Hey what institutions do it the same way? Are their harnesses also constructed the same way? I ask because rock climbers for instance, their saddles are built to be tied into the load bearing leg straps and also into the top safety belt support. The construction is totally different and they normally stay on their climbing line. The only time I see multiple tie in points are when they use a twin rope system. Or when they tie off to anchor point ect…. Again lead rope climbing is different than recreational hunting climbing. I am very interested in these institutions that are all doing it the same way. I’d like to possibly look into them for recreational climbing instruction. Maybe some of us can all sign up and take a 3 day course together, that way when things like this come up, we can have a United definitive answer
I'm no expert on the topic. What I'm saying, is from my layman's point of entry - by googling, asking questions, fishing around in the data and documentation of any climbing industry that I could look at, none have allowed (if they are able to require) or recommend that a progress capture device be the only connection to the climbing rope or anchor for normal activities. There may be a type of climbing or industry that allows this. I don't know of one. If it exists, I'd like to know about it.
The point I'm making here is that my point of entry is the same as 99% of people who hunt in a tree. They're not arborists, rock climbers, industrial workers that work at heights in harnesses. And over half of the people with the same point of entry as I have, view their progress capture device as an acceptable means of connecting themselves to their tether, ALONE. And NO ONE is discussing the topic. As in, everyone assumes that this is normal, the risk inherent to this is acceptable, what that risk IS, or that someone else did this thing for them, and everything is fine.
That's my point. I'm not arguing that they should, or shouldn't. I've got my opinion. But I'm not qualified to give it. What I'm hoping to do is to change the perception of the topic, to one with a bit more skepticism, and open mindedness. Everyone just assumed this thing is the right way to do it. Because that's what people do inside those other institutions- they can make assumptions based on institutional guidance. That's cool that people view saddle hunting as an institution now. However, they'd be wise to understand it has ZERO leadership, organizing principles, no recommendations, no testing, no guidelines, nothing to point to.
I see two viable paths forward - saddle hunting merging into other institutions, or putting it's big boy pants on and becoming one on it's own. Or, people realizing that this is NOT a safe space, and you're personally responsible for not only doing things the right way, but that you're expected to determine what's right on your own without any formal guidance.
I'm hoping conversations like these push people down one of those paths.
Edit - I'm aware that there will be plenty of folks who say "Well I take responsibility for myself and I don't need no man telling me what to do!" or "They should take responsibility for themselves, not rely on someone else."
You're again missing the point. People have foundational assumptions wrong in this space, that they are then basing their risk assessment and decisions on equipment and techniques on. I'm looking to correct the underlying assumptions. Not argue over people's ownership of free will and responsibility for themselves.
