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
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.