less. In southern Oregon, on the Lower Table Rock, and I think the Upper Table Rock, grows Dwarf Wooly Meadowfoam. Only up on top does it flower and grow in springtime, and nowhere else.


----------



## RedlineIt (Jan 8, 2009)

> Only once have I seen a rare plant that grows in one geographical location. I mean like a few hundred acres or less. In southern Oregon, on the Lower Table Rock, and I think the Upper Table Rock, grows Dwarf Wooly Meadowfoam. Only up on top does it flower and grow in springtime, and nowhere else.



Mario, 

Sounds magnificent.

Would you deny anyone the right to hike into Lower Table Rock to see and photograph this perfect gem? 

Would you deny me this?

Would you deny my son this?


Just a thought.


RedlineIt


----------



## treevet (Jan 8, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Ekka must have spent 1/2 an hour on that one. One thing he omitted, is that he never went to that discussion page to recommend any changes in THAT SPECIFIC sub-heading. Nor did any other editing contributor.



But that sounds like a rather mean spirited, vindictive thing you did, not a service to the community. Do you want to explain your motives?


----------



## jomoco (Jan 8, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Thanks, lxt.
> 
> Hey jomoco what makes the $700 helmet cam so much better than the $200?



The POV1 is smaller, has a new wide angle lens, but what makes it worth the price to me is it's remote control card that allows you to control the cams functions without taking it off your head.


jomoco


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 8, 2009)

oldirty said:


> i'm all for hugging a tree worth hugging, and these big fellas are worth the squeeze but what? the tree next to this one a thousand years later wont be there?



We cannot say that it will or will not. If a lot of people are allowed entrance to the stand, then maybe not. I'm talking about the entire stand, the understory included. There should be areas of varied degrees of restricted access in areas of ecological importance. 

The needs of the many supersede the whim of the few. Once again the rock and boulder climbing analogy, scuba too, are appropriate.



> cycle of life, no?







> i'm not saying go in there and lay waste but if its an ecosystem that is a living thing then you know what? yup. there's gonna be another thousand year old tree some where down the line right next to the one thats either two thousand years old or fallen over from age and creating a nice spot for the next thousand year old tree to grow. as long as the sun is gonna shine and some water gets mixed in the tree is gonna grow.



Sometimes over simplifying works, but here we have a remnant community of a Northern Latitude Coniferous Rain Forest. Not much of that left. We do not know what is in them that can be disturbed, so we should protect some of it so that there will be some for generations to come. The above is a bit superficial, but I'm not trying to write a treatise.



> climb the mofo if you got the balls.



I'm not so ballsy, and I've climbed. It is more the wind to do that huge first pitch then anything else.

My stand is that just because it is there does not allow any yahoo with enough throwline to enter. Or every hiker, campsites can be brutal to the ecosystem, even if you carry out.

Mario mentioned trilllium somewhere here. It is illegal in WI to pick it. Heck, i hate geese, what with all the poop. I do not think we should allow year round hunting.

In a civil society there should be restrictions on the individual. I'll stop before I get started on four-wheeling anywhere one pleases  :angrysoapbox: 



> hey jps. just cause i dont know all the big words in the tree world you gonna ignore every question i ask you? boots in another thread....you to good to answer a fellow tree WORKING man's questions?



I don't read every thread posted, even ones I have posted a to recently. After 8 or so years there is just too much of the same ol' same ol'. It is the occasional thread, like this one, where I get the opportunity to think a little, that keeps me coming back

So if I do not answer a question right away, please PM me and I'll try. 

You seem to have a few more brain cells then the average Joe, so maybe you should consider expanding your vocabulary. If i was able to teach myself, I have no doubt you can too.


----------



## lxt (Jan 8, 2009)

treevet said:


> But that sounds like a rather mean spirited, vindictive thing you did, not a service to the community. Do you want to explain your motives?




thats because he wants to always be right! you wont see that on his testimonial page!

whats funny if you go to his site he speaks about what a service he does for the community......and if you dont agree with him, he`ll "ninja" the domain!

I dont know why anyone would even look past the thread topic & try to debate or express an opinion to Mario........we`re all wrong according to him!

I cant wait for his explanation, this will be a play on words of which the likes you have never seen & when broken down to get the meaning.....you`ll find none!!

Heres an idea... lets put mario in charge of policing the canopies of these redwoods, it will be his duty to pursue & apprehend anyone who disturbs the above ground eco systems of these organisms, he will have to obtain evidence to prove such though & introduce it in redwood tree court.

requirements for the job:

candidate should be in good physical condition with ability to climb tree(s)....oops, no need to go any further! you dont qualify Mario! you are the Arboriculture black eye............."jackwad" 


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


----------



## lxt (Jan 8, 2009)

Ekka, whens operation "black eye"? Ive got my bark girdling tools & eco system nullifier ready! send me in General!!


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


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 8, 2009)

LXT is a funny guy  

With all the mention of web pages, he brings to mind folks like, say, liberals who listen to conservative talk radio daily, or vice versa - conservatives listening daily to a liberal show.

You know who I mean? Folks who disagree on most issues with you, but stay tuned in anyway.

Nothing wrong with that either.

Thanks for visiting LXT.

You're beginning to make me feel like the BATMAN - lol - Why ...

Because he can take it  

It sort of has to do with becoming immune to name calling in school, around 1965 and the next few years.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 8, 2009)

lxt said:


> Ekka, whens operation "black eye"? Ive got my bark girdling tools & eco system nullifier ready! send me in General!!
> 
> 
> LXT................



When the "fly Ekka to the PNW fund" has enough money for him to live on for 3 months.

Sorry, i just realized that this is a badmouth Mario thread. I'll go play somewhere else. Hey OD, start another thread that i can reply to!


----------



## Ekka (Jan 8, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Sorry, i just realized that this is a badmouth Mario thread.



LOL, or point out what his motivations and credentials are.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 8, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Ekka must have spent 1/2 an hour on that one. One thing he omitted, is that he never went to that discussion page to recommend any changes in THAT SPECIFIC sub-heading. Nor did any other editing contributor.
> 
> I think the best example to illustrate what Ekka is complaining about, would be voting.



Again you missed the points because your brain cant bend around things.

I mentioned the poor software and lack of alerts so unless you visit all the time you dont know what rubbish some-ones doing.

The second point you missed is YOU instigated that action, motivated by your poor personal attitude.

Third point you missed is that you now have put yourself into some psuedo position of authority calling shots at Wiki, hence me calling you WikiGod. Based on that is all the more reason people lose interest or care WTF is written in Wiki. 

Imagine that, now you have to debate and answer to Mario's shots at Wiki.  And the ladder lubber landscraper aint even a real arborist.  

Yep, Wiki's credibility just took a huge dive.

I wonder how much arguing and BS you've done to the Redwoods section, who you pissing off there?
*
Mario, you miss so many points it's a joke.​* However people here can see for themselves what you really are.... a boil that needs to be lanced.


----------



## lxt (Jan 8, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> LXT is a funny guy
> 
> With all the mention of web pages, he brings to mind folks like, say, liberals who listen to conservative talk radio daily, or vice versa - conservatives listening daily to a liberal show.
> 
> ...




Whats sad is you think im being funny!! Im being truthful & am getting the Rep for it!! thanks guys.

I stay tuned in to help the less fortunate in knowing you hear the truth!

did you say Batman? right amount of syllables but wrong word: I believe you meant "you`re beginning to make me feel like a jackwad" see you just have a spelling problem, Ill help; see carrot above.

so people have been calling you names since 1965!! think about that & ask yourself why?


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


----------



## lxt (Jan 8, 2009)

M.D.Vaden, whats real interesting is your work portfolio....I laugh when viewing it, why?

theres numerous pictures, disease diagnosis, advice & other tid bits but of all those pictures you are in what? 3-4....pruning a birch, sitting on your chubby rump, talking at the AARP...oops landscape & garden clinique & maybe 1-2 more.

there`s a shot of your orchard ladder in one of the pic`s, I have to question as to wheather you even did any of the work in the other slides....I mean who would leave their orchard ladder get the glory? let me guess you did all that work yourself & no one was around to take a pic of you after completion!!

I dont know, looks like some "I took a photo of someone elses work" & am taking credit for it, or is it some fancy cut/paste from an this old house magazine? C`mon taking credit for Roger Cooks work!

your website is as false as you!

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


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 8, 2009)

Ekka said:


> I mentioned the poor software and lack of alerts so unless you visit all the time you dont know what rubbish some-ones doing.



So you are saying that you are disappointed that you would have to drop in to see an article like once a month ... "all the time" ?? No - I'm quite certain you are wrong on all the points.

Except the screen capture looks like it was cropped just about right. Thanks for posting the picture.

LXT ...

I think you are wrong too. On virtually every point. But to your credit, you are right that there are a lot of photos. The albums have numbers, and that may belp you keep track of numerical increase.


----------



## lxt (Jan 8, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> LXT ...
> 
> I think you are wrong too. On virtually every point.
> 
> ...




Really? shucks wrong again, It means so much coming from you!

yep, lot of pirated photos!! you didnt do any of the work in em!!!

really there are numbers? Wow, as if I didn know!

well guys for reasons I cant say, Im outta here!!


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


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Jan 8, 2009)

Mother, MAKE THEM STOP!!!:deadhorse:


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 8, 2009)

Sunrise Guy said:


> Mother, MAKE THEM STOP!!!:deadhorse:



Yeah I knew it would get to this point about a 170 posts ago. lol.

Still I'm amazed at it all though... 

I wouldnt even want to ever even bother climbing a Redwood after reading all this - looks like too much work anyway, lol. 

I still gotta see them someday though.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 8, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> Yeah I knew it would get to this point about a 170 posts ago. lol.
> 
> Still I'm amazed at it all though...



tree MDS ...

Amazing ?

Go to the business forum 

Ekka is exhuming one particular website topic.

There should be a series of replies following each of his last - September to this January.

opcorn:


----------



## capetrees (Jan 8, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> Hey cape, how long have you been climbing with the saddle now?? what a year or less?? seem more of an internet jockey than climbing authority to me.



With a saddle? Almost 2 years.

Without a saddle? Recreationally and work related for over 35 years and I've got the pictures to prove it although I don't know how to put links, jpegs, IMG or pictures in here. I'll have to ask vaden for help. :hmm3grin2orange: How about you? How long you been in the canopy?

And internet jockey? Seems you have almost 3 times as many post as I do. Hmmm...


----------



## capetrees (Jan 8, 2009)

BTW, this is getting shut down soon, no doubt. Enjoy while you can. opcorn: 

No doubt, "someone" has contacted someone about the abuse in here.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Jan 8, 2009)

What abuse? lol. opcorn:


----------



## Slvrmple72 (Jan 8, 2009)

keyboard abuse. I hear them screaming as I type. Sorry little fellas !


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 8, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> I still gotta see them someday though.



tree MDS ...

You could probably pull it off for a bit over a grand - plane, car rent and room.

Here's one for you below - pic was taken by Beranek last summer.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 9, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> No - I'm quite certain you are wrong on all the points.



You were also so certain in that link thread and thought you were right, woozed out on a bet, then buggered off for 24 hours and came back doing a 180 degree turn, it's your style.

You are wrong, we can all see it........


Oh look, Mario wondering if his ladder will reach. :looser:


M.D. Vaden said:


>


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 9, 2009)

Ekka said:


> You were also so certain in that link thread and thought you were right



Ekka ...

Looks like a lot of people are wrong to you from reading your replies.

Never does seem to accomplish a purpose for you though. Does it fuel your tank?

I remember how many kids would name-call at each other back in Kindergarten, to about the 9th grade. Most of them quit by the 10th, 11th or 12th grades.

You should read posts from users like Treeseer, John Paul Sanborn or Murphy4Trees. Just ignore the tree talk - look at the style they have.

That's 1/2 reason I quit going to your forum. Your name calling made your site like the World of Corrosion.

Arborist Site is not a perfect site. But the point is ... if you can't do a better job at moderating ... don't try and build a replacement. All you did was build a spare tire with worn tread. The better tread - Arborist Site - is a better choice for the road.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 9, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Ekka ...
> 
> Looks like a lot of people are wrong to you from reading your replies.
> 
> ...



Whatever, LOSER.  

You should visit www.wankersworld.com you fit right in. :hmm3grin2orange:

What have you built Mario? Oh ...who cares, were arborists, real tree workers, who get the job done while you tap your keyboard talking the usual rhetoric of BS your full of.

Pedigree Loser, was it your mums side or your dads?


----------



## Ekka (Jan 9, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> That's 1/2 reason I quit going to your forum.



For the record, LOSER quits anything that either doesn't go with his perspectives or he cannot control. :hmm3grin2orange: 

Thankfully your toxicity and venom doesn't control others or Google ... so join the Conga Line getting under the bar.  

We're doing great without you, couldn't be better.  

Any others want to quit, good, it's the people we dont have that makes us so great.  

Industry Black eyes ... coming from a boil!


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 9, 2009)

capetrees said:


> With a saddle? Almost 2 years.
> 
> Without a saddle? Recreationally and work related for over 35 years and I've got the pictures to prove it although I don't know how to put links, jpegs, IMG or pictures in here. I'll have to ask vaden for help. :hmm3grin2orange: How about you? How long you been in the canopy?
> 
> And internet jockey? Seems you have almost 3 times as many post as I do. Hmmm...



18 years "in the canopy", 20 years treework.

So that's 37 years you've got... 35 with a saw clipped to your stone washed jeans before you figured out there was a better way?? lol. 

Is it just me or is that a little screwed up?

Climbing without a saddle doesnt count as treework, sorry. 
 
And yes, unfortunately I do have too much time on my hands in the winter.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 9, 2009)

Sounds like you are substituting your opinion for facts Ekka ...

Look at all these other FORUMS posted earlier by you, in the form of an image. That's post #167 of this thread - is looks like your real crux.



Ekka said:


> ...(snip)...
> 
> Here's the evidence from the discussion page.
> 
> ...




See your TREE WORLD included in there ? Along with the other forums. The real issue looks like forum thing for you. When that post of yours is looked at carefully, 3 things potentially stand out:

1. Undermine Arborist Site by promotion of your Tree Forum? Yes, or no?
2. Introduction of other Forums undermine your competitor - this forum? Yes or no?
3. Personal attack? Yes, or no?

It's your post and image.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 9, 2009)

capetrees said:


> No doubt, "someone" has contacted someone about the abuse in here.



Me Me I did it!



> And yes, unfortunately I do have too much time on my hands in the winter.



Don't we all my accounts received was under $900 for Dec, and I did not defer all that much.

I got that Styx song running around in my head


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 9, 2009)

*Ok, enough is enough*

I reviewed the last few pages of this thread, having dropped it some time back. As a neutral observer, I can see that nearly everyone has _*some *_good points while commenting negatively about others (or bad, depending on your point of view). 

Don't you guys have any other way to vent your frustrations in life? All this acrimony and back-sniping will affect your outlook on life. The satisfaction you get from getting in a good dig on the other fellow will not last as long as the outrage you remember over the statements posted by your opposition.

Unless you can just learn to let it slide... 




...into oblivion.


As a neutral observer, I kind of enjoy reading the posts with you guys mutually kicking each other in the &@11$; perhaps that is how I work out MY frustrations in life. So apart from this previous little tidbit of advice from me: GO GET 'EM. Tear that other guy a new @##-()ole !


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 9, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> Tear that other guy a new @##-()ole !



Since this thread has turned into a bunch of monkeys throwing excrement ....

how does @##*)-(*ole look instead. kinda looks like an H


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 9, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Me Me I did it!
> (parts deleted for brevity)



Dam, John. You beat me to it. Plus, I have never reported anybody, and don't know how. YET!

You indicated elsewhere that you were working on your english and composition skills? *You forgot punctuation.* 
That should be "Me! Me! I did it!" Each "Me" is an exclamatory statement, and stands alone, unless used in a series: Me, me, me! (which doesn't work nearly as well)

http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/exclamsent7term.htm

 Har! Har! Har! 
_(use your best "pirate" voice) _


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 9, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> how does @##*)-(*ole look instead. kinda looks like an H



I don't know. I was winging it; I don't know how to cuss on-line. I guess maybe the reader has to think about it?


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 9, 2009)

Hey! I just noticed.

I put in "$$" after my "@" sign. I guess the profanity filter is too smart for me.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 9, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> That should be "Me! Me! I did it!" Each "Me" is an exclamatory statement, and stands alone, unless used in a series: Me, me, me! (which doesn't work nearly as well)



 you should'a used a red "ink" for the corrections.


> I put in "$$" after my "@" sign. I guess the profanity filter is too smart for me.



Just that the mod's have seen too much of it.



> I don't know. I was winging it; I don't know how to cuss on-line. I guess maybe the reader has to think about it?



I don't either, I was being a little facetious


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 9, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Me Me I did it!




JPS - is that like:


*I'm the real Spartacus*

Seen that one JPS ?



Ekka said:


> Whatever ... (snip) ...
> 
> What have you built Mario?



What do you consider "built" to include or exclude ?


----------



## lxt (Jan 9, 2009)

Look the truth is...yes we do get abusive toward one another, the other truthful fact is; if you post a thread with limited insight all the while correcting other posters in an attempt to look "smarter" then that in & of its self is wrong.

The thread title has substance, yet the originator has gone off on a schooling tangent which in turn is the reason for the crude beating!

to remark about the title: A true Black eye is given to this profession by those who "think" they have all the answers & down grade others opinions with lack of substance responses!

Yes we as climbers look down on non-climbing know it all Cert. arborists....why? cause the criteria of being an "true" arborist is not in the letter of the title, but in the spirit of the title.....not too mention the arrogance & condescending attitude coming from such a person along with PR skills promoting talent when there is a lack of ability to perform, thus we call people like this liars!

letter of the title meaning: all book smarts, certifications, diplomas, etc.. with no real experience in the areas there should be! 

spirit of the title meaning: book smarts & an eagerness to learn more, while embracing their trade/craft in a way that shows! not doing so for any other reason than a sincere like/love of the trade, well rounded but may not have all the papers as the guy above, but has hands on!


whats sad is when someone will opine on a topic giving a view of a talent in which they dont have , never had or ever will have......in this case the ability to *Climb* the black eye in arboriculture IMO comes from slick tongued people with a gift of gab, usually with a little knowledge or stolen ( they prefer borrowed) trade elements characterizing it as their own! or promoting themselves by false means, means which they acquired from someone else!

nuff said by me, 

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


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 9, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> tree MDS ...
> 
> You could probably pull it off for a bit over a grand - plane, car rent and room.
> 
> Here's one for you below - pic was taken by Beranek last summer.



No money or time when I do have the $ mario, maybe within the next couple years though. I dreamed of taking a ride across country to see them in my 67 firebird when I was in my early 20's. It just never happened due to whatever.

If I ever do go I'll know who to ask about where to look though.

Nice pic BTW, thats gotta be awesome to see.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 9, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> If I ever do go I'll know who to ask about where to look though.
> 
> Nice pic BTW, thats gotta be awesome to see.



Whenever it's convenient to come out - drop a line.

I think you would enjoy the area this image here is from. Known to a few as the Valley of the Lost Groves.

The center trunk in this cathedral ring does not show up very well, but it caught my eye due to bark ridges bigger than any I've ever seen. It's broken off now, with just a speck of life, besides the ring of trees from it. I think that this tree was in the size range of the Lindsey Creek Tree or Crannel Giant that existed years ago.

So this whole cluster in the pic, is just one Titanic redwood trunk and it's basal sprouts. Hard to tell in the image, but the bark ridges are as wide as a man's body standing sideways. This tree must have been in another league of maturity than the 3 largest known now.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 9, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Whenever it's convenient to come out - drop a line.
> 
> I think you would enjoy the area this image here is from. Known to a few as the Valley of the Lost Groves.
> 
> ...



Then a hub and spoke cabling system is called for, looks like about 50-75K to me, send better pics of the overall cluster so I can firm up the bid for yu, sir.

jomoco


----------



## capetrees (Jan 9, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> 18 years "in the canopy", 20 years treework.
> 
> So that's 37 years you've got... 35 with a saw clipped to your stone washed jeans before you figured out there was a better way?? lol.
> 
> ...



I've been climbing trees since I could walk. It's just something I come by naturally. I'm more comfortable in the trees sometimes than on the ground.

Is using a saddle a better way? Maybe. It allows me to do some really fun stuff in the trees I never would be able to do without the saddle and ropes. That and the fact that I have a family that depends on me staying healthy and getting up the next day to go to work. I'll bet a good portion of the trees I've taken down in the past would have been down on the ground before you set your lines. 

You may not think of it as tree work without a saddle but the trees are down, no damage to anything, no injuries to anyone and the clients have all been very pleased. All that without a saddle. Call it what you want but it works for me.:greenchainsaw:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 9, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> ... I climbed Devils Tower a number of years back, the Durance is one of the highest trafficked routes in the US, and the hard rock is worn so smooth in places ...



JPS ...

Here's a redwood called SKULL RACK that reminds me of the rock climbing gyms.

Think you could tackle one like this by hand jamming ?

The earlier redwood, I've posted on this forum before, but a different view. Several that I'm adding today are more recently taken.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 10, 2009)

M.D. why do you copyright pics?


----------



## treeseer (Jan 10, 2009)

(WLL) said:


> M.D. why do you copyright pics?


why not?


----------



## SLlandscape (Jan 10, 2009)

I have to admit, it would be freaking awsome to see redwoods of that size in person. Personaly I would enjoy walking around on the forest floor amongst the giants more than climbing one. The chance to see one in person would be good enough for me.

As far as rec climbing goes. There needs to be something setup that proves that you are a capable climber who knows what he/she is doing. whether it be a permit, course taught by forest service, or whatever. If climbing in an area where trees are being researched, the trees in question need to be marked with a sign or your permit needs to say "this species is off limits for scientific reasons" or something similar. If need be state forest services should get involved to regulate where trees are climbed and what trees can be climbed. Something like a hunting season for animals but for trees, which tells you which trees in an area can be climbed and for how long. This way every one is happy, the trees can be climbed and protected.
This is only my 2 cents worth.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 10, 2009)

(WLL) said:


> M.D. why do you copyright pics?



A fair number of my pics are from undisclosed groves where the largest 4 coast redwoods are located. Although a couple of teensy images exist elsewhere from some folks, many of my photos are the only ones on the internet at sizes over 600 pixels wide, that I'm aware of.

The research scientist clan was VERY stingy about making images available online, to the general public.

Speaking of skulls (skull rack was previous)

This is Drury Tree in Prairie Creek redwoods. It's like the 16th largest coast redwood by volume. The trunk looks like it's got a 1/2 SKULL on it.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 10, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> 1. Undermine Arborist Site by promotion of your Tree Forum? Yes, or no?
> 2. Introduction of other Forums undermine your competitor - this forum? Yes or no?
> 3. Personal attack? Yes, or no?
> 
> It's your post and image.




Again you miss the point, because you cannot comprehend. 

And the type of questions you ask shows the burning comtempt you hold against many things, people are just one but mainly anything that you perceive as a threat to your online persona and rule. 

When you've finished "greasing" the facts with your venomous slant then you'll be able to comprehend a bit better.

Again, here's the facts, you removed links.



Ekka said:


> Now the links that did stay are organisations that are funded with members, businesses in fact, businesses that aren't free access to all like forums. You wont get quick replies or help like you do at forums.
> 
> But Mario's mind doesn't think consistently when it is fuelled by the Dark side like it is.
> 
> You decide, see the facts, work the coincidences and decide for yourself what this wanker is all about.



Then by me pointing this out you try to insinuate that I undermine this place and have some hidden agenda.... yet I speak for all those links, regardless which ones and you merrily made yourself President of Wiki and called an election on something that frankly I see as fuelled by sour grapes and illogical composure, which I have substantiated why in the above quoted post ... you left funded organisational links (businesses)! :monkey:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 10, 2009)

In Richard Preston's book: THE WILD TREES

He mentioned redwoods Kronos and Rhea. Here, Kronos left, and Rhea right. I took this from next to Zeus. Posted this one mainly for Trivia. Up in Zeus is where Dr. Steve Sillett & Marie Antoinne were engaged.

See the big limb on the left of Kronos? The horizontal limb is about 7' in diameter, and the larger of the stems that reiterated from it is about 3' to 4' in diameter. That's what Preston called Kronos Wood or Complex.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 10, 2009)

> This is Drury Tree in Prairie Creek redwoods. It's like the 16th largest coast redwood by volume. The trunk looks like it's got a 1/2 SKULL on it.



Looks like someone started a scarf on it and gave up.


----------



## treevet (Jan 10, 2009)

Looks like somebody compacting the soil and compromising the health of a redwood for their own interests. Don't you see it that way Vaden?


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 10, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Looks like someone started a scarf on it and gave up.



Maybe they hit a nail. lol.


----------



## oldirty (Jan 10, 2009)

capetrees said:


> . I'll bet a good portion of the trees I've taken down in the past would have been down on the ground before you set your lines.



i am calling BS on this statement. BS!


cmon man. for starters, the tree's on the cape are tiny. second, a real climber on your little pecker poles would be living the life wearing just the basic saddle flipline and spike combo for takedowns.

dont try to justify the wrong way youve been dong it. i dont buy your skills man. no way no how.


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 10, 2009)

*Developmentally handicapped tree climbers*



oldirty said:


> i am calling BS on this statement. BS!
> 
> 
> cmon man. for starters, the tree's on the cape are tiny. second, a real climber on your little pecker poles would be living the life wearing just the basic saddle flipline and spike combo for takedowns.
> ...



I like the part about 35 years climbing without a saddle before seeing the light - gotta be something inherently wrong there. lol.

Hey cape, good thing you stumbled onto AS, I dont think you would ever make it up those Redwoods you so wi####lly speak of climbing with just the old stonewashed jeans, lol.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 10, 2009)

treevet said:


> *Looks like somebody compacting the soil and compromising the health of a redwood for their own interests. Don't you see it that way Vaden?*



Not at all.

Part of the answer is in my redwood pages - one of them. That's one reason I'm glad I found a lot of these. Some of the trees have so much surface roots and natural needle mulch, that soil compaction is IMPOSSIBLE underneath. Some trees more than others. You ever seen the surface roots that a maple tree will form in a lawn in 100 years? Ask yourself how much surface root and needle would be on the ground surface under a 2000 year old tree.

Also, the time of year matters a lot. Dry soil on the surface rarely compacts from human weight.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 10, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> JPS ...
> Think you could tackle one like this by hand jamming ?



Slip siding away...



capetrees said:


> I've been climbing trees since I could walk. It's just something I come by naturally. I'm more comfortable in the trees sometimes than on the ground.



I guess every kid is a treeworker, and I need to find a new profession because any one can do it.



> I'll bet a good portion of the trees I've taken down in the past would have been down on the ground before you set your lines.



I have a feeling OD is right; you do not know what you are talking about and listen to yourself tell yourself how good you are too often.

As long as this is a bust on people thread...



> You may not think of it as tree work without a saddle but the trees are down, no damage to anything



It is not professional, but then you knew I would say something like that if i answered. One cannot work safe without mechanical contact.



M.D. Vaden said:


> That's one reason I'm glad I found a lot of these. Some of the trees have so much surface roots and natural needle mulch, that soil compaction is IMPOSSIBLE underneath. Some trees more than others.



I was not concerned about your walking there, but the crack you are showing in the picture. 

How is that for off topic, not a topic I want to see again please


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 10, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I was not concerned about your walking there, but the crack you are showing in the picture.
> 
> How is that for off topic, not a topic I want to see again please



JPS ...

You're such a great guy on the AS forum, that I'll go the extra mile for you on this one - LOL

Here is an enlargement  

That's the T-shirt under my red long sleeve shirt.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 10, 2009)

oldirty said:


> i am calling BS on this statement. BS!
> 
> 
> cmon man. for starters, the tree's on the cape are tiny. second, a real climber on your little pecker poles would be living the life wearing just the basic saddle flipline and spike combo for takedowns.
> ...




I don't care. No way, no how.:smoking:


----------



## capetrees (Jan 10, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I have a feeling OD is right; you do not know what you are talking about and listen to yourself tell yourself how good you are too often.
> 
> It is not professional, but then you knew I would say something like that if i answered. One cannot work safe without mechanical contact.


Pretty funny stuff. This from the modest guy that claims to everyone he's an "above average" climber. And old dirtys got 5 years experience? Now that's expertise!

I know what I can do and have done and don't care what you think.


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 10, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Pretty funny stuff. This from the modest guy that claims to everyone he's an "above average" climber. And old dirtys got 5 years experience? Now that's expertise!
> 
> I know what I can do and have done and don't care what you think.



What the heck could you possibly have been doing for 35 years without ropes and a saddle cape?? And how would you attach your saw?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 10, 2009)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I was not concerned about your walking there, but the crack you are showing in the picture.



JPS ...

Now here you go.

A crack at the butt of the tree.

Redwood called "Scar Face"

How's that for a Butt Crack  

Pretty cool tree actually. A lot of people probably zip past it on the way to cross the foot bridge into Lady Bird Johnson grove. Very nicely formed top. It's at the edge of the parking lot there.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 10, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> What the heck could you possibly have been doing for 35 years without ropes and a saddle cape?? And how would you attach your saw?




For one, I have never said I have working the trees for 35 years. I've been climbing them for 35 years. As a kid, I climbed every tree I could get my self into. I've been working the trees off and on since 1988 but steady for the past 12 years. As far as how I do what I do or have done, I've been through it all before. Nobody believes it but thats ok. I just don't care.:smoking:


----------



## oldirty (Jan 10, 2009)

capetrees said:


> And old dirtys got 5 years experience? Now that's expertise!
> 
> I know what I can do and have done and don't care what you think.




its oldirty.


6 yrs climbing never mind the early ground years. set free after working for a couple studs in this area. ive seen it done the right way and ive learned that way.

i can call your statement bs because i have also seen it done the wrong way. i dont work like that. 

i watched a guy do a lot next to us in arlington mass the other day. he was missing a tooth in his smile. roofless toofless i called him. bumpy too, it was wierd.

anyway, all he would do was spike up a bit and then set his flipline as high as he could reach it and choke it. his one TIP. and work up to that point and repeat the process. every single cut he made would be a reaching 1 handed salami cut with a 346xp. ( he was real proud of that saw btw. had the silver top.) the branches above him he'd fast cut and lean back to avoid the brush, inches from his flipline. his one TIP. 

anyway, this guy. roofless toofless as i call him told me he had been climbing that way since 89' and didnt really have the time to be setting lines to get around the tree. because his way had worked this far for him. when i showed him the way i climb and the climbing setup's from my coworker's, he still didnt buy in. 

the moral of the story you ask?

at least this knucklehead, who has no time to set a line, at the very least uses a saddle and flipline to go with his spikes while he is one handing his medium saw/climbing saw on a small tree.


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 10, 2009)

capetrees said:


> For one, I have never said I have working the trees for 35 years. I've been climbing them for 35 years. As a kid, I climbed every tree I could get my self into. I've been working the trees off and on since 1988 but steady for the past 12 years. As far as how I do what I do or have done, I've been through it all before. Nobody believes it but thats ok. I just don't care.:smoking:



Ok, now its alittle more realistic - ten years doing treework without a saddle...for money I assume?


----------



## capetrees (Jan 10, 2009)

Mostly. Some work around moms house and other friends I know but yes, for money otherwise.


----------



## capetrees (Jan 10, 2009)

oldirty said:


> the moral of the story you ask?
> 
> at least this knucklehead, who has no time to set a line, at the very least uses a saddle and flipline to go with his spikes while he is one handing his medium saw/climbing saw on a small tree.




Thats not a moral, its just a synopsis. :chatter: But again, I don't care, really.

Good night folks. Gotta get some sleep before I go plowing.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 28, 2009)

For those interested more in facts than opinions, I just ran across this, free from the ISA website:

http://www.isa-arbor.com/publications/arbNews/pdfs/Oct07-feature.pdf

:taped:


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 28, 2009)

treeseer said:


> For those interested more in facts than opinions, I just ran across this, free from the ISA website:
> 
> http://www.isa-arbor.com/publications/arbNews/pdfs/Oct07-feature.pdf
> 
> :taped:


great link treeseer, lots of good links to more great facts and info. i agree 100% with all the folks on keeping any climbers other than research study groups/teams out of the most valued trees on the planet. trespassers should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law!!NINJA'S GO HOME!!!!!


----------



## AOD (Jan 29, 2009)

The OP needs to find some more important things to flip out about, such as hacks like Nosak. 

Leave the rec climbers alone.....


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 29, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Good night folks. Gotta get some sleep before I get plowed.


Yo cape, :agree2: you takin or receiving? 
P.S you betta get back ta begging fer rep cause you in the wrong place to talk chit on JPS or ol'd :censored: :monkey:


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 29, 2009)

AOD said:


> The OP needs to find some more important things to flip out about, such as hacks like Nosak.
> 
> Leave the rec climbers alone.....


I'm all for rec climbing just not in protected forests. there is a huge difference between rec climbing and wreck climbing


----------



## rmihalek (Jan 29, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Within the past 1/2 year, more than one tree worker has been posting about recreational climbs in Rockefeller Forest area, on a couple of forums. Photos, videos and commentary. Promoting illigitimate climbing, again, is one more way to lessen the arborist profession as a whole.
> 
> Both #1 and #2 are irresponsible acts that tend to give arboriculture a black eye, especially if the individuals or companies are advertising being professionals. If they are Certified, such habits transform certification into dirt.



What if the rec climber is not an arborist at all but a former rock climber? Would this practice still (somehow) give arborists a black eye?


----------



## moss (Jan 29, 2009)

*Holy crap!*



Sunrise Guy said:


> After reading "The Wild Trees," I wrote the author a nasty letter. It thoroughly po'd me that this group of Ninja climbers (covered in the book), once they became older and became "The Establishment," took so many steps to make sure that no other climbers could climb "their trees," citing the usual environmental sensitivity issues.



I'm glad I didn't realize this thread was gong on earlier. What a mess. just wanted to comment on the researcher comment above....

When Sillett (canopy researcher featured in the book) says on his web site that he doesn't think rec climbers should be climbing on PNW old-growth he's expressing his opinion. Sillett is not shutting the door on anyone, he doesn't have anything to do with formulating rules and regs on state or federally managed old-growth redwood preserves. 

If you want to climb legally in those places don't roll over and whine, put together a for-real research proposal and apply for a permit.

Sending negative comments to the author of the 'The Wild Trees' about what Sillett did or didn't do seems totally misdirected, Preston wrote the book and doesn't have anything to do with what Sillett thinks, says or does.

Ok, I feel better now.
-moss (a rec climber)


----------



## oldirty (Jan 29, 2009)

moss! when the next climb bud?


----------



## treemandan (Jan 29, 2009)

capetrees said:


> With a saddle? Almost 2 years.
> 
> Without a saddle? Recreationally and work related for over 35 years and I've got the pictures to prove it although I don't know how to put links, jpegs, IMG or pictures in here. I'll have to ask vaden for help. :hmm3grin2orange: How about you? How long you been in the canopy?
> 
> And internet jockey? Seems you have almost 3 times as many post as I do. Hmmm...



I swear you said " I regret not taking pictures of when I free climbed".

I swear I said " Geez, I sure would like to see that"

DON"T GET MAD AT ME NOW ! 

No, I am not trying to bash you, I do wanna see those pictures though.


----------



## treemandan (Jan 29, 2009)

Nailsbeats said:


> Why don't you come on over, we'll go for a long walk.



That is a very nice gesture Nails. It warms my heart to hear about people reaching out to others. That is what life is all about. 

I think this is why I got the boot outta the other forum. I was angered by people claiming to be so smart and good and righteous but couldn't ( or wouldn't) find thier own penis when they got ten feet above the ground.
I had a major problem with this ( still kinda do) and went on a Certified Arborist bashing spree right off the bat. I did make my apology for judging many by the acts of a few but those few really got me twerked up. 
Armchair Arborist, so prim and proper. Yapping about what is right and wrong. Please, someone, make them stop.
There are do-er's and then there are say-er's. The say-er's make it sound perfect but the do-er's know that ain't so. "Less jerk, more work", I say it all the time. 
I also can't stand people who bath everyday and wear deoderant. There is way to many kinds of soap on the store shelves. 
Yes, animals ( but we do have emotions), compared to the whinning it seems so many purebred Americans do Mexicans aren't looking so bad.  
I always wondered what " those who can't do, teach" really meant. Cause I always thought if you couldn't do it then maybe you should stop talking. I had a teacher that had that on his car. I wondered if he was making fun of himself. 
That's it for now I guess, I don't want to spend my life caught up in this but I also guess next time I run into one of these guys in person I would like to go for a walk with them too, it doesn't even have to be a long one.


----------



## treemandan (Jan 29, 2009)

Oh I just had to say that I am headed to the YMCA to take my kid swimming. You know the Y? That is the place where they built a huge room room for people to go walking in. most likly Darth Vaden is on the best treadmill allready. I said ANIMALS not rats.


----------



## treemandan (Jan 29, 2009)

And they have mexicans at the Y too ceptin they ain't there to work out, they are mopping the floors.


----------



## tree MDS (Jan 29, 2009)

*Too much hate*

And "the dan" rocks on!! 

Good hearing from the dan, always makes one think some - and lighten up a little too.

what are we?? ...just a bunch of treedogs after all - at least I hope!!

Hug em, kill em, we all got things in common.


----------



## moss (Jan 29, 2009)

oldirty said:


> moss! when the next climb bud?



Whenever you're available, I've got some tall white pines perfect for buzzards to perch in.
-moss


----------



## oldirty (Jan 29, 2009)

sweet. 

terry told me to tell you that he owes you a beer. so you know he's in too.

nothing like being perched on a branch way up there taking it in, huh?

i say a sweet early spring climb with the boys would be cool. who got a big tree in their backyard who wants to party? something near a bbq would be cool with me.


----------



## treemandan (Jan 29, 2009)

oldirty said:


> awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes the cycle of life BUT that don't mean we can do as we please ALL the time. 
" Just cause I got long hair and wear sandals don't mean I am a hippy", that's what I said to the hippies.
Well I still wear sandals but I cut my hair. Why? cause it got full of sweat and wood chips ( I said I don't bath everyday). The sandals seem a logicall choice too.
There is a line in the middle of what you were talking about, its tough to stay on. 
I used to ride my bicycle in the park, also I was a volunteer to help repair trails. Its was said us moutainbikers trashed the trails although some said this was not the case. I said" If you are't trashing the place riding then you are obviously not doing it right".
Yes, we wrecked the trails. Some trails were made for wrecking and some were not. Good planning, thought for what you do, and helping to replenish what you use helps you stay in the middle. There is no one side to anything and we only argue these points with each other to help us feel justified even though we allready are. One man's this is another's that.
Is it wrong to chop down a 1000 year old tree? Its is if you just chop it down and that's all you do. You know as well as I do if there were not people saying " stop cutting" the greedy ones would have us chop em all down real quick so they could get rich or even worse, just for fun. RESPONSIBLITY. True, it sucks but you can't deny it.
As an animal we need to take from the earth, as an animal with a thought process we need to give back.


----------



## oldugly (Jan 30, 2009)

The only way that rec climbing gives arborists a black eye is when arm chair arborists have nothing better to do than complain about them. In simple fact I don't know of any respectable arborists who climb "protected" trees, but if they did and were "respectable", they would show that respect to the tree, the environment around the tree, and the micro-ecosystems involved, so I woulod haveno problem with them.

The surest way to give Arborists a black eye, is for arm chair intellectuals to throw insults and antagonize those who actually work and perform their aerial skills. 

MD Vaden, you are one of the great hypocrytes of all time. Your posts, and threads do nothing to further the industry you claim to love, but only accomplish a narcistic need to justify yourself in amongst professionals that you have really shown nothing but contempt for. At least you have accomplished one thing...demonstrating the definition of pompousness.

I do not Rec climb, but I do believe strongly that those who do, do not harm our industry, and as a matter of fact, they open the public eye to those who actually further our industry, by demonstrating the correct methods of entering trees without damage, and demonstrating care for the trees they love. I would like to see the rec climbs as a public sport such as x-treme snow-boarding or the like.

But I am sure you will either not answer this, or try to justify yourself again quoting books, and esteeming yourself as a professional. I want to congratulate you on the success of your troll.


----------



## OTG BOSTON (Jan 30, 2009)

Tree co had it right with his original post in this thread.


----------



## oldugly (Jan 30, 2009)

OTG
Treeco usually gets it right. Sometimes I don't agree. but he usually is not pretentious and gets his ideas accross right. I agree here, he had it right the first time. MD just was able to try to refocus everyone's attn. from his original post to side tracks about what harm might be done to the trees. His original statement was about the industry itself, nothing to do with the actual health of the trees involved.

The real harm to the industry is the arm chair critics who theorize and hypthesize ways to propagate their own over-educated and under-worked theories into other's lives. Criticizing methods and practices of real professionals can somehow make themselves feel professional themselves.

Don't get me wrong, there are methods and practices I criticize also, but I usually do so from the top of an impossible removal, not from an armchair in my office.


----------



## treemandan (Jan 30, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> I don't think what rec climbers do has any reflection on arboriculture or on Certified Arborist.
> 
> I'm thinking a large part of what bothers you about the rec climbers is related to the fact that you are not a climber.



What did he say? What exactly doesn't he agree with? Just the rec climbing or the other thing too?

Hold on , hold on, don't shoot. You are a better man than that to think I am headed to bash you right now Dan, just looking for some clarity.

Ok , we all know no one likes Vaden cause he don't climb BUT does he say any else?

When they tried to stop me to get a permit to ride my bike in the park I just rode off laughing. That was a good while ago. I guess if I were to go backwoods hiking I would need a permit to stay with in the law.

While no one wants to be told he can't anything with out a permit ( and surely we get indignant when we have to pay for a permit) it truly is a viable way to monitor the situation. Does anyone agree that some situations be monitored?
building
hunting
fishing
driving
riding a bike? What's next? 

Yes, even I got mad at Vaden for being an armchair arborist and I hope he knows that. But its true, you should get a permit if you want to partake in activities on public land. Especially tree climbing, its good to tell the authorities where you are is case you don't come back when you are supposed. They will come look for you. Now nodody here is an authority cause if you were you would have a stack of permits to hand out along with another stack of citations for those that don't have permits.

They did want to kick us bikers out of the park and we, the renagades with no permits, did not help ourselves by not complying. I realized this so I got into the organization the gave out the permits and worked to help reduce and repair the wear and tear I made. Also, since I was a volunteer I didn't need no stinking permit to ride my bike in the park anymore. That's like one of those WIN/ WIN things we always hear so much about. 


I don't like the people who say " never chop down another redwood" and I don't like the people who cut them down uncontrolably. I don't like people who think they can blast through the park with out a permit. YO! COMERE DUDE! WHERE'S YOR PERMIT!!?
To be honest our band of volunteers " sold" more permits than any other and we used to be the renagades.


----------



## oldugly (Jan 30, 2009)

Again we get sidetracked by Mr. Vaden's personal agenda of self satisfying ego-stroking. 
Treemandan-- The original post had nothing to do with permits, or tree health, or any of the issues raised since. The original question was whether it gave (rec climbing) aboriculture a "black eye". 

Treeco responded to that aspect and I agree with him. 

I agree with your point of permits, I agree with preserving historical trees, and even agree with the control of access to public lands, and the restricting recreational climbing in these areas. I just do not think in any way it damages our industry...as a matter of fact I believe recreational climbing, be it controlled or not, benefits the industry if it is done properly, and tree damage kept to a minimum. 

The benefits include the public awareness of trees, and the tree-health concerns when IMPROPERLY climbed. Way too much of the public sees a forest as a forest and not as an ecosystem consisting of the largest organizims on earth, together with the smallest. The benefit of publicizing recreational climbing, would be tremendous.


----------



## treemandan (Jan 30, 2009)

oldugly said:


> Again we get sidetracked by Mr. Vaden's personal agenda of self satisfying ego-stroking.
> Treemandan-- The original post had nothing to do with permits, or tree health, or any of the issues raised since. The original question was whether it gave (rec climbing) aboriculture a "black eye".
> 
> Treeco responded to that aspect and I agree with him.
> ...



oof, not to side track again but I thought the whole tree climbing thing was to selfishly satisfy our overly stroked egos It sure seems that way sometimes.
I actually don't know what you just said up there. It sounded like you are argueing with yourself. 
Is rec climbing arboriculture? By definition of arboriculture it kinda does. No?
So you say you agree with the idea of rec climbing not affecting the world of arboriculture? You did say that? AND you saythe benifit of publicizing rec climbing would be tremendous? I don't follow, you lost me.
Now listen, a lot of people might go on the defense right now and see what a just said as a personal attack. Not my intention BUT I think what you just said is full of contradiction and I am a little confused.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 30, 2009)

rmihalek said:


> What if the rec climber is not an arborist at all but a former rock climber? Would this practice still (somehow) give arborists a black eye?



Did you through all the replies? 

Seems like many or most angles have already been covered once or twice.

It's one of those rather old threads that covered a lot of ground and went by the wayside with time.


----------



## oldugly (Jan 30, 2009)

Treemandan-
I will try to explain myself because I do NOT want any confusion.

On the issue of recreational climbing giving arboriculture a "black eye" I disagree as they are two separate entities, however closely related they may seem. The recreational climber does nothing negative at all to the industry.

On the issue of restricting access to historical, or protected areas, absolutley, I agree with you, these areas are protected for a reason and should remain so. On the issues of permits etc. I have no argument with you at all.

On the separate issue of whether recreational climbing is damaging to the trees, I feel that most recreational climbers treat their conquests with great respect. Therefore they would take care not to damage them. That being said, permits and restricted access to preserve them is a must.

Separately from all of that, I brought up the issue that if more recreational climbing took place, and was made more public, it would have the reverse affect that MD had attributed. (which he had said it has a negative affect on the industry) 

I feel it would raise public awareness of the value, individuality, and challenge of trees, subsequently benefitting the industry by demonstration of the proper methods of tree climbing versus the standard scare strap and spike. 

Separately from all of that, I was trying to say that the most damaging aspect to the tree industry is egotistical arm chair arborists taking pot shots at those with the skill and science to actually do the job, and therefore alienating those people, (if they do need to improve their methods), from any desire to learn modern tree care methods. I would rather take in account where someone is in their methods, and try to help them improve, rather than write them off and criticize their persons, companies, or intelligence.
(This had nothing to do with the aspect of recreational climbing, only the aspect of what gives the industry a black eye)

I realize I ran the subjects together somewhat and I can understand the confusion. 

I tend to ramble my thoughts together sometimes and I apologize that I am not a polished writer.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 30, 2009)

oldugly said:


> On the issue of restricting access to historical, or protected areas, absolutley, I agree with you, these areas are protected for a reason ...
> On the separate issue of whether recreational climbing is damaging to the trees, I feel that most recreational climbers treat their conquests with great respect. Therefore they would take care not to damage them. That being said, permits and restricted access to preserve them is a must.
> 
> Separately from all of that, I brought up the issue that if more recreational climbing took place, and was made more public, ...
> ...


you wrote quite well .

I shoulda posted the article in a new thread; this one's torn up by emotion.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jan 30, 2009)

treeseer said:


> you wrote quite well .
> 
> I shoulda posted the article in a new thread; this one's torn up by emotion.



He writes okay.

I don't think he totally traced the origin of where the topic stemmed from, which would be a professional tree worker - Certified Arborist - simultaneously advertising their videos of illegal climbing of protected forests, while also displaying their certified arborist status online.

It would sort of be like a licensed physician displaying videos online of illegal medical practices in one state, while displaying their licensed title and practicing legally in another state.

It's got virtually nothing to do with the general day to day hobby of recreational climbing.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 30, 2009)

treeseer said:


> you wrote quite well .
> 
> I shoulda posted the article in a new thread; this one's torn up by emotion.


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 30, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> He writes okay.
> 
> Too bad he doesn't pay attention.
> 
> ...


 :fart:


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 30, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> He writes okay.
> 
> Too bad he doesn't pay attention.
> 
> ...


:spam:


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 30, 2009)

treeseer said:


> So mario, what damage has been done to Mr. Rockefeller's forests by these illigitimit climbers? I don't think any of my 4 certs has the slightest speck of soil from that. Cert is imo compromised far worse by pontificators who lack practical experience, and unqualified risk assessors covering their dumb butts by recommending removal because they don't understand much else..
> 
> Before you flip into denial mode re TreeCo's observation, note that you refer twice to climbers as "tree workers", as if these persons were distinct from and somehow lesser than 'arborists". As a CTW and a BCMA I'm offended doubly by that. :censored: It looks to me like an arborist who does not care to climb is hampered just as badly as a climber who does not care to learn about biology.


bump this for a good post about the thread at hand


----------



## moss (Jan 31, 2009)

oldirty said:


> sweet.
> 
> terry told me to tell you that he owes you a beer. so you know he's in too.
> 
> ...



Let's make it happen!
-moss


----------



## (WLL) (Jan 31, 2009)

yo M.D., stop giving yourself black eyes and learn ta climb! you will feel much better


----------



## Ted-RI (Jan 31, 2009)

moss said:


> Let's make it happen!
> -moss



Hey Moss, keep me posted on the climbBQ.

Oh yeah and I think Mr. Vaden is the one giving arboriculture a black eye.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 7, 2009)

I suppose according to Vaden's logic then that Philippe Petit gave wire walking a black eye too. :monkey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIawNRm9NWM


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 7, 2009)

Ekka said:


> I suppose according to Vaden's logic then that Philippe Petit gave wire walking a black eye too. :monkey:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIawNRm9NWM



Heck...

No need to look to that far ...

Just look at the main moderator of Tree World.

That's you ... Ekka ...



Arborist Site was not big enough for you to contaminate. So you had to build your own site to dump more contamination.

Or are you finally resorting to sending all your garbage over here to Arborist Site now?

Actually, Arborist Site should have a BUTTON just for you. A special report to Darin that Ekka is up to his antics button.

opcorn:


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 7, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Heck...
> 
> No need to look to that far ...
> 
> ...


i think ekka has a great site with many good top notch members. maby your mad cause you dont fit in. when ya going to stop giving yourself all them black eyes vaden?


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 7, 2009)

(WLL) said:


> i think ekka has a great site with many good top notch members.



Any site can have some good members.

Even a third world country is going to have good tourists. That's where the value of a third world country comes from.

You confuse moderation or management with a portion of membership.

Looks like you are wrong.


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 7, 2009)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Any site can have some good members.
> 
> Even a third world country is going to have good tourists. That's where the value of a third world country comes from.
> 
> ...


 only in your mind! ill tip ekka off so he can stop by and give you another big black shiner. i think you should use some of your knowledge to help others instead of talking shat. untill than ill be working towards turning your rep to red!!!


----------



## oldirty (Feb 7, 2009)

(WLL) said:


> untill than ill be working towards turning your rep to red!!!



get 'em! 


lol


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 7, 2009)

(WLL) said:


> o ill tip ekka off so he can stop by and give you another big black shiner.



Yeah ...

Go for it.

Like he needs your help though ?


----------



## Ekka (Feb 7, 2009)

(WLL) said:


> i think you should use some of your knowledge to help others instead of talking shat.



That's where the problem starts, what knowledge? 

Thanks for the plug Vaden, I personally would not be dropping a link or name to my forum but good to see you don't mind.

So we have a wire walker who conquered the world's tallest towers, if you care to watch the movie and how they did it you'll be amazed to see that although illegal and the cops drag the guy off he got what as a penalty?

He got global recognition and inspired people.

And as you can see by Vaden's toxicity he likes to label people and acts to the contrary, the future inspiration would be safely sitting beside your PC buying Vaden pics of redwoods all at ground level.

People have since the day of dawn been driven, inspired and wanting to conquer mountains, rivers, oceans and yes even trees. Do I consider those people (of exceptional drive and talent) a black eye to a particular entire industry? No. Sadly Mario does, then contaminates places like this with his rhetoric spilling from the said topic, to people, forums, heck what next a whole nation a black eye Vaden?

Now on arboricultural issues, whether they be the academic side or the practical side, any time you want a match Vaden it's on, with a wager of course, hopefully unlike last time you don't go running away and back stabbing like a typical LOSER.


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 7, 2009)

Ekka said:


> That's where the problem starts, what knowledge?
> 
> Thanks for the plug Vaden, I personally would not be dropping a link or name to my forum but good to see you don't mind.
> 
> ...


and vaden runs off:check:


----------



## capetrees (Feb 7, 2009)

While you're at red repping the guy, go up top and rate the thread. He apparently has rated it 5 stars. I voted one star because zero wasn't available.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for that, I just gave it one star because zero was not an option. :notrolls2:


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 8, 2009)

Wow, what a long thread for such a simple subject.

I agree that poor work standards affects an industry but be careful not to assume that lacking a piece of paper means you lack skills. I sat in class with a guy who has been climbing since 1972 but has no certification. 

It is also possible that seeing a certified arborist posting pictures of breaking the law MAY have a negative influence on how our profession is perceived. 

However neither of these will be as damaging as slagging off at each other as has been the case in this thread. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!


----------



## Ekka (Feb 9, 2009)

And I suppose Alain Robert also gives "climbers" a black eye ... or is it the authorities? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wmLzS3dt4

Hats off to Spiderman.


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 9, 2009)

Ekka said:


> And I suppose Alain Robert also gives "climbers" a black eye ... or is it the authorities?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wmLzS3dt4
> 
> Hats off to Spiderman.


*beyond words* that clip should :spam: every thread in this place. 
*Alan Robert*...............................truly amaizing !!!!!


----------



## oldirty (Feb 10, 2009)

actually he's french wll so i think its alain.

anyways he tapped for sure.


one thing i dont really get is the rock climbing thing. 

you see any of dan osterman's stuff? he had large balls too.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 10, 2009)

Oh yeah, Dan Osman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpm0m6bVfrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIAidlsdlEw

Extreme man!


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 10, 2009)

Awesome climbing vid's. 

There are time when I dislike our climbing style because of the weight and bulk of harnesses, saws and even how rigid good boots make your feet. Hmmm maybe its time to buy a lighter harness and do some rec' climbing...


----------



## oldirty (Feb 10, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> Hmmm maybe its time to buy a lighter harness and do some rec' climbing...



with the right attitude, rec climbing is a good time for sure.


----------



## capetrees (Feb 10, 2009)

Why is it these rock climbers are thought of as awesome and ballsy and they climb without their harnesses yet if I go up in the tree without a harness, I'm irresponsible and dangerous. :dunno:


----------



## oldirty (Feb 10, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Why is it these rock climbers are thought of as awesome and ballsy and they climb without their harnesses yet if I go up in the tree without a harness, I'm irresponsible and dangerous. :dunno:



balls and stupidity go hand in hand on most occasions. i say rock climbing toes the line in this instance. 

you wont catch me on a rock face free ball'n my way up. no thanks, it just doesnt make sense. you are hanging it all out there for what? just to say you did it? 

at least i get paid for the thrill seeking i do.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 11, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Why is it these rock climbers are thought of as awesome and ballsy and they climb without their harnesses yet if I go up in the tree without a harness, I'm irresponsible and dangerous. :dunno:



Ahhhh, irony. Where would we be without it!


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 11, 2009)

Ekka said:


> Oh yeah, Dan Osman
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpm0m6bVfrM
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIAidlsdlEw
> ...


hands down the two best vids on the tube!!!!


----------



## TreeTopKid (Feb 12, 2009)

Alain Robert. I'd only just noticed the posts. That geezer is a total hero. he climbs so methodically and smoothly. He's been doing it for ever. Even the Police love him ( they are often waiting for him at top of a climb ). 

What's the name of that awesome French girl free climber? She unfortunately fell to her death but she was so fluid, and supple. She was an absolute contortionist on the rock face.


----------



## oldirty (Feb 12, 2009)

TreeTopKid said:


> She unfortunately fell to her death...



see what i mean.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Feb 12, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> The base jumping glider videos are even better!



So true! I'd love to see that in HD full screen


----------



## moss (Feb 13, 2009)

capetrees said:


> Why is it these rock climbers are thought of as awesome and ballsy and they climb without their harnesses yet if I go up in the tree without a harness, I'm irresponsible and dangerous. :dunno:



Because you're work climbing and they're sport climbers. You can do any damn crazy thing you want when you're not being paid to work in trees.

The equivalent in the rock climbing world are rescue climbers, they go full tilt with PPE and heavy-duty gear.
-moss


----------



## Ekka (Feb 13, 2009)

:agree2:

Many overlook the OCCUPATIONAL part of OHS, it's all about work (occupation).


----------



## capetrees (Feb 14, 2009)

The comparison of occpational to recreational makes no sense at all. I thought the idea was safety? Are you saying that due to the fact that these people are recreational climbers, they don't need to be safe and the fact that I climb for business means that I need to be safe? I am far more fluid without a rope and harness yet thats not the "way" to do it. Your arguments make no sense.


----------



## (WLL) (Feb 16, 2009)

capetrees said:


> The comparison of occpational to recreational makes no sense at all. I thought the idea was safety? Are you saying that due to the fact that these people are recreational climbers, they don't need to be safe and the fact that I climb for business means that I need to be safe? I am far more fluid without a rope and harness yet thats not the "way" to do it. Your arguments make no sense.


 so you are better at working in a tree without a saddle or rope?


----------



## Ekka (Feb 17, 2009)

capetrees said:


> The comparison of occpational to recreational makes no sense at all. I thought the idea was safety? Are you saying that due to the fact that these people are recreational climbers, they don't need to be safe and the fact that I climb for business means that I need to be safe? I am far more fluid without a rope and harness yet thats not the "way" to do it. Your arguments make no sense.



First of all it's not my argument, it's the people that make regs and laws.

What you do at work, safety wise, is governed.

What you do for recreation is not under the same law, pretty simple to me.

One has obligations to employer, client, etc.

The other has obligations to what? Yourself.

But in saying that there may be other laws or regs that cover your recreational pursuit, where you do it might insist on safety regs for example.

When all the motcross and 4WD'ing in parks got banned (and plenty of idiots injured themselves) private recreational 4WD parks popped up.

Now recreational parks are closing.

Why?

Coz the idiots sue the park owners when they bust their cars and selves.

So there's a myriad of regs, laws etc but when at work OHS applies, when on a sporting field another aplies, when hang gliding another applies but when you want to dive off the cliffs at Acapulco you might well be on your own.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 17, 2009)

capetrees said:


> The comparison of occpational to recreational makes no sense at all. I thought the idea was safety? Are you saying that due to the fact that these people are recreational climbers, they don't need to be safe and the fact that I climb for business means that I need to be safe? I am far more fluid without a rope and harness yet thats not the "way" to do it. Your arguments make no sense.




You have hit the nail on the head mate. Its about safety and your legal obligations to provide a safe work enviroment for all people on site. Which includes you. 

I admire those climbers speed and agility and simply awesome all round skills. And in the unlikely event that 1 of them ever turned up and asked for a job they would get a flat no. Work isnt play.


----------

