free climbing

Whats the deal, guys? Ever since i was strong enough to hoist myself in the loker branches of a tree, I have been an avid tree climber. However, I have nerver once used a rope to climb a tree. I have explored this website, and have seen pictures of "class 6 trees, which require ropes". I have climbed similar trees with no aids at all. Keep tree climbibg pure. Free climbibg for life!!

I think I speak for the entire community here that "freeclimbing for life" has lots of promise for you. It should be a short life after all.

IF you have read all that is here you will see that we are about safety, and enjoyment. Get with the program, get some training, get some gear, and find out what treeclimbing is really like.


Any Questions? Follow the link...
Climber Falls To His Death

Climb Safe!
Icabod

dear freeclimber,
i have noticed the same and concluded that it must be a taboo issue since safety is understandably such an all-important feature of gaining recognition for the sport. there must be ways of freeclimbing that can be taught and skills developed, too. couldn't freeclimbing also be developed as a recreational activity? maybe there are safety pointers or techniques from ropes climbing that could be incorporated? but i suspect tci and other technical treeclimbers will by necessity need to distance them from such notions. it is just too difficult to control from a safety point of view. any frank discussion by members would be appreciated since for the newbies and uninitiated it is an obvious question that no one has seen fit to explain upfront, like "the emperor's new clothes."

It's an election year, so it's natural to think conspiracy.

That said, there is no elephant in the room.

Freeclimbing is not discussed here because it is an irresponsible, sensless, inherently dangerous activity, in which almost 100% of the serious members of this community would never participate. There is NO activity that can be performed at elevation that can be performed safely without fall control. Fatalities have been reported from falls from elevations as low as 2'. Recreational treeclimbing, as defined by the members of this community, is the activity of moving about in the treetops with the aid of rope techniques which incorporate positioning and fall control measures. The methods we use allow us to move around, between, and even inside trees. This activity can be performed with a high level of personal safety. Freeclimbing involves hauling oneself into the treespace and holding on physically to prevent the negative (and thankfully constant) effect of gravity.

In addition to being completly unsafe, freeclimbing relies on much physical contact with the tree, and it's various parts. This translates to inevitable damage to the cambium, and perhaps vascular systems of the tree. This community has gone to great lenghts to assure that we do as little damage to the trees that we climb as possible. Freeclimbing causes damage that we must, therefore, distance ourselves from.

I hope that has been a frank enough discussion. Feel free to freeclimb to your demise; but please do not promote it here.

Climb Safe!
Icabod

Originally posted by karinholm
there must be ways of freeclimbing that can be taught and skills developed, too. couldn't freeclimbing also be developed as a recreational activity?

... no one has seen fit to explain upfront, like "the emperor's new clothes."

I'm not sure what type of techniques would be involved in freeclimbing. "Don't fall out" would probably be one of the only instructions you'd need. Maybe wear gloves. Perhaps a group that deals with free rock climbing would have ideas for you.

As to the "emperor's new clothes," I don't think there is a conspiracy to hide information from the uninitiated. I would venture to say that the reason no one talks about free climbing as an organized recreational activity is because most people don't think that it's a good idea. Particularly once you learn how to tree climb in a safer manner (i.e. with ropes), you realize how much more you can do in a tree with the proper safety precautions.

Patrick

Some people climb trees as part of their job. Here's a sample of what some of them think about free climbing:

Poor Role Model

To paraphrase what is said about aircraft pilots: There are old climbers and there are bold climbers, but there are no old bold climbers.

Take a look at the Accidents, Injuries, Close calls and Fatalities forum.

It is true you can free climb, but I wouldn't. Seems like this shouldn't have either.

Bob

Freeclimbing is great! Don't worry about the warnings (but certainly heed them) This site is about recreational treeclimbing, and to reject the true origin of the sport might foster a drastic overdependence on the technical equipment. Maybe its worth thinking about how the dedicated rock boulderers are always stronger. There are probably 6 year old pigmy boys that could show us all a little about technique and grace.

Technique? I always find myself thinking my hands are too small to get around medium sized branches. I find my major conifer-ladder-climbing tools to be the armpits, elbows, and knees. You can use them as hooks and maintain a fairly safe stance. For linking your hands around a trunk or a big branch I suppose you want to grip your fingers tight together and just dont let go. Gloves would be bad, I think. Stiff shoes are pretty good when climbing angios so you can not crush your little feetsies in tight crotches.

I dont think I could be happy personally standing right up on a branch to reach another one, which is why I'd normally freeclimb conifers, where I can reach most.

Maybe even freeclimbing with just some rope, no harness or clanketyclank widgets, would be an interesting way to go. You could girth hitch branches too big for your fingers and use them as secure handles, or even footsteps. You could tie it around your waist, or even use a double loop knot to make a sit harness to use with a blakes hitch. No worries, except for that pesky gravity issue.
Using just a hip-mounted pole belt or lanyard might be a good safety. But then of course you could start carrying up the whole arsenal!
I think the worst thing about freeclimbing (after the danger...) is that getting down is a lot more complicated than just rapping down! Before the rest of the rope types start bagging me out, I should also probably mention I don't climb trees without ropes very often. After all, its dangerous!

>I think the worst thing about
>freeclimbing after the danger...) is that >getting down is a lot more complicated
>than just rapping down


Well, there is the QUICK way down.

To Icabod and others:
I think my original email was a little difficult to interpret. Let me explain why your response to my complaint about the lack of information on this website about freeclimbing does not satisfy me. Please note that I am not an arborist or tree worker, just a member of the public who stumbled upon your website and was delighted and intrigued by the discovery of a new way to interact up high with trees.

As a complete neophyte (I have not yet taken courses or even had a demo climb with ropes) I am still trying to figure out whether or not I would want to take up this new recreational activity with ropes and gizmos and widgets. On your website there are brief references made to the happy memories of kids climbing trees but there is no acknowledgement that freeclimbing is ever done by adults for fun (even if it IS extremely dangerous).

I totally understand the focus on safety, especially when most of your recreational clients might be tree workers who put themselves at risk daily for the vertical arboreal good. I take it that some of these dudes/dudettes face professional peer pressure, unscrupulous exploitation or economic incentives to cut corners, go fast, take risks -- and the arborist field may even attract folks who are thrill-seekers or risk-takers. So for this audience you need to present the tough stance.

However, perhaps there are other newbies and non-tree-working people like me, who have always had a natural affinity for trees and for getting high up in them, and who are rather turned off by the very absolute, end-of-discussion, don't-even-question-it tone that has been voiced here regarding freeclimbing. For me, I would like a recognition of the joys of freeclimbing in an ideal world free of gravity, rotted limbs, and bark erosion, then an examination of the real-life dangers, then a presentation of the safety solutions that the TCI methods provide.

I used to think back so fondly on what seemed to be lofty, heroic and liberating freeclimbs as a teenager and young woman (I have no idea how high these climbs they really were -- probably quite low). But now from what I understand from the attitude conveyed on this website, the TCI crowd would compare what I did to playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun -- something I should be ashamed of or horrified about. Is that your intention?

I just think there needs to be additional discussion about what was a natural occurring, innocent, athletic, and creative activity engaged in by virtually every able-bodied boy and some adventurous girls -- which continued for some into adulthood -- before we ever knew it was so dangerous or had an alternative (i.e. TCI rope climbing).

I am curious: how far does the tree safety theme go in your lives? Do all of you forbid your children to climb trees for fun without ropes or require that they at least wear a helmet? (In the olds days, we didn't have helmets for bikes, but now everyone must use them by law, right?)

Hope I do not ruffle your feathers about something that may not seem important from the perspective of those with decades of professional and recreational experience, but perhaps my reaction may reflect that of a greater audience whom you would like to eventually bring into the sport. I think you need to visibly and intelligently deal with the topic of freeclimbing so as not to alienate those who have engaged in it with relish in the past.

Respectfully yours,
Karin Holm

Hi Karin,

I think that the only acceptable form of freeclimbing in trees is that which is the equivalent of bouldering: at heights where a fall might cause, at worst, a twisted ankle. I am quite comfortable when my kids are climbing at this height, either in trees or on playground equipment.

As they freeclimb higher than that, however, my parental anxiety increases with each additional foot, and soon redlines. That's because, I suppose, I DO feel that it is a form of Russian Roulette.

I feel this way because I am middle-aged and cautious, and because I realize how very fallible human beings are, and because I realize that life is fragile and very precious. I feel this way because I have assimilated the attitudes inculcated in industrial fall-restraint training, especially the expectation that s**t happens and it can happen to YOU.

Also, in large part, I feel this way because I am a former child who just about lived in the trees. All the kids in our neighbourhood did. And, because we climbed (and built treehouses) so much, we fell. A lot. Like nuts from the trees in autumn! Every one of us has first-hand stories about taking noteworthy screamers, and a few kids took tumbles that became legendary. My brother and I survived the carnage relatively unscathed, but every neighbourhood had its fair share of broken bones.

Luckily, the heights at which we were climbing were fairly moderate, and we were in smaller trees, usually conifers, that had lower branches. Usually, a fall was not an actual free-fall, but a rib-bruising bounce from branch to branch. Now, however, I am a (ahem) considerably heavier adult, and I routinely climb much, much higher than as a child. For example, in my favourite practice tree, when I access the lowest branches, I am looking way down at the ruins of one of our childhood treehouses in a neighbouring tree; one that we thought was at a nose-bleed height at the time. At my weight, at the heights I frequently climb, a free-fall would end, not so much with a thump, but more of a splash.

Precisely because a failed free-climb becomes a free-fall, and because people are, literally, fallible, I don't think that free-climbing should be a recognized sport. Free-climbing at height on rock walls, like high wire acts in a circus, are stunts best done by highly trained, elite performers. Possibly there could be a market for similar stunts done in trees. I can imagine, however, no good reason to encourage freeclimbing anything, or trapeze work without a net, as legitimate recreation for beginners and ordinary folk.

Unless, I suppose, the goal is to thin down the population!

Cheers!
Brad

Dear Brad,
I really enjoyed hearing your perspective -- especially about your climbing as a boy and how you react towards your own children! This is exactly the type of personal story that I think could be helpful in explaining the diligent stance against freeclimbing. I am much relieved after reading it and hope others may add their individual experiences and reasons for always tying in (is that the expression?) Thank you for sharing your story and thoughts on the matter.
Kind regards, Karin

I come down squarely in the middle on this issue (no pun intended).

As much as we like to think of rec tree climbing as "pure", the fact that we use rope, harnesses, and other equipment makes it more "industrial" than free climbing. Free climbing is riskier, and accidents in that sport can bleed over (pun intended) onto our side, affecting our acceptance by the public and the agencies we try to work with. But free climbing is the purest expression of our primal need to get up into trees, and has been around a lot longer than our sport has. On top of that, I'm uncomfortable telling others what risks they can and can't take.

The reason we don't discuss it on these forums, I believe, is that it is not what we've defined as recreational (or technical, or ropes) tree climbing, which is the subject of the forum.

Karin,
You obviously don't understand either the scope of the discussion of this community, or that a discussion that is "very absolute, end-of-discussion, don't-even-question-it" in tone might serve a purpose other than to turn you off.

First the scope of discussion here is technical tree climbing, this excludes the "hang on, try not to fall" technique.

Secondly my "very absolute, end-of-discussion, don't-even-question-it" tone is intended to keep people like you from promoting something that is quite dangerous, irresponsible, and counter to every safety posting on this site.

That said, I have three children, two of which climb with me. They always wear helmets, and are always tied in. ALWAYS.

Consider playgrounds. Manufacturers have gone well out of their way to provide a much safer landing zone, things like "no-fault" padded flooring are standard in todays playgrounds. "Why is that", you might ask. It is because everyone involved understands that ANY fall can be severe.

I lived in trees as a child. I, luckily, never took a fall. When I recollect the things I used to do in the treetops I know that I beat the odds. My actions were at best careless, at worse completly stupid.

I answered your call for "frank discussion by members" of this board that wish to "distance them from such notions" that "there must be ways of freeclimbing that can be taught and skills developed" so that freeclimbing [could] also be developed as a recreational activity."

My answer to you was complete, clear, and concise, and you didn't get it. So I will repeat it: Don't do it. Get training. Stay tied in. Save yourself from injury or death.

My worst fear is that this thread, espically your parts, Karin and freeclimber, will encourage someone to not get training, free climb a tree, and fall to his their death. Your stance is irresponsible given that possibility, and I for one will say everything I can to counter it. My tone will remain VERY NEGATIVE on this subject. I am serving as the voice of reason and safety, therefore I really don't care if you are turned off by it.

I consider myself to be one of the most vocal supporters of out favorite hobby. I do not wish to turn you or anyone off of treeclimbing. Just do it right.

Icabod