Do you tie off your saddle to the end of your tether?

[_Dario]

So still not accepting a screamer into the system to prevent this??? Why not??

1/ screamers not meant to be under constant load on a static rope
2/ you are attaching it to a non fall arrest device
3/ If properly using a linesman belt on your climb up you will never achieve the force required to deploy the screamer

So in other words, we aren’t using the screamer as they were designed to be used, and even if you fell with one into a saddle, just the design of the saddle alone is going to be problematic, and if you are climbing properly in the first place the screamer will not help. And in fact could be more harmful because it could create a false sense of security and make you take even more risks you wouldn’t on just a static rope by itself.

 

[woodsdog2]

I understand but it is still an alternative means of back up connection.

 

[_Dario]

I don’t really know that there is an answer to this with the parameters we have to work with. It looks like there would need to be a saddle built on top of a fall arrest device. You would clip end end of your tether into a dedicated and tested location onto the saddle and use the prussik for position adjustment on the tether. Until then I think anything we do is just to give us warm fuzzies.

 

[_Dario]

And one more thing...if you did build that fall arrest saddle...would it even be comfortable, or convenient? Would it be better to hunt from a stand at that point?

 

[kyler1945]

I don’t really know that there is an answer to this with the parameters we have to work with. It looks like there would need to be a saddle built on top of a fall arrest device. You would clip end end of your tether into a dedicated and tested location onto the saddle and use the prussik for position adjustment on the tether. Until then I think anything we do is just to give us warm fuzzies.

Sort of like a rock climbing harness combined with a fleece saddle or sit drag? One cradles your butt, one cradles your existence.

Still doesn't address connection points. But it does highlight the drift from the evo to kestrel to an explosion of saddles with no or removable leg straps that aren't designed to offer much in the way of force absorption.

 

[TNSTAAFL]

I don’t really know that there is an answer to this with the parameters we have to work with. It looks like there would need to be a saddle built on top of a fall arrest device. You would clip end end of your tether into a dedicated and tested location onto the saddle and use the prussik for position adjustment on the tether. Until then I think anything we do is just to give us warm fuzzies.

This brings us back around to the saddle vs treestand safety comparison (sorry for dredging that back up). The saddle takes the place of the treestand in terms of supporting your body while hunting elevated, but has no fall restraint system behind it like a proper, certified treestand system. Much attention has been placed on the goal and function of saddles ro keep you from falling.

The OP's excellent questions throughout this thread suggest that many think of their saddle (and accompanying ropes, straps, & hitches) as their safety harness (myself included in this "many"). I know that for me, one of the reasons I took so easily to just tying in to my tether with a prussik was that my lifeline that came with my Millenium hang on simply had a prussik on it with instructions to clip your safety harness to to it. But again, my saddle is not a safety harness.

I agree with the previous comment that regulation/certification, if it is coming, will likely require a more typical full body restraint system backing up the positioning saddle.

My 2 cents, which is more than I'm qualified to give.

 

[Zoa]

And one more thing...if you did build that fall arrest saddle...would it even be comfortable, or convenient? Would it be better to hunt from a stand at that point?

And if you did, would folks keep the leg loops on? And keep the waist belt tight and above their hips?

 

[TNSTAAFL]

Sort of like a rock climbing harness combined with a fleece saddle or sit drag? One cradles your butt, one cradles your existence.

I thought this, but then remembered a discussion about an RCH not being a fall arrest system either, unless paired with dynamic rope. Correct me if I'm remembering that wrong.

With static rope, we would seem to need a full body harness with some shock absorption sewn in, for safety, and then a saddle, fleece or otherwise, for positioning/hunting.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

So still not accepting a screamer into the system to prevent this??? Why not??

I do not understand your question. I thought once we researched fall factor, force calculations, across both static rope and dynamic rope, we found that dynamic rope absorbed more force than a screamer. Again I never said a screamer wouldn’t help as a back up tied in above the primary. I said it was not designed to be constantly weighted nor was it meant to be the only shock absorber in your system. It was created to work on a temporary anchor point as a back up force arrest used in a dynamic rope system. Again it at best absorbs 3kN and that’s at best brand new ect… any time you use something in a manner in which it isn’t designed for, you risk it not working or having a diminished effect. No matter what you use, a high impact fall on an apparatus that isn’t designed to fall arrest is going to hurt. I am not telling you don’t use a screamer if that’s what you think will be the difference maker. I just personally don’t see 600 lbs of force absorption (again BEST case scenario) saving you on a 1800 lbs of force fall. It’s an opinion and there is no lab reported data satay available to prove it right or wrong.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

I thought this, but then remembered a discussion about an RCH not being a fall arrest system either, unless paired with dynamic rope. Correct me if I'm remembering that wrong.

With static rope, we would seem to need a full body harness with some shock absorption sewn in, for safety, and then a saddle, fleece or otherwise, for positioning/hunting.

That would be correct. An RCH only works if paired with a dynamic system. Even then rock climbers have extremely long systems which help absorb more force. In the research video that was posted a few pages back, an RCH even with a short dynamic sling, still reach forces that could snap your back or harm your insides. This is a risk all of us take any time we allow slack into our system. Fall arrest versus fall restraint.

 

[_Dario]

Sort of like a rock climbing harness combined with a fleece saddle or sit drag? One cradles your butt, one cradles your existence.

Still doesn't address connection points. But it does highlight the drift from the evo to kestrel to an explosion of saddles with no or removable leg straps that aren't designed to offer much in the way of force absorption.

well, not even a rock climbing harness. I don’t think those were even designed to fall into them like we are talking about. I believe they were designed to work in confluence with a dynamic rope/payout lengths/belayer, etc.....rock climbing.

I am thinking about a device more along the lines of what was posted in that video a week or so ago about short falls. A full body type device.

for me personally, I am comfortable enough with the climbing methods I have chosen that I will always have a waist high or above anchor or be under constant tension on the line. I’ll consider moving my end of tether alpine butterfly that I have been tying into my bridge carabiner to a spot on my saddle because of this thread.

 

[MattMan81]

Okay. I went back and re read this all again. I felt like I was missing something. @kyler1945 I get what your saying about changing the thinking. But there seems to be two ends of the spectrum of hunters with some in the middle. Those who say good enough and accept the risk, and those that are reading trying to make sure they are doing it right and adapting to new thoughts to make sure they did everything they can to be safe. Hopefully more guys will move there needle more towards the safer idea side of the spectrum and think more about what there doing. Me personally I think I am going to look at either back up bridge, or something else I can do with the stuff I will all ready have up the tree. Its there why not take a minute and do something with it. Not like I have anywhere to go......

 

[kyler1945]

I thought this, but then remembered a discussion about an RCH not being a fall arrest system either, unless paired with dynamic rope. Correct me if I'm remembering that wrong.

With static rope, we would seem to need a full body harness with some shock absorption sewn in, for safety, and then a saddle, fleece or otherwise, for positioning/hunting.

I'm not saying that it's safe, or according to a standard. But it was at least attempting to point at something that existed already.

My point is that in the last 3 or 4 years, I have watched hundreds of people come through this site, taking a pile of things for granted on their way to using saddles and ropes and hardware for climbing. I can only imagine that there's thousands more that I'm not exposed to.

It is reaching a point where I can't see an outcome that doesn't involve some broken backs and legs.



A rock climbing harness is designed to absorb and distribute force to a human body in a certain way. It is tested to certify that it will not break prior to distributing that force in the event of a fall. It is up to the user to use equipment and procedures that eliminate the risk of forces beyond that threshold. If they succeed, they can be reasonably certain that their RC harness will perform as expected. Because of a huge body of institutionalized knowledge experience and testing.

If a person climbing and hanging in trees wants to use a rock climbing harness, he can. All he can reasonably expect, however, is that it will absorb and distribute force to his body up to the amount specified by the testing procedures, guidelines in the industry, and clearly stated by the manufacturer. If he decides to use equipment and techniques that don't eliminate the risk of exceeding that force threshold, he is now playing russian roulette.

The only way for a "saddle hunter" to determine if he is engaging in behavior that introduces the possibility of exceeding that force on his RC harness is to think critically, and do math.

And the only way to know what type of damage/injury that forces up to that force threshold will inflict upon him, is to seek guidance from regulations in other institutions.



All of which is the point I'm trying to make. There is no "there" there for hunters. TMA requirements on fall protection seem to mirror OSHA requirements for working from heights if I remember correctly. And the single biggest reason for this is lack of consumer engagement. We will get what we want eventually by sacrificing some fellow hunters, or by putting in effort ourselves to develop an institution. Choice is up to us.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

well, not even a rock climbing harness. I don’t think those were even designed to fall into them like we are talking about. I believe they were designed to work in confluence with a dynamic rope/payout lengths/belayer, etc.....rock climbing.

I am thinking about a device more along the lines of what was posted in that video a week or so ago about short falls. A full body type device.

for me personally, I am comfortable enough with the climbing methods I have chosen that I will always have a waist high or above anchor or be under constant tension on the line. I’ll consider moving my end of tether alpine butterfly that I have been tying into my bridge carabiner to a spot on my saddle because of this thread.

As far as a fall arresting/ fall restraint harness, trophyline attempted to mix the two many years ago. They even patented the design. It failed miserably for multiple reasons. One was the connecting point being at your back, impeded certain twist or shot angles (because we twist around to shoot). The other was it was so heavy having to add in sewn straps that go over the shoulders and around the back. In a system like this you’d have a tether mounted high above you with a rear strap and a dynamic load lanyard loosely attached. Then you’d have your normal tether that positioned you. The harness combined with the platform would end up weighing as much or more than a FBH and a lone wolf .5…. And the additional cost for the extra sewing and materials would far outweigh anything available now. So you’d have a way heavier saddle, multiple tethers and lanyards one in the front and one in the back that would get in the way of your shot. I just do not see that working and if it did, you’d owe trophyline royalties already. Lol

 

[MattMan81]

As far as a fall arresting/ fall restraint harness, trophyline attempted to mix the two many years ago. They even patented the design. It failed miserably for multiple reasons. One was the connecting point being at your back, impeded certain twist or shot angles (because we twist around to shoot). The other was it was so heavy having to add in sewn straps that go over the shoulders and around the back. In a system like this you’d have a tether mounted high above you with a rear strap and a dynamic load lanyard loosely attached. Then you’d have your normal tether that positioned you. The harness combined with the platform would end up weighing as much or more than a FBH and a lone wolf .5…. And the additional cost for the extra sewing and materials would far outweigh anything available now. So you’d have a way heavier saddle, multiple tethers and lanyards one in the front and one in the back that would get in the way of your shot. I just do not see that working and if it did, you’d owe trophyline royalties already. Lol

The flip side to that. Governing who ever steps in to try and mandate. Says there is no "safe" way to saddle hunt. Or you do need to have that fall restraint. Or there are so many ropes or webbings on a "approved" saddle that guys don't purchase them and go back to RCH and sit drags. Back to where it all started.

 

[kyler1945]

Okay. I went back and re read this all again. I felt like I was missing something. @kyler1945 I get what your saying about changing the thinking. But there seems to be two ends of the spectrum of hunters with some in the middle. Those who say good enough and accept the risk, and those that are reading trying to make sure they are doing it right and adapting to new thoughts to make sure they did everything they can to be safe. Hopefully more guys will move there needle more towards the safer idea side of the spectrum and think more about what there doing. Me personally I think I am going to look at either back up bridge, or something else I can do with the stuff I will all ready have up the tree. Its there why not take a minute and do something with it. Not like I have anywhere to go......

Word.


I'm not trying to stifle creativity or innovation. I am very supportive of folks who live and breathe on the cutting edge. We owe much of the advancement of humanity to people who take risks, and engage in behaviors without knowing the outcomes yet. This post has almost nothing to do with those people. I promise they aren't reading it. And I don't want them to.

This post is aimed at people who think they are safer than they are, because they've placed trust in institutions that don't exist. They've made certain assumptions in gear purchases and behaviors, that do not have much evidence to support them. Not because they are dumb, or bad people, or any other negative connotation you could apply. It's the nature of social apes. I'm just trying to expose the flaws in the foundations of many people's logic in deciding on how to climb a tree. And the reason for that is to A - improve that foundation, and B - help those people make more informed decisions or stop making uninformed ones.

I don't have an answer to the 50 questions about technique or equipment choices. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to make people realize that anyone who says they do, in this arena, is not saying what you think they're saying.

 

[_Dario]

Ever see that poster of an iceberg viewed at a unique angle where you can see 5% is exposed above the surface but the vast majority is underwater.

To me saddle hunting can be “safe” if used in certain ways. This is the exposed 5%. Then there is the 95% underwater which is the DIY/alternate advanced climbing techniques which can be very risky.

what’s being marketed in most cases is that the entire iceberg is safe.

I think changing that course will have the most impact on people’s decisions. I am not talking about a quick disclaimer at the beginning of a video that says do at your own risk. I am talking about several videos doing deep dives on the topics we’re talking about. I don’t have the time or resources to produce that kind of content so I am really just being an annoying guy on the internet. My hope is that we can push those with the resources to do that. There is a particular youtube channel I have messaged back and forth with over the past year and I recently asked if they’d consider putting some content out like this and they seemed interested.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

I'm not saying that it's safe, or according to a standard. But it was at least attempting to point at something that existed already.

My point is that in the last 3 or 4 years, I have watched hundreds of people come through this site, taking a pile of things for granted on their way to using saddles and ropes and hardware for climbing. I can only imagine that there's thousands more that I'm not exposed to.

It is reaching a point where I can't see an outcome that doesn't involve some broken backs and legs.



A rock climbing harness is designed to absorb and distribute force to a human body in a certain way. It is tested to certify that it will not break prior to distributing that force in the event of a fall. It is up to the user to use equipment and procedures that eliminate the risk of forces beyond that threshold. If they succeed, they can be reasonably certain that their RC harness will perform as expected. Because of a huge body of institutionalized knowledge experience and testing.

If a person climbing and hanging in trees wants to use a rock climbing harness, he can. All he can reasonably expect, however, is that it will absorb and distribute force to his body up to the amount specified by the testing procedures, guidelines in the industry, and clearly stated by the manufacturer. If he decides to use equipment and techniques that don't eliminate the risk of exceeding that force threshold, he is now playing russian roulette.

The only way for a "saddle hunter" to determine if he is engaging in behavior that introduces the possibility of exceeding that force on his RC harness is to think critically, and do math.

And the only way to know what type of damage/injury that forces up to that force threshold will inflict upon him, is to seek guidance from regulations in other institutions.



All of which is the point I'm trying to make. There is no "there" there for hunters. TMA requirements on fall protection seem to mirror OSHA requirements for working from heights if I remember correctly. And the single biggest reason for this is lack of consumer engagement. We will get what we want by sacrificing some fellow hunters, or by putting in effort ourselves to develop an institution. Choice is up to us.

To quote a guy from earlier “ one more time for those in the back” !!! I believe you and I have gone full scale around the world and ended up agreeing on one of the biggest points I try to make! And statistically you are correct, the more people that turn to saddle hunting, the higher the chances of someone getting hurt. Because companies do not have to test or meet standards. Also because they do not market the risks, because it is not a helpful selling point! So you have a bunch of new guys that have never used a rope to tether in, climbing 20’ up a tree, possibly leaving slack, or possibly using a commercial saddle that does not get tested or provide proof of testing, some do not have the high dollar liability insurance that tree stands companies do, so if you are injured from their product, it’s highly unlikely you receive compensation for those injuries. These are reasons I advocate for standards. These are also reasons I am vocal about risks on here. I think we need more safety related understanding

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

The flip side to that. Governing who ever steps in to try and mandate. Says there is no "safe" way to saddle hunt. Or you do need to have that fall restraint. Or there are so many ropes or webbings on a "approved" saddle that guys don't purchase them and go back to RCH and sit drags. Back to where it all started.

I have thought hard about this because that was the stance taken years ago… the problem is ANSI already differentiated the difference as well as separate standards for similar industries. Linemen do not have a separate harness while climbing the pole. Arborist utilize work positioning harnesses. As do cave and rescue climbers. UIAA recognized RCH with standards. ASTM and ANSI will recognize standards because it is better to be safe than sorry. Saddle hunting has gained that much attention over the past few years that even large tree stand companies are trying to jump on board. Standards will happen

 

[woodsdog2]

I do not understand your question. I thought once we researched fall factor, force calculations, across both static rope and dynamic rope, we found that dynamic rope absorbed more force than a screamer. Again I never said a screamer wouldn’t help as a back up tied in above the primary. I said it was not designed to be constantly weighted nor was it meant to be the only shock absorber in your system. It was created to work on a temporary anchor point as a back up force arrest used in a dynamic rope system. Again it at best absorbs 3kN and that’s at best brand new ect… any time you use something in a manner in which it isn’t designed for, you risk it not working or having a diminished effect. No matter what you use, a high impact fall on an apparatus that isn’t designed to fall arrest is going to hurt. I am not telling you don’t use a screamer if that’s what you think will be the difference maker. I just personally don’t see 600 lbs of force absorption (again BEST case scenario) saving you on a 1800 lbs of force fall. It’s an opinion and there is no lab reported data satay available to prove it right or wrong.

You're right I guess I wasn't paying attention in class. A lot of information to digest so I didn't realize the screamer was completely invalidated for this purpose. But yes, a 200lb man falling only three feet generates approximately 1800lbs of force but I believe the DMM ripstop is rated for higher than that?? Says on this add rated at 22Kn??? https://www.backcountrygear.com/ripstop.html What about two screamers??? I'm not trying to be funny but just trying to figure out add ons that don't require us to completely revamp our systems. I'm thinking through this with you not criticizing. Somebody needs to put together a flow chart or better yet, a pictorial of what we should be doing. I am visual. I am not a professional climber, arborist etc. and I don't play one on youtube.