I know if you are careful this will not happen but this is a tree climbing professional demonstrating how to climb with spikes. Yikes.
-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
National Tree Climbing Guide & Things to Ponder
- Thread starter supernode
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,635
I left a few marks on the surface bark of trees with my climbing sticks but no holes. I guess this is why the state land management has banned anything that will penetrate the bark. They sure look easy to climb with. The WE and Primal steps seem to leave holes worse than climbing sticks but not as deep as spikes and bolts.
I have a few seasons working & climbing with a few arborists.
They all adhere to the belief that spurs are used when you are going to kill/ drop a tree.
Any other canopy work is rope, bucket truck or crane.
what direction are you heading with this information? Not sure how to respond and advance the conversation?
robstewart
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
- Messages
- 512
That would be my thoughts too. Spikes are fine if you’re taking the tree down. Otherwise I personally would never use them.
I actually have noticed that SRT and one stick seem to do much less bark damage than my self climber.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
robstewart
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
- Messages
- 512
So I’m not one to damage or kill a tree for fun, but I was thinking the other day about the “city folk” attitude towards tree vs the “country” attitude. I’m not saying everyone in the city thinks the same or country thinks the same but this is the nomenclature I will use for now. Hear me out:
The city attitude is that trees are sacred. They live in parks and are a rare commodity.
The country attitude is that trees are a renewable resource.
Where a city person might get upset at logging, a country person might see that the trees are a resource and in fact many new plants and species will find a new home in the area that has opened up.
So back to the idea of spikes, bolts, etc. The city attitude is that the tree dying is a terrible tragedy. The opposite attitude is that trees die all the time. The dead tree will provide habitat and food as it stands and then when it falls it will provide more habit and food for other animals and insects until it returns its nutrients to the earth to renew the cycle.
Like I said, I wouldn’t damage a tree without a good reason, but I don’t think it’s a tragedy if a tree gets damaged and even dies.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The city attitude is that trees are sacred. They live in parks and are a rare commodity.
The country attitude is that trees are a renewable resource.
Where a city person might get upset at logging, a country person might see that the trees are a resource and in fact many new plants and species will find a new home in the area that has opened up.
So back to the idea of spikes, bolts, etc. The city attitude is that the tree dying is a terrible tragedy. The opposite attitude is that trees die all the time. The dead tree will provide habitat and food as it stands and then when it falls it will provide more habit and food for other animals and insects until it returns its nutrients to the earth to renew the cycle.
Like I said, I wouldn’t damage a tree without a good reason, but I don’t think it’s a tragedy if a tree gets damaged and even dies.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spikes damage trees.
Using my WE Stepps to practice on a tree in my own yard had me thinking twice about using them.
I've been using my tree work saddle and the hip thrust climb but it's too damn heavy & loud so I'm switching over to a Kite and using SRT & single stick.
I think this is one of the biggest problems surrounding this topic. There is a conflation with using spurs, screw in steps, bolts, etc, and trees dying.
it’s why I asked if anyone has any evidence based studies regarding this assumption.
I don’t think anyone is saying that these methods don’t damage the bark of a tree. But driving on a tire damages a tire. To what degree, and how that damage Affects the life the tire, safety of the driver, the financial effect on the driver, etc, are the game we play when buying them. No such study has been presented to shed any light on tree damage.
I do understand a place for the logic in urban tree trimming of ‘don’t damage a tree unless you’re taking it down’. That makes perfect sense in that setting, because a tree there has value attached to its visual appeal(its in someone’s yard).
but if you apply that logic to all trees everywhere, it breaks down. Shooting a deer damages it. If we said ‘don’t shoot any deer’, things would look a lot different around here. Of course we don’t do that. Why? Wilderness fragmentation, massive decline in large predator population, and of course, revenue. But the damage deer hunters do to deer herd has been studied extensively, and it is an active and ongoing process to refine what’s best for deer and hunters. I see no such studies done on tree climbing methods.
I’m not arguing for, or against using methods of climbing trees that may damage the bark. I’m arguing for a cohesive, thoughtful, non contradictory conversation about the topic, with opinions being held in facts that are relevant to the topic at hand.
the rules on public land were put in place because much of public land was logged or to be logged at one time. Saw blades are expensive to repair or replace. Leaving a lag screw in a tree is a sure fire way to damage one. Or pop a chain off of a saw while a logger is cutting one down. However, somehow this reasoning has been combined with ‘you’ll kill the tree!’. Now everyone seems to think these rules are(or were) in place to protect the trees.
measuring the reduction in value of timber with metal in it is quite easy. Measuring the cost of repairs to equipment is quite easy.Those make compelling arguments for not leaving metal in trees. However, they do not have anything to do with killing trees prematurely with damaging the bark. After all, logging a tree is killing it prematurely(by the definition being used here) as well. And when using spurs or bolts(and removing them each hunt) no metal is left in the tree.
you can say you don’t like the way a Tree looks with gouges or scars in the bark from climbing methods. You can say that opening a tree to the cambium exposes it to pests and bacteria. I have no argument with either of those statements. Where I have a problem, is making those statements, then attempting to effect policy to prevent it, without any actual science done to measure the degree of the damage. And not just to the tree, but to the environment, the landowner, all species that frequent the area, etc.
I hunted an area in Missouri where they hinge cut tens of thousands of perfectly healthy trees. I would argue that those trees were damaged by that method, and that they died prematurely. It’s pretty easy to prove that. You could also argue that it was beneficial to the forest itself(all the rest of the living trees), as well as many of the other flora, and fauna that coexist with that forest. Otherwise, why’d they do it?
I would love to see some science behind this viewpoint on damaging trees. Again, I am fairly neutral on the topic. I just don’t like seeing bad information spread.
also, I understand you’re not holding one view or another with your perspective on urban/rural differences. And you’re spot on. It doesn’t just apply to trees. It is a widening gap between folks on many topics. It’s why i take the bad arguments so seriously. The one thing that can pull that divide in closer is science. Having good information, and applying it in a thoughtful way, will do wonders.
The way I figure it - it comes down to amount and type of land use.
We have enough data that it's reasonable to say that for low to moderate levels of drilling, on a healthy tree, the odds appear to be against any significant short term effect, and probably long term.
We know that the limit as drilling (especially for a RoB) goes to infinity is a dead, girdled tree.
If the individual tree has noteworthy value (scenic, state park, etc) I tend to feel limiting penetration is the correct call, especially as use-levels climb.
If the tree's value is more at the populatio /forest level (e.g. forest managed for pulpwood...one tree dies another takes its place) then it's meaingful to accept a higher level of risk to damage the tree.
It's unlikely that any of this will ever be thoroughly studied, and probably doesn't need to be.
There are many climbing methods that don't damage the tree. Why not use those? @Nutterbuster went to squirrel steps. Anything is possible. 
SemperFlightMedic
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2019
- Messages
- 212
Here’s a question ....
An arborist ascends a tree by .... whatever method, and prunes that tree by cutting off branches and limbs, leaving many large, open “wounds” on the tree.
For educational purposes, can someone give me a scientifically supported argument that explains how cutoff branches and limbs, which expose substantially more cambium and inner tree growth, doesn’t damage a tree, but spikes which barely penetrate the cambium (if they do at all), puts the tree at risk of disease and death?
Exactly how many trees have you come across have been disease ridden as a result of climbing spikes.
I’ve very interested. I’m not opposed to changing climbing methods. I chose to climb with spikes because I couldn’t find anything that scientifically supports not using them due to tree damage. Just yesterday I walked past a tree I spiked a few weeks ago. I was pleased at how quickly the tree has mended .... in December, even.
Tree climbing spurs don’t kill trees any more than pruning them does. Change my mind.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An arborist ascends a tree by .... whatever method, and prunes that tree by cutting off branches and limbs, leaving many large, open “wounds” on the tree.
For educational purposes, can someone give me a scientifically supported argument that explains how cutoff branches and limbs, which expose substantially more cambium and inner tree growth, doesn’t damage a tree, but spikes which barely penetrate the cambium (if they do at all), puts the tree at risk of disease and death?
Exactly how many trees have you come across have been disease ridden as a result of climbing spikes.
I’ve very interested. I’m not opposed to changing climbing methods. I chose to climb with spikes because I couldn’t find anything that scientifically supports not using them due to tree damage. Just yesterday I walked past a tree I spiked a few weeks ago. I was pleased at how quickly the tree has mended .... in December, even.
Tree climbing spurs don’t kill trees any more than pruning them does. Change my mind.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Damage is minimal, and in many/most cases the population of trees (e.g. the forest) is what is important, rather than the individual tree. Often times I'm hunting in areas managed for e.g. pulp production for paper. The forest health and overall productivity would benefit from thinning - however doing so is not economically viable. Timber is harvested every 30-50 years.There are many climbing methods that don't damage the tree. Why not use those? @Nutterbuster went to squirrel steps. Anything is possible.
The forest value is in its habitat, and in the volume of pulpwood harvested. E.g. drilling does not negatively affect either.
It's definitely a more complicated decision when the individual trees matter, for example if trying to manage for an older growth age structure, for aesthetic appeal in a private land or state park situation, or for areas with high levels of human use.
This more or less aligns with MN's management - state forest lands and timber company lands are generally managed for goals compatible with bollts or spikes (and they're allowed). WMAs and state parks are more stringent likely for reasons of aesthetics and use levels.
I don't think cutting branches on public land is legal.
SemperFlightMedic
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2019
- Messages
- 212
That’s not the point of the question. I’m asking how climbing spikes gravely damage a tree differently than does pruning a tree. The argument that they do is significant in keeping hunters from using climbing spikes on public lands in some states. Not an issue on Virginia WMA’s, but it is in other states, and for no good reason that I can find
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2015
- Messages
- 5,258
There are many climbing methods that don't damage the tree. Why not use those? @Nutterbuster went to squirrel steps. Anything is possible.
Did he try them or switch to them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I think he uses them on public land instead of bolts. He has a video on Youtube showing a speed climb with them.
I think the limit has been set at scoring the tree. Whether permanent damage has been done is not the question but whether damage been done.