These guys bring up a good point. One size fits allâ€¦ Not.
Perhaps a standard is NOT what is actually needed here.
I will freely admit that a standard is not a friendly document. Icabod did infer to this too. If we do create a standard, it will be the first thing the lawyers & insurance companies go to in the event of a rec-climbing â€œincidentâ€, (which is not necessarily a bad thing).
The pro-climbers amongst us have compiled the required info many times over. It would seem the question is: What do we actually want to do with that data?
A cold hard standard?
A brochure of accepted rec-climbing conduct?
The data is all hereâ€¦ How do you want it packaged?
Let TCI and the other established "www.TCwhatever.com" advocates hand down the decision on exactly what it is we are to publish here. Is this to be a legal document, a public relations gem, or general rules of conduct?
Make the call. Post the decision. Move us forward.
The Z [ANSI Z133] was not written by insurance agents. The commitee is made up of arborist industry professionals. All volunteers. There is no support money from ANSI for getting to the two annual face to face meetings. The meetings are open to anyone but membership needs to be voted on. From what I've seen, no one has ever been voted down for membership.
There are many good things in the Z that could become part of a RTC guideline. Double locking biners is one item that should be standard for any tree climbing.
In response to EJ's question, "Is this to be a legal document, a public relations gem, or general rules of conduct?":
Our intention at the start of this conversation was simply to come up with a set of GUIDELINES--suggested general rules of conduct for use of the forest by recreational climbers. Since Wild Bill's document (printed at the start of this discussion) would be updated here by the climbing community (at least those who participate on our message board) who are very knowledgeable about and deeply care about ethical use of the forest, I already assume that our final product will be a "gem" for public relations. I envision it appearing on every RTC website, and a summary of it used in a general brochure about tree climbing and/or as "talking points" for the general public, the media, and park authorities, rangers, etc. I certainly would publish it in TREE CLIMBING ONLINE, and we can ask Sherrill, New Tribe, and other retailers of climbing gear to publish it on their websites and in their catalogs.
We can also create a SEPARATE set of safety guidelines for recreational climbing technique and gear (such as double-locking biners, as Tom suggests). These will be "climbing standards" that have become established in practice because they've been proven to be safe by recreational climbers over a period of many years. I envision this set of guidelines being published alongside of the forest use guidelines.
Thanks for the clarification Tom. I am somewhat pessimistic about standards, due to the fact that I work in the building trades (residential design). I am constantly seeing poorly thought out changes in building codes costing people money, and causing confusion. I've never seen though a building code COST someone thier LIFE, so perhaps the time is right for us to clearly tell people what we expect to be standard practice, after all it won't kill anyone, and not doing so may contributer to getting a poorly informed soul killed.
That said I'm excited that we could possibly produce a document that will provide minimum accepted standards, and prohibit certain activities. I would say too that I'd like to see this all presented in a manner that does not limit new technology, or advacement, which I'd also love to be a part of evaluating.
I'll be glad to take part, if you guys would have me. I'll be glad also to post a copy of the final document at my site, for those who would visit.
...such as that of the Canadian people do not, however, allow the workplace to be run without rules and oversight to prevent employeers that operate within their borders to neglect the safety of the citizens that form the workforce.
Since you are a Canadian, perhaps you should share your knowledge of similar documents (perhaps those authored by the CCOHS), instead of suggesting that we should dump any consideration of ANSI documents because you, and/or your government do not recognize them.
The idea of this thread, despite how it may have been read by some, was to provide information that might add to the safety awareness of the participants of our sport, not to spur uproar, cause division, or to create a Constitution by which this activity could be policed.
In my opinion, it is a shame that this topic went greatly by the wayside. I still believe that this and other boards contain all the information needed to build such a guideline, because most of us love the activity, and the other participants, enough to give the answers that might prevent disaster. I grew tired of the topic, because SO MANY decided to add only pessimism. I realise that we are independent souls, and that has driven the furor. That said, I also understand that some of the paranoia might have not been totaly warrantless. I have recognized, though, that no one can control anothers actions, but we can control our own. Many have mentioned the SCUBA "governmemts". That is the way of our world though, and we do have to power to control out destiny. We can either provide a clear set of MINIMUM safety standards, or we can allow participants in dangerous activities to be labeled "Recreational Treeclimbers" and let one of them drag us into the muck by getting himself killed. I say if you don't meet the minimum standards (which haven't even yet been clearly defined) then you are not really a part of the activity, but some other activity. Perhaps the Accepted Practices name should be considered a definition of what we are.
I also highly suggest that we limit the negative, unproductive comments in the "Tree Climbing Standards" threads, so that we can continue to move in a positive direction, instead of descending into negativity. The motives and desires of those involved have been questioned long enough.
As I was reading some of the older posts on the forum, I found this discussion quite interesting.
I did the same after your posting and I can see that I have forgotten how heated all these discussions got a couple of years back and how everyone now tries to stay away from even mentioning the word \"S
d\". It is kind of funny how silly that whole event was but that is the way we behave on line -- I guess.