Stop leaving tat on trees!!!!!!

Stand by for scientific Results!
I'm going to test this hypothesis by tying webbing around a sample size of trees and varying thicknesses and types. Then wait a few years for the trees to grow around them.
I'll report back with the results as soon as they are in. Hold thread activity till then please.

I doubt the webbing killed this tree.

Trees living in narrow cracks, like this one, often outgrow their food and water supply. Being stressed makes them more susceptible to insects, drought and disease.

bolt the trees with lag bolts, problem solved

michael voth wrote:that will 100% girdle the tree. no question.

No, it won't. Read some of the knowledgeable responses in this thread.

Good pro, the only route you have 4 stars for is a chipped sport route.
And you're upset about tat?

Much better tat then rapping a rope around the trunk then pulling the rope, doing that over and over again actually harms the tree.

in case you're wondering...

OP tat
the op has has lashed herself to a tree as a lesson to us all.

24 hrs later and still no double post

Tom-onator wrote:in case you're wondering... the op has has lashed herself to a tree as a lesson to us all. 24 hrs later and still no double post

.

Morgan Patterson wrote: U'd fit right in here in CT!

Hands across 'Merica!

Marc801 wrote: No, it won't. Read some of the knowledgeable responses in this thread.

What knowledgeable responses? The knowledgeable responses I've seen say that it is possible to kill trees with tat.

I am a landscaper and have planted many, many trees. For the last 10 years, every tree I have planted has had the ropes cut from around the base. 99% of them have lived. Trees can and will kill themselves with their own roots (google girdling root) if they are planted improperly. If a ROOT can kill a tree, how can tat like what was pictured in the first post NOT kill a tree? Trees growing around a bike is a completely different scenario. Deer rubbing on trees is slightly different, though I've seen trees killed by that too. In both of those cases, the object affecting the tree does not completely encircle the tree and the tree can grow around it. Tat tied tightly around the tree will eventually choke it. Believe it or not, it won't be the top that starves, it's the roots. The nutrients produced by photosynthesis will eventually not be able to get to the roots. In some cases it causes the trunk to swell above the object causing the girdling: treesquirrel.us/swollen_tre…

I have no issues leaving tat on trees when needed- as long as it's tied loose enough to allow the tree room to grow. Especially in areas where it's likely to be removed and replaced somewhat often.

Dan Felix is right on here y'all!

Classic thread in the making right here.

Personally if it isn't in a safe condition then remove it. If people leave webbing around trees until it's fling apart then that's no different then a peice of trash laying on the ground. As far as doing it for the trees sake, those trees don't get very large I don't think so they probably come and go fairly often.

INB4 "My mother was a tree you insensitive clod"

Dan Felix wrote: I have no issues leaving tat on trees when needed- as long as it's tied loose enough to allow the tree room to grow. Especially in areas where it's likely to be removed and replaced somewhat often.

Even loose slings on frequently-used rap trees will wear away bark; at some point this is not going to be good for the tree, right?

Bark abrasion from rap slings

The picture is shot from the side in the sense that the rap load is applied down at the left---a rap ring is visible there. This makes it clear that it isn't only the back of the tree, the side opposite the load, that gets abraded. When the rings are loaded, the slings slide up the trunk under tension, so there is a continual rubbing action going on. A significantly longer sling or set of slings might reduce this effect.

There's nothing unusual or in any way special about this situation, I've seen scores of similar wear patterns.

If you climb in an area like the Gunks with a long history, you will find examples of rope-grooving, caused by climbers passing the rap line itself around the tree and then pulling it. This tree has managed to survive that practice, probably because (1) rappelling used to be infrequent, in fact genuinely rare, and (2) this tree is no longer used.

Rope grooving

Evidence of bark wear notwithstanding, my inexpert suspicion is that soil compaction and erosion from climbers standing around rap trees is a far more potent mechanism in tree death.

Climber top-out erosion

mustardtiger wrote:As far as doing it for the trees sake, those trees don't get very large I don't think so they probably come and go fairly often.

It is probably exactly the opposite actually... they don't get very large because the grow very slowly (lack of resources). Think of alpine settings where some very small tress are very, very, old. Gear anchors or drill the stupid bolt holes to save the ecosystem. So sad how the conservative trad ethic breaks down in this regard and favors silly tradition and habitat destruction over altering inanimate objects.

rgold wrote: Evidence of bark wear notwithstanding, my inexpert suspicion is that soil compaction and erosion from climbers standing around rap trees is a far more potent mechanism in tree death.

This is a major issue at CT's popular trap rock crags where climbing 'ethics' and 'traditions' have prevent the use of fixed anchors, ironically all in the name of conservation. Ragged Mountain's Main Cliff and Cathole are both great examples where soil is compacted, vegetation dies (can be through various means), soil is eroded away, bare cliff tops.

Main Cliff

Just boulder.

rgold wrote: Evidence of bark wear notwithstanding, my inexpert suspicion is that soil compaction and erosion from climbers standing around rap trees is a far more potent mechanism in tree death.

I can agree with this to a point but it seems many of the trees that die from overuse on the edge of a cliff had no soil around them to begin with, they are growing out of cracks in the rock.

Morgan Patterson wrote: This is a major issue at CT's popular trap rock crags where climbing 'ethics' and 'traditions' have prevent the use of fixed anchors, ironically all in the name of conservation. Ragged Mountain's Main Cliff and Cathole are both great examples where soil is compacted, vegetation dies (can be through various means), soil is eroded away, bare cliff tops. Main Cliff

oh to be a ethical tRadman! maybe they like the cracks and faces filled with dirt after each rain, its more trad that way?

rgold wrote: Even loose slings on frequently-used rap trees will wear away bark; at some point this is not going to be good for the tree, right?

I'm far from an expert in these things, but I believe the bark damage you're showing is not significant. That brown scaly layer is all effectively dead tissue anyway, analogous to the top layer of our skin. It's the vascular cambium layer underneath that's critical to tree health. And if the damage you show is merely from webbing abrasion (as opposed to "choking" pressure e.g. from girth hitching) I suspect the tree is unaffected by it.

I agree there's something amiss in CT, where hundreds of sq. ft. of clifftop ecology are being sacrificed to avoid altering a square inch or two of rock surface (bolts). But then we know there's little rationality when it comes to anchors on CT crags.

2 bolt rap anchor would keep tat off trees. Not to mentioned reducing the ugly sight of tat and increasing the safety for the climber.

Two cents coming your way...

Say slings like in the original photo don't always kill trees - they sure aren't going to help them. A bit of damage (somewhere between wee and whopping) is being done. So that is data point #1.

Say dingus climber is lazy, or has low intelligence, or is climbing a route with no walk off. Sometimes slinging trees could be the best alternative to not going climbing (and we all know that is not an option). So that is data point # 2.

Trees are good. People like looking at them, breathing air from them, writing poems in their branches, and pulling down on them upon occasion. So that is data point # 3.

The monstrous weight of all this irrefutably quantifiable evidence should lead us to one of several options:

-First photo - don't.
-If you do, make amends.
-If you see it, and there are better options, cut that tat.
-Stay classy. Don't act like girdling every convenient tree with webbing is A-OK. It is not, it is downright problematic (see data points above)