Incorrect word usage.

Richard Preston’s long article, “Climbing Redwoods”, now out in the New Yorker magazine, tells the readers that ninja climbs are in effect poaching.

Let me define a ninja climb before I go further. This is a climb that does not have the permission of the tree owner or governing body (like on public lands). It is a climb done with the least amount of attention and named after the masters of stealth, the ninjas.

I looked up poaching to get clear what the word meant. Websters New World Dictionary says:
a. To trespass on (private property), esp. for hunting or fishing.
b. To hunt or catch (game or fish) illegally: steal

The New Yorker magazine fact checker called me and mentioned this “poaching” word and I told him that it was incorrect. However, the term stood and was mentioned twice in the article, giving recreational tree climbers quite a negative spin. Well, that is my opinion. I really do not know what we are stealing as recreational tree climbers. The only theft I can come up with is the experience of climbing.

What do you think? Are we stealing and if so- what are we stealing? Is climbing a tree without permission stealing?

Too bad we have been described as "poachers"--I agree it's an unfortunate choice of words It certainly won't help our cause at all.

As for Peter's question, "Are we stealing and if so- what are we stealing? Is climbing a tree without permission stealing?" To me it depends on yet another factor: are we expressly forbidden from climbing?

Ninja or not, if we are not forbidden, we are not poaching.

Ninja or not, if we are forbidden, we are poaching.

I could take it even further: if I have a neighbor who would willingly allow me to climb his trees, but I "ninja" my way on to his property and climb without asking, I am poaching. (I take a more liberal view of public property; that's what my previous two statements were addressing.)

Just some thoughts. I'll probably waffle a bit after reading other ideas.

Is it "poaching" to simply wander across land uninvited? Is travelling vertically so much different legally than travelling horizontally (assuming that no damage is done)?

My 2-cents worth.

Regards,
-Knothead

OK, 4-cents worth:

Here is the "Us vs. Them" explanation: The problem may be with the term "Ninja".

To us it implies a level of stealth and no-trace access that is especially compatible with the natural environment.

To others it may mean a level of stealth and secrecy that is associated with criminal activity.

I like the term "Ninja", but maybe we should consider using another.

-Knothead

The dictionary defines poaching as taking something away, like game or fish. Are we confusing poaching with trespass? You do not have to take anything away when you trespass. If the word “poaching” stands, I ask again what we are taking away when we climb without express permission.

Now this might appear on the surface as a trivial pursuit. But to a lawyer or a wordsmith that must write accurately this is a big deal.

So I will ask Gnarl directly. Where did you get the definition of poaching? Did you use this word because it followed the usage as defined by a dictionary and if so, what reference work did you use? Did you use this word as suggested by another person? Did you use this word to make people happy in a political light that are on the opposite side of the fence? I am digging deep here, as simple misuse of the language causes misunderstandings and even wars.

You are taking away, or "poaching" the tree owner's right to privacy. Yes?

Privacy is an intangible. It is not a bird in hand or fish on the line. Please look up this "poaching" word in your dictionary and tell us what you found.

I think tree climbers mostly crave privacy and a good tree to boot. Window peeping would be a different kind of offence.

ANY LAWYERS HERE to help us with a definition of poaching? How about it Riz?

When I want a definition, I always go to Merriam-Webster OnLine at
http://www.m-w.com/

They say:
Main Entry: [sense #2] poach
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French pocher, of Germanic origin; akin to Middle English poken to poke
intransitive senses
1 : to encroach upon especially for the purpose of taking something
2 : to trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also : to take game or fish illegally
transitive senses
1 : to trespass on <a field poached too frequently by the amateur -- Times Literary Supplement>
2 a : to take (game or fish) by illegal methods b : to appropriate (something) as one's own

So the second definition of the intransitive sense is "trespass," which is the sense in which some (apparently including Mr. Preston, the writer of the article Treeman refers to) are using the word.

I looked at several online legal dictionaries (e.g., http://www.4lawschool.com/) and they all say:
"To kill or take an animal or fish from the property of another." So maybe that's the only definition that would be used in court; but so what?

I'm not sure what the point of all this is. If the word doesn't fit, don't use it. Point out to those who misuse a word that it is incorrect (if you believe it is). Agree upon your definitions while in discussions.

My point is that we could take a vote, or get a legal opinion, or obtain some other opinion, of the definition of “poach,” but what do we then have? Who cares?

Just because Mr. Preston says that we are poachers doesn’t mean that we are going to face jail time.

Why are we discussing this? What am I missing here?

To be called a poacher in a magazine with a readership of a million creates a big response in me. I do feel strongly about the public perception of tree climbing. Folks who don’t know anything about recreational tree climbing can easily get the wrong impression of who we are as recreational tree climbers by misstatements and errors in language usage. Now I do not think that the use of the poaching word was a straight out attack on recreational climbers. I know Richard enough to know this.

It frankly behooves me why this term was used at all, given that the writer is highly professional and experienced. The fact checker called me at the 11th hour (just before final edit deadline) and this word was brought up and I urged him to not use it. Maybe he was too slow at the gun to get it back to the editor. Should we just blame it on the lowly fact checker?

Does anyone else care about the poaching word and how it was implied or am I just a father not wanting his child to get a bad reputation because someone said something that was not all true?

I'd have to say, maybe. I've not read the article, but if this was a climb on NF land, or even National Park, or for that matter any public property, then I am very upset about the term. Public areas are just that, public, and I am offended that in some areas public areas are off limits to us because we are not understood. The fact that this was published in the New Yorker magazine just makes me more angry.

That said, if the climb was on a piece of private property, especially one that was posted, I would have to change my mind. In that case, I would say that property rights are in the owners favor, and it was in fact tresspassing. If that was the case then my ultimate question is "WHY?!". Why would someone promoting our sport bring a reporter on a climb that the reporter knows is at best questionable, at worst criminal? If that were the case then it was an unwise action, that makes me, and every other treeclimber look really bad.

Shame. On who I'm not yet clear. Someone please forward a link to the article to me so I'm not on a targetless rant.

Climb Safe! Use your brain!
Icabod

I understand a few things here.

1. Peter, I understand your concern about the arcane use of the word poacher, i.e. using a definition that is not common knowledge. Trespass certainly would have been a better choice, except in the application of public lands which by definition we own. Trespassing on private property (for any reason including taking the liberty of climbing a tree someone owns without their permission) is a very good way to get two or three ounces of lead applied at very high speed to your rear end, which in treeclimbing is somewhat vulnerable (In situations like this, I'm glad I use a Buckingham saddle with a hard Bosn's seat!). Privacy may be an intangible but my property line is not.

Personally, I come down on the side that the amount of positive publicity we have outweighs the negative. I think it was PT Barnum who said "it doesn't matter what they're saying as long as they're talking about you," or "any publicity is good publicity". In this case, I think it may work against the writer for using a word that to most people is the wrong word. Technically, according to the definition above, it fits. Realistically (common usage) it was the wrong word. In either case, we still appreciate your concern about our image.

You can argue word choice. It's hard to argue visuals. I'm more concerned about video I've seen where people are talking about safety one minute and then swinging around slamming into trunks the next. I don't remember where I saw that or who it was but in my mind, that projected more negativity that a writer making poor word choices to perhaps project a political agenda.

Which brings me to my second point. Never, never, never trust the press to get your point across for you. I've been involved in the politics of chiropractic for years and if there is one rule that everyone should follow is to never trust the press to report the truth as it truly is. They will generally report the truth as they see it which is, as we all are aware of, not the way we see it. Reporters are afflicted with the same pre-conceptions, fears and misunderstandings that many people are. Reporters can also be afflicted with editors who are pissed off at tree-huggers because they wouldn't let them cut down the trees on their lake property to get a better view of the lake from the cottage.

I realize in your position you are not always in a position to control what they say or print but the less you tell them the less they'll be able to use. Unfortunately, everyone wanting to write about us is not on our side, that's a big rule in politics as well. I hate that we have to be aware of that but that's the way it is. There certainly is a fine line to walk between getting your message out on their terms or yours.

Knothead, I agree that we should use a different word than "Ninja", at least when we're talking to the press. And yes, vertically or horizontally, if we are there without permission, we are wrong. (And by the way, when are you going to be back down this way? I'd like to climb with you again, it's been a while.)

Lastly, having been on a Ninja climb or three, I've never knowingly done so on private property.

Always ask permission on private property.
Never trust reporters.
Put out your own positive press whenever possible.
Never take part in a story where you don't have personal contact with the writer, that is, taking them for a climb yourself. I think you would stand a much better chance for a positive outcome that way.

Gotta watch out for them editors. Ask Wild Bill. He'll tell ya.

Open for suggestion,

Rod

After reading the article it would appear...
The author is intentionally referring to tree climbers in a negative light only in the context of defending the sanctity of the tree (the wonderful creation that it is). The trees which he mentioned by name (Adventure at 334 feet tall) are of a select few that are being singled out in the name of science due to their majesty amongst the forest.

So, I wouldn’t say "gnarl" coined us as a pack of drunken outlaw bikers... On page 219 he pretty much describes himself as one of us rec-climbers. I did however find it amusing that he blamed the encroaching wave of recreational tree climbers solely on Treeman Jenkins.

Very informative reading, a tad wordy but well worth the price of the magazine.
Electrojake

As one who has been misquoted and misphotographed a few times by the media, I would only add that looking to blame for unfortunate words may be uncalled for and unproductive. Sometimes words just come out and you can't get them back. Sometimes you ask that a photo not be used so as to not convey unsafe practices, and they use it anyway. You do your best and for the best.

The use of the word "poaching" to describe Ninja climbing has a negative connotation and seems a bit of an expansion on the word, but then again, so is our use of the word "Ninja." Some alternatives that come to mind: "Stealth" "Gray" "Unofficial" "Silent" "Sleight" "Furtive" "Shadow"

So lets pick a new word. I can delete ninja from my vocabulary and make sure it is no longer on my web site.

I liked "silent" and "shadow" myself. Shadow has more mystery. Silent is more ecological. Unofficial is my last chouce.

What does everyone else think? How about some more choices.

Lets take a clue from the government.

I propose the use of Covert Climb.

This is defined as a climb that may not be exactly legal, is done under cover, and if you get caught we will deny you ever existed!

Icabod