Tree Climbing with Others!

Hello all.

Robert, I find that we agree more than we disagree.

Your concern that innovations will take a long time to filter down to the standards depends on the people who agree to work together on formulating the standards. In chiropractic, we had a rouge group try to set standards for the entire profession and it flopped because they didn't make provisions for input from all philosophies within the profession or for revising the standards in a timely manner, i.e. the revision process didn't occur nearly as fast as innovation occurred.

In tree climbing, we have the opportunity to avoid both of those problems. I have no doubts that anyone wanting to help and make input would be welcomed and setting revision times fairly close together these days should be easy due to the proliferation of email and cheap minutes on the cell phone.

Language in the standards should be written to avoid a "laundry list" of approved equipment. By giving approval to equipment specifically designed to accomplish a given task, you can allow use of new equipment without having to go through any kind of approval process. Again, using chiropractic as the example, years ago when MRI came on the scene, those states that had a laundry list had to go through the agony of changing the law. Those states that had language accomodating innovation had no problem.

Now, that only applies to using the innovations as they were intended, i.e. using a newly designed ascender only for ascending. If you want to use the new ascender for any other purpose than what it was designed, by all rights you should take it through the approval process. However, I'm sure the testing and approval process the manufacturers have to go through may limit the uses for new equipment. After all, they've paid big money to get their stuff approved for specific uses, we could and should use their recommendations as a guide. Going against their usage recommendations may prove futile as well as unwise.

Again, providing for timely revision should speed up the process (once every six months or so or even on an as-needed basis, should the need arise) and would apply to techniques as well as equipment. Also, this process will apply more to the commercial people than the individual climber. Why would an individual climber even need approval of anyone else? Individualists that we all are, I would expect very few, if any, individuals to join up.

I'm not sure I agree that legal concerns will become the primary motivator but it may not matter. Every instructor I know seems to be more motivated by safety concerns. I will concede that the legal end is in the back of everyone's mind. In either case, we have a chicken-or-the-egg situation and as long as safety is in the picture with legal as #1 or #2 on the list of concerns, it probably doesn't matter much who is #1. Safety is the end result in either case. Right or wrong the legal end is ALWAYS a good motivator. Aside from the damage it would cause to tree climbing, who would want to take a chance losing everything they've worked their whole life for?

As to the second point, I see that I didn't make myself clear. I was in no way suggesting that lawyers take over policing of treeclimbing either. There's no question that we should try to police it ourselves. But, with today's society, I can see no way lawyers won't get involved when/if something happens. Our best bet as I see it is to be as prepared as possible, head them off at the pass, so to speak. That's what I meant by "the whole point of setting standards." In retrospect I should have said that's ONE of the points for setting standards, not the only point as I implied.

I see that I also didn't make it clear what I meant when I was talking about experts being called in to testify. I was talking about them being called in for cases involving techniques being used that weren't included in the standards.

I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine tonight. According to him, for techniques not covered by the standards, experts would be called in from both sides and the jury would have to take into consideration their opinions as well as the standards. But then, I didn't pay him for his time so who knows?

Your assertion that all organizations will be forced to adopt the standards even if they use another techniques that are equal or safer alternatives doesn't ring true for me. It assumes that they would have no input to the process. According to the bunch down here in Georgia who have been discussing this for some time now, before the standards would be offficially published, they would be circulated throughout the climbing community for everyone's input. Those using techniques not outlined in the standards would certainly be welcome and encouraged to have them considered. Hell, at that point, they would probably be invited to participate in the formulation of the standards. I've only been involved in tree climbing for about three years or so. I can honestly say that I don't know a single climber who wouldn't want to see what someone else was doing, at least for curiosity's sake if not to learn something new. I'm always curious to see something different, even if I don't adopt it for myself. If it's safe, I see no reason why it wouldn't be included.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of your underlying concerns seems to be having one or two entities/philosophies dominate the standards. Having a lot of people involved in the formulation helps prevent that from happening. The downside is that the bigger the committee, the more ponderous the process becomes. However, I don't think there are that many different approaches that this would be a big problem. I could be wrong, none of those folks doing things differently seem interested in outlining their program in this forum. That, or they simply don't exist.

Perhaps the biggest problem we'll have has already been pointed out by Bob, how many tree climbers would come out of the trees to sit at a keyboard and work on this crap? I've already volunteered my help and I would hope you would volunteer yours as well. This formulation process needs someone involved who is wary of the outcome.

I agree with you that there is a downside to standards. I also agree with others that there is a bigger downside to not having standards in place to deal with the inevitable intrusion of the legal system into our happy little camp. It still comes down to the fact that if we don't establish our own standards, others will. And they will likely be lawyers or government officials or God forbid, both. At that point, they will indeed own us and it will be no one's fault but our own.

Rod Justice

637 viewings...this thread has proven how much interest there is in this sort of subject.
Alrighty, then, lets have a go at it....Take a look at the "skills outline" posting and lets harness some of that energy and see if we can agree to disagree in an organized chaotic fashion.


So, lets keep it cool and avoid any discussions about "why" or "who" and stick with the "what" and "how."

Originally posted by RescueMan
And, if not, why is he being allowed to participate in a discussion about setting standards for recreational tree climbing?

- Robert

Oxman seemingly has done some things that are even despicable to many of us, yet why should that mean that we ignore his good ideas and suggestions? Isn't that throwing out the baby with the bath water?

One really good way to cause even further dissension is to cut off communications.

What if all of us in this forum were to refuse to respond to a member who, say, seems to be argumentative and negative about just about everything, despite the fact that they sometimes have good ideas and knowledge? Would that really serve us?

It seems to me that we want good ideas; these needn't necessarily come from people who always do things that we pronounce as "good."

One thing I really like about you Rescueman- You can sure stir it up! Threads get long when Rescueman is along for the ride. No objections from me.

Mike Oxman case. I have some personal strong opinions when it comes to tree sitting and they lean towards the tree sitters. Being paid big money to extract and thwart the expression of a sitter hits my personal standards hard. These are my PERSONAL standards. Sometimes I delude myself into thinking my personal standards should fit other people as well. I think you can get into trouble when you assume your standards are the last word. Safety standards is another issue; not to be confused with personal standards.

Why have I not deleted or blocked Mike Oxman? I think the tree climbing community needs to decide individually for themselves whether Mike has violated ethical standards. I can raise my own personal issues on this topic, but to block self expression/ self introspection (the things we often view as ugly in another person can be seen in ourselves as well if we have the courage to look) does not seem a good idea.

However, I will kill a topic/thread if it gets abusive as far as language is concerned or content takes a malicious turn. Many young folk visit this site, including children. Remember when you used to climb as a kid. They still do and this site is visited by young people. I have yet to intentionally kill a thread here for that reason. I am proud to say that tree climbers are a good lot of people and not at all mean spirited.

On my frequent trips to town to eat, drink, be merry, and check my e-mail as well as check this message site, I have been amused by the arguments going on here. As most of you may know, I am currently in Panama working with biologists and students of biology who have sought assistance in accessing the canopy of the tropical rainforest. In other words, I spend most of my time rigging access routes into the canopy, teaching students to climb, and climbing myself. It´s a wonderful world and I am seriously distressed that I feel the need to pass up a good drink and a seafood dinner in order to join this conversation. I did not come to town for this reason, but I think its time that a little commentary from someone far removed from the fray is in order.

First, let me say that I would be overjoyed if the subject of Michael Oxman would be either taken back to its original position at another point on this message board, or simply dropped. His issue with tree sitters has no bearing on this discussion. The issue is important and deserves to be discussed, but not here. Let it go!

Secondly, some of you seem to have been having trouble accessing the Treeclimber Coalition site. If you are having a problem, try clicking on help or try going directly to the webmaster at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. I apologize for not being in a position to help personally, but Panama is rather far away from my home computer and I only get into town every week or so.

Thirdly. Now to the nitty gritty! Whatever are all of you thinking? RescueMan---I have to say that you come accross as being rather childish. Is there nothing that you won´t find at fault? My impression is that you are simply someone looking for a fight. Give it up! Try being positive. What have you got that you can contribute to the issue of standards. If you have nothing, then shut up! If you do have something then let´s have it. Quit complaining that everyone else should be giving you a free set of standards and training and try contributing something yourself. I would be quite willing to share any of my knowledge with anyone who was also willing to work in a positive and forward-moving manner. A person with your credentials should be able to offer more than simple whining and complaints.

The big issue should be the establishment of credibility for our activity within the outdoor adventure community.
In order to achieve credibility, standards are necessary in order to provide proof of our competency as climbers, instructors, facilitators. standards are just one part of the entire credibility issue. Every time that I try to take tree climbing to a new venue I am faced with the problem of trying to convince Authority that tree climbing is an acceptable and legitimate activity. In order to convince Authority, credibility is needed. These people want to see documents. They want proof that we are safe and that the activity poses no serious issues either for those climbing or for the trees being climbed. This would be so much easier if there were a written set of standards that I could show as part of the presentation package. These standards do not exist except in our individual minds and each of us has a different set of standards. What is acceptable to one climberor climbing instructor may be totally unacceptable to another climber or instructor. Some instructors and climbers will insist that the 5/3 Blakes Hitch is the only acceptable way to go. Others will tell you that the 4/2 is the only way to. Some insist upon the placement of a figure eight knot in the middle of the DRT bridge (the rescue knot) while others insist that it is a waste of time. Some instructors will insist that SRT is the only way to climb and that learning DRT is unnecessary (I run into that attitude a lot here in the scientific community). Others will tell you that SRT should not be taught at the basic level, that basic climbing should not go beyond basic DRT. Whatever, I say!!! What matters is that we get together and try to come up with something that will suffice to show Authority when new venues are approached.

In an attempt at the establishment of credibility for what I am doing here with the scientific community in Panama, I have created my own training manual, The ITEC Manual for Canopy Access Techniques. The preparation and presentation of this manual was all that I needed to establish my credibility within the local bureaucratic community.While geared toward climbing in the rainforest, the methodolgy presented within its pages is quite applicable in almost all environments. I am quite willing to make this manual available to anyone who would like to see it. Perhaps a look would help toward preparing a larger manual useful for purely recreational climbing. My offer.

Now that I have fanned the flames, I am going to run back into the forest and hide for a few days. There is a particularly large
virola tree that has been begging my attention for sometime now. I have placed an access line at about one hundred and forty feet and the tree is ready for a first ascent. My estimation is that the climb will eventually exceed one hundred and seventy five feet. That should be sufficient to free my mind from thinking farther about what I am reading on this message site. It will be at least several days before I will have another look at this site. Those of you expecting replies to whatever vitriolic comments this message may have engendered will simply have to wait a few days. But I shall return!

Originally posted by Dan House
2. Tree Limbs- climb in trees that have inspections by a certified inspector prior to each climb.
... Inspect the limbs by a qualified inspector.
3. Leave No Trace- guess we will have to join the national organization to assure compliance

Dan, I wasn't sure if your statements were related only to the Boy Scout program, or to the discussion of standards in general.
In order to do a specific program for this branch of the Boy Scouts, it sounds like an arborist would have to be consulted before a program could be done. And, if you're doing climbing programs, getting the trees evaluated by an arborist may even be required by your liability insurance (or the group you're climbing with). But I would hate to see a "standard" that says "before the responsible climber will climb a tree, it will be evaluated by an arborist." If I want to talk to a state forest ranger about climbing in a state forest by myself, it's not reasonable to have an arborist evaluate my climbing site.
What I do think is reasonable would be a statement similar to:

[align=center] "A responsible climber will critically evaluate the tree and the surrounding area for general health and safety hazards. The branch (or branches) selected for climbing will be of adequate size, positioning, and health to accomodate the climbing activity in a way that is safe for the climber and the tree. If a limb's stability cannot be determined, another limb or another tree will be selected, or an appropriate person will evaluate the limb in question."[/align]
Maybe that type of statement is too long, but I think it gets the general idea across. I don't have specific arborculture training, but based on my climbing experience, as well as online research and print materials (one good one is Evaluating Tree Defects by Ed Hayes), I feel comfortable determining which trees I can climb to do a personal climb. I might make different decisions about a tree when looking at it as a climb site for a program for a group of people. I might even call in an arborist to evaluate a potential site (and we have done that). But the point is I don't think an arborist should be a necessity in the standard.

Along the same lines, I think the ethic of Leave No Trace is great, and a statement describing the philosophy would be great in a tree climbing standard. As long as people were actually committed to the idea, I don't think an individual membership in Leave No Trace would be absolutely necessary in a standard.

Patrick,

I agree with your statement about evaluating limbs, though with all the opinions flying around whats another worth? The statement basically says what I had pointed out earlier.

As far as leave no trace, it is something I've always practiced, and yet never heard of the organization until I entered the treeclimbing community through this very site several years ago. The to-do about using cambium savers is evidence of the intent of climbers to practice the principals of leave no trace. So there boy scouts. I do think it funny though that the girl scouts seem gung ho about tree climbing, but the boy scouts got thier lawyers right on it. I guess thier lawyers havent had much to do since "canteen boy".

Lets just get something in writing already. I am planning to produce some fold out brochures eventually to leave in a bag at the base of the tree when I climb, in case someone wanders by and wonders what I am doing. I'll make sure to point out that I am trying to leave no trace, and am climbing only on safe limbs...

When I get it done, I'll post a .pdf

Climb Safe!
Icabod

Originally posted by kernsloth
I wonder if the international surfing community ever had these kinds of problems. I feel as though there are some parallels between our sport and theirs. Just try not to feed the sharks.

I like the comparison. However, TONS of people swin in the ocean. It makes sense to most people...almost everyone. We all know that there is a RISK of sharks, though, depending on location, it is usually quite low. This is why the beaches are often crowded in the summer. All these people see a surfer and might think it's wierd, but they be able to understand the thrill of being in the sun in the water at the beach, etc.

Most people do NOT climb trees or do anything like it. When they see someone up in a tree, the first question that comes to mind involves sanity, then safety.

This is an important issue we need to be concerned with. Our hobby just does not make sense to people. Would it be better if it did?

love
nick

When I originally started this topic
I had no idea I would ruffle so many feathers. Some of you will continue to do as you always have and ignore advice from others while others will read, assimilate, and share ideas that will help improve the quality, safety, and personal experience one can derive through facilitating others in their new found adventures in the canopies of an established recreational Grove. For those of you that climb for yourselves and or with good friends for whatever your purpose continue to do so; have a great time, be safe, and care for our hosts the trees and the folks that may frequent areas where we may find that special tree to climb. I know I do when I get off with friends for a climb I can enjoy for myself leaving the responsibility behind that accompanies all of the climbs I do with others such as Events, Festivals, Classes, Edge-ucational or Expeditional style climbs. For the former I am a part of the recreational experience and do so freely either alone or with others without compensation for my efforts or time. For the latter I am compensated for my labor, my effort, use of my equipment, and my facilitation and or instructional skills and herein lies the difference as I am providing a recreational/edge-ucational experience for others that without guidence would probably bypass this type of adventure. As with my original message I was and still am concerned with untrained or improperly trained individuals facilitating and or teaching others how to climb. As in the original posting I have again recently found 2 other examples of groups conducting/facilitating and or teaching tree climbing and beginning programs with questionable practices as to training and Grove development . At this point I would like to pose the question of how many tree climbing schools/Groves are there, their locations, their history, their affilitations within the tree climbing industry/community, etc. I will begin with mine <www.treeclimbingusa.com> where all of you reading this can log on and learn what you can or ask questions as you wish. Another is right here at TCI's site. I can say that I got my start with Peter Jenkins right here at TCI. Over the past 8 1/2 years I have trained many folks that are now off climbing personally or are facilitating and yes, some are also instructing. For the present I will just start the list, later as the list developes I will add others I know should they wish to be a part of such a list. Once such a list is compiled interested individuals with their individual purposes in mind can look over the listing and choose accordingly. Since the beginning of this posting back a few months ago I can say we at TCUSA have published a Basic Tree climbing Manual that is copywritten and soon to come out in hard copy as well as CD. I am also aware of a staff of individuals that is hard at work compiling other curriculum for manuals/texts that will compliment other courses. We in the recreational/ educational/experiential/adaptive/wilderness, rainforest/ and research minded tree climbing community have much to do to continue to bring the adventure to the individuals that are interested or who will become interested in tree climbing. Staying on course and focused is difficult, for we all have our personal lives we live. However as we continue to focus on making tree climbing a better sport, adventure, and or a relaxing pastime we will all be the benifactors. Until; Safety in and for the trees worldwide! Abe

Abe--

I, for one, am very much looking forward to the publication of TCUSA's "Basic Tree Climbing Manual." I was asking for this before this whole discussion began.

I also am interested in what will come of, "I am also aware of a staff of individuals that is hard at work compiling other curriculum for manuals/texts. . . ." Many of us out here are awaiting the availability of more well-written tree-climbing literature.

Finally, although I probably should just ignore it and maybe it will go away, I will comment anyway that I hope you keep up the good work despite your unrelenting critic. Too bad that one who otherwise does seem to have some fine things to offer apparently cannot look in a mirror and see that he is the one who is not humble, and is self-righteous, arrogant, and insulting.

Again, thanks, Abe.

Boy, I've tried to read Abe's replies and find something arrogant. Maybe I'm an idiot or maybe I just know Abe well enough that when I read his postings, I can't hear arrogance, something the man is in very short supply of. To the contrary, whenever he doesn't know something, he's the first to tell you about it and refuse to go any further, a quality that I admire. He won't try to BS his way through anything he doesn't know.

Simply stating that he has seen untrained and unsafe instructors doesn't come off as arrogant to me. It's simply stating a fact that most of us have all seen at some point or know of ourselves. Some have even admitted on this message board that they have learned and/or done things under less than safe conditions.

As far as insulting goes, the only people that I can imagine being insulted by Abe's posting are those who know they are untrained and teaching bad technique and feel insecure around those who are neither.

For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would feel that he was being insulting and arrogant unless they somehow felt he was directing his comments to them personally. I have yet to find anyone that he has mentioned by name or even alluded to in some fashion that would identify them.

If anyone can specifically point out to me where he has mentioned someone or even been the least bit arrogant and insulting, I'll hit him with a rock.

Rod

I think the problem here is one of communication; a lot of people, every one of them well-meaning, are being misunderstood. True dialogue needs more than information and opinion, there needs to be: inclusion; clarity and consistency of expression; constant challenge to refine, define, and defend positions; and a great deal of thought. There also needs to be tact and sensitivity. This is particularly true in a discussion that includes a potential for a conflict of interest for some of the participants. People who make money from teaching something are in danger of at least the appearance of such a conflict when they want to have control over standards and regulations. Peter Jenkins obviously is sensitive to this, and his contributions to this thread (and indeed the whole forum) tend to be gracious, humble, open-minded, etc. I'm not so sure that Abram and some of the others are so sensitive to this, and I do find some of their comments to lean towards the self-serving and, yes, even arrogant. I'm sure they don't mean to be perceived that way, but it comes across as such.
I find that nobody in this discussion is quite so misunderstood as RescueMan, however. When he says:

I have been trying to hold people accountable to their own words and standards, to shine light on false and inaccurate statements, to offer warnings about the downside of national standards, and encourage the kind of sharing that will allow a consensus to emerge.

it rings true with what he has posted here. He isn't trying to impose his views or standards on anyone, he is simply trying to keep this discussion fair and on track by challenging those who are taking charge of the debate to clarify and defend their positions.
I can't understand the hostility towards him. He is an iconoclast and a free thinker. Aren't these admired traits in America? Why be so offended to be challenged and questioned? If what you say can survive the challenges and questions, then it must have merit, and you and your position is all the stronger for it. You might not enjoy it, of course, but it is necessary in a truly democratic dialogue.
RescueMan may be a bit abrasive and aggressive, but hey, so was Socrates! Please everyone, rise to his challenges and see how it improves the quality and usefulness of this discussion, and let's have no more talk about "hemlock"!
Brad

Socrates:

"I drank WHAT!?"

The folks who teach treeclimbing professionally (i.e. get paid to do so) need some sort of written standards and protocols not only for insurance reasons but to facilitate safety, consistency and access to groups such as the Boy Scouts.

What would you propose that would meet everyone's needs and at the same time address your concerns?

How do we address the issue of someone teaching treeclimbing using dangerous methods? (doctors have already seen what happens to their insurance rates when they don't report other dangerous doctors, everyone pays through the bazooti).

So, how about it folks? Abe comes off as arrogant in written prose and Rescueman comes off as abrasive. I know Abe isn't arrogant (not to be confused with confident) in either word or deed and most likely Rescueman isn't as abrasive as he comes across. Let's look at what people are saying rather than how they are saying it.

I'm going to go climbing with Abe this weekend. I'm going to him with a rock for starting all of this in the first place. For that and not using the Return key when he posts.

Rod

Damned by faint praise? It is as insulting to Abe as it would be to any of us to have to sit through a discussion of one's own character. Nobody who sincerely participates on this list should have to put up with this crap. I for one will no longer read it or respond to it. Such is how you handle gossip.

I know of few others in the rec tree climbing community who are as passionate and dedicated to furthering what we do and connecting it to youth and experiential education as Abe. Although he gets annoyed with me for sending him attachments he can't use, I consider him a friend who has taught me much - one who has always been available for any question or discussion. This will be the last I'll say on the matter.

As to Abe's question on other tree climbing groves, I consider my little outfit, Tree Climbing Colorado (www.treeclimbingco.com) to be in that catagory. I proudly follow all the TCI practices and protocols I've been taught throughout the certification process, in all my activities out here. I look forward to the results of the discussions Abe alluded to formalizing those standards, and to an opportunity to contribute my two cents later.

Harv