New tree climbing language and terms.

In tree climbing I've always thought of the place where the climber ties in for support to be the tie in point.

If there is any rigging to be done I think of it as the anchor point.

Originally posted by Tom Dunlap

Designating the term DdRT has been one of my causes. It cleans up the description of the climbing system.

Respectfully: How does DdRT clean up the description of the climbing system? --Especially when "DRT" was the acronym coined as analagous to or counterpart of "SRT", which both seemed to emphasize the 'technique', and properly so, and not what the rope was doing, so that, "DRT" would have defined all traditional hitch type systems where only one rope is used, thus clarifying the desription of the climbing system or technique.
Using "D-ouble-d" seems to emphasize what the rope is doing(doubled over a TIP) rather than the 'technique' or 'system', so that it ignores how the two ends of the rope will be used by the climber, and thus causing confusion or vagueness to the reader as to what system or technique the author is talking about.
Can you clarify please as to why you think this clarifies the 'technique' or 'system'.

Simplicity is clarity.

Too often arbos have adapted words and techniques that have a common useage in another part of the working rope world. What sense does that make? It only seperates the tree world from the rest of the world.

Keeping SRT and DRT together as very similar techniques since the rope doesn't move, the climber does, makes sense.

In DdRT the rope moves as the climber moves. When a rope is doubled over a limb and used as an ascent line I think of that as more of an SRT setup since both legs of the rope are static. They don't move, the climber does. Using this system for access is problematic and the step to using true SRT for canopy access is a small step in the move to full SRT climbing.

Originally posted by charlieb
I think the founders/fathers of our culture are the authorities, especially since there is so little written about our culture/industry.
... So we must ask the fathers to chime in.

Charlie- I must respectfully disagree. There is little wriitten history of RTC. Peter could easily just write the book in any manner he sees fit, then that will BECOME the history. But he's taking a wise step. He's bringing it to all of us first to hash it out beforehand, then what goes to print, what becomes history will be something that (hopefully) makes sense and is something we all agree on.

That said, I still prefer DDRT for footlocking, and DdRT for Blakes climbing. I am willing to change if that is what most people see as the best choice.

love
nick

Originally posted by charlieb
I think the founders/fathers of our culture are the authorities So we must ask the fathers to chime in.

What about asking the Mothers too?

I believe Tom Dunlap is the mother of the term DdRT. Is that right Tom?

Tom is well recognized in the recreational tree climbing arena and has been for......How long has it been now Tom?

Thanks Peter, I've wanted to parent something in this world!

Being the sire of a climbing term might have to do for me.

We've known each other for close to 20 years, Peter. I still have the newsletters that you published, I think going back to #1 or #2.

Treeman
DRT and SRT are simple enough words for the New Climber to learn and remember.
Later on they will have the time to become familiar w/ DdRT, DbRT and "Dynamic" versus "Static" climbing and all the other million of variations possible.

The author has the freedom to chose his language as far as it is used consistently across his/her book. Someone else will use a different abbreviation or definition but that is his right. Since you mentioned that you are writing a "basic" and "Introductory book" I suggest you go w/ the basic and simple terms DRT and SRT and let the "experts" the job to take apart your book later on for not using their definitions. They can write their own books too if they feel so strongly about it!

You will spend months or years trying to make everyone happy w/ every word used in the book and it will never get to publication. It is just another RTC book, it is not the bible for a new religion. IMHO

I am with Oldtimer, keep it simple. I can't imagine trying to explain to a novice the difference between DRT or DdRT. How would you pronounce DdRT in a conversation, it looks good on paper but try talking about DdRT and it becomes a tongue twister.
"Big D little d R.T."
I read somewhere that TCI has been around for over 20 years, what did you call DRT in the beginning? Seems to me that DRT for recreational tree climbing has been around longer than DdRT for the arborist community.
Even though baseball and softball are similar, they have their separate terminology and rules. Are we working tree trimmers or are we our own breed?
I know that I am not a working arborist and have no desire to be, so why would we conform to standards
set forth by a different breed of tree climbers.
What do our foreign tree climbing friends call it?

Even though baseball and softball are similar, they have their separate terminology and rules. Are we working tree trimmers or are we our own breed?
I know that I am not a working arborist and have no desire to be, so why would we conform to standards
set forth by a different breed of tree climbers.

Please...let's not make this into a factionalizing discussion. Let's keep it friendly and move ahead. It would be too easy to get us vs. them thing going.

To take your baseball metaphor, it would be pretty easy to describe both of the games using mostly common words. A home run or an out is the same in both games. I don't know wnough about either to know what terms are unique to either. Would you help me out?

Since I started my activity on the Internet about ten years ago it has been a learning tool. Taking time to learn how other rope related disciplines relate has been interesting. There is a much longer tradition developed in other work and rec rope disciplines that either arbo or RTC. Instead of either developing a word that already has a common useage it makes sense, to me anyway, to use a term that has a common meaning.

The first time I ever ran across double rope climbing was while I watched two climbers on some cliffs on the west coast of Ireland in about 1985. It was interesting to watch them and try to understand the benefits of using DRT instead of a single rope. A while later, on the ISA forum, within the last 10 years, there was more discussion about naming the rope techniques we use.

What ever words are used is your own choice. Language is such a complex and powerful tool. It takes a lot of work to put it to work in the best way.

Peter will make a decision about what terms to use. Having this forum to toss things about is great.

ANSI doesn't set and standards or enforce the use of any tools nor especially, any terms. There is a glossary attached that defines teh way the words are used in the document. At the last Z133 meeting there was a bit of a discussion about having two definitions for the word "secure". One will be used to talk about the tree climber and the other will talk about equipment security. There are subtle differences in the use that makes it important to have both definitions.

Thanks for all of the input. I am getting tons out of these conversations.

Here's a new term I just pulled out of my helmet. I know of no technical term now out there that describes this simple yet useful tool.

Hitch pulling tool:
A device for pulling down the Blakes hitch be it for a self rescue when the bridge is too long (beyond reach) or for rescue purposes when another climber needs to automatically pull down the Blakes hitch on the victim's system as in a tandem rescue event.

The tool could be a short cord, piece of webbing, or even the other end of the climbing rope with a carabiner clipped in that is positioned above the Blake's hitch. A small pulley can be used in place of the carabiner for smoother pulls.
Marketing slogan- "A little pull will do ya"
Can any old timer locate where the fabricated slogan came from? (hint- bad hair days)

Way way way back in pre-pre-pre-historic times, Og and Gar had just invented water (but no one had named it “water” yet).

They were very pleased with their invention, believing (rightly so) that this new substance they had created would be of high value to all that inhabited the earth (it hadn’t been named “earth” yet, though).

So Og said to Gar, “This is totally cool stuff, dude!

Gar replied, “Methinks thou art correct, noble comrade.” (They were from different parts of town (but they weren’t called “towns” back then)).

Gar continued, “However, what on earth (that’s when the planet was first named) shall we name it?”

“Hmm . . .,” mused Og. “I know! Let’s call it ketchup!”

“Ketchup! That’s ridiculous!”

“Why so?!”

“Whoever heard of taking a bath in ketchup?!”

Words are important.

Thinking that it is easier on the poor beginner to use “DRT” so s/he won’t be confused, and then letting him/her in on “DdRT” later doesn’t make sense. How would it be beneficial (or even possible) to the newcomer to learn the terms “DRT” and “SRT” without also learning the context and details of why and how those techniques are used?

Then how would it be beneficial to tell the newcomer that they really probably shouldn’t be using “DRT” because that is a term that has a long and established meaning in rock climbing, and means something very different there? Granted, we’re not rock climbers and we can use whatever terms we want as long as we understand the context. We can call it “ketchup” if we want, but be prepared for confusion.

DRT and DdRT are two different things, as Tom has pointed out.

We get used to acronyms and new terms; that’s part of the learning experience. Although we should work toward preventing confusion for the beginner, we don’t have to baby them and think they can’t deal with acronyms.

Truly respectfully, I strongly disagree with Oldtimer’s advice when he says, “I suggest you go w/ the basic and simple terms DRT and SRT and let the "experts" the job to take apart your book later on for not using their definitions.”

The problem with doing that is that if Peter indeed is out of step, then the rest of the RTC world most certainly will take both the book and him apart! That will diminish his reputation and the worth of the book.

Besides, Peter IS an expert. That is why he must proceed cautiously. A few errors might be acceptable, but each one he makes will label him as less of an expert in the eyes of all others.

Whether he would be out of step by using DRT instead of DdRT certainly is problematic! And when I first read the question, I thought it was a no-brainer!

By the way, in addition to being beaten up on by RTCers for “hurrying to press,” I can only imagine what would be said over on the pro sites once some of the errors were posted there. You think I’m a pain? Go read some of what’s there.

I still vote for “DdRT,” not “ketchup.”

(This is fun!)

The tree climbing launguage is a stander for me.
I am Taiwanese,the first Chinese tree climbing instructor,the tree climbing launguage what I'm saying,will be as a stander in the future in Asia.
Once,I climb with a American,a Canadian and a Japanese people on a tree.the Canadian and Japanese people speaking Japanese launguage while climbing.
Something happened on the climbing,and cause me in seriouse dangerous.
After that,I told Peter Jenkins that "Never translate the shout commend into any launguage" and "never speaking foreign launguage when climbing","Just English".
The tree climbing launguage in Peter's book will be as a stander in the future.
Let's make a cleare term and not cause anyone confuse.

Since I've been on a mission to perfect a working SRT system for tree climbing I've taken to making the differentiation between the two styles as Traditional and SRT. That has been easy on my tongue and easy for everyone to interpret too.

To reduce the confusion of creating new abbreviations for the Basic (Dynamic line)Climbing Technique. I took a look at current literature in the Tree Climbers Companion (page 35 and 53) and they describe only a "Traditional System" and a "High Performance System" or Split tail System to describe the basic climbing systems. There is not even a mention of DRT or DdRT and is many derivations.

Then why not just use similar language already accepted by the Arborist and non Arborist Community?. Also reading Maher and Winters Teaching Booklet (page 11) they describe DRT for Double Rope Technique and DREC for Double Rope End Climb while using both ends of the rope alternatively while in the tree. No mention there either of DdRT or DbRT. FYI. There are 63 definitions of common climbing terminology on that booklet. Copies can be obtained from Abe Winters at his Georgia Address for a reasonable fee.