2 Ways to give Arboriculture a Black Eye

[Sunrise Guy]

(snip)

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.

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)]

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]

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]

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 ...

We doan need no stinkeeng permits.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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 ?

opcorn:

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]

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]

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]

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