Charlotte TCC's can of worms

Leroy

Well-Known Member
How many climbers in masters? I wonder the extent of damage to the tree from anchors and redirects, too many variables to say one way or the other confidently. Maybe the people who set up the comp could put some sort of protection on the crotches that will be popular for anchors a redirects.
 

KentuckySawyer

Well-Known Member
How many climbers in masters? I wonder the extent of damage to the tree from anchors and redirects, too many variables to say one way or the other confidently. Maybe the people who set up the comp could put some sort of protection on the crotches that will be popular for anchors a redirects.
Probably 5-9 climbers.
 

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
If a tree is so delicate that it requires rope protection at every contact point maybe its too delicate to even climb

IN the decades of involvement with TCC I've seen way more tree damage done by skinning of epicormics...stubs...sculpting. This style of comp pruning is decreasing.


Is it time that we look over at wilderness use ethics? Minimum impact...leave no trace?

My way of dealing with the use of FC's was on the score sheet. If a climber chose to run a rope through a part of the tree and didn't use rope protection where the moving rope would cause tree damage there was a point deduction. Their choice wasn't the best it could be.

I can't understand a reason not to allow basal anchors.

To me, its about making the best decision to solve a problem. Using a basal anchor for ascent with a change over to some sort of canopy anchor seems a good idea. In the comp there's no scenario given. No cutting done. If climbs need long descriptions and annotations maybe they shouldn't.
 
Last edited:

Crimsonking

Well-Known Member
As far as I understand, Freedom Park said no more because the damage to the trees (and probably the drinking and such that is prohibited but has been prolific). Therefore, the judges and CAA are trying to cut down on damage to the trees in the new location.

There has been an amendment to this announcement that was much better received. It included friction savers for base anchors, and allowance of natty redirects with discretionary scoring.

My personal feelings are that the masters climb seems to me to be the least invasive and should therefore be the least regulated. However, it seems an acceptable compromise has been reached so that the Charlotte may live on, so yay.
 

Crazy_Jimmy

Well-Known Member
As far as I understand, Freedom Park said no more because the damage to the trees (and probably the drinking and such that is prohibited but has been prolific). Therefore, the judges and CAA are trying to cut down on damage to the trees in the new location.

There has been an amendment to this announcement that was much better received. It included friction savers for base anchors, and allowance of natty redirects with discretionary scoring.

My personal feelings are that the masters climb seems to me to be the least invasive and should therefore be the least regulated. However, it seems an acceptable compromise has been reached so that the Charlotte may live on, so yay.
Seems like it would be alot better on the trees if they didnt use the same parks for consecutive years .
 

treebing

Well-Known Member
I would never want a climbing comp to come to one of the parks I am close to. I’ll go run through trees in someone else’s park and have a good time if their cool with it... But I am not taking part in any climbing comp in any trees I am personally connected to. Does that make me an asshole?
 

GregManning

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would never want a climbing comp to come to one of the parks I am close to. I’ll go run through trees in someone else’s park and have a good time if their cool with it... But I am not taking part in any climbing comp in any trees I am personally connected to. Does that make me an asshole?
I am lucky enough to have 10 acres designated "forestry" by the state of Ohio.
Many years ago I thought it would be cool to have a comp here.

After volunteering for 77+ TCC's, I would not want a comp to "trash" my trees.
 

KentuckySawyer

Well-Known Member
I would never want a climbing comp to come to one of the parks I am close to. I’ll go run through trees in someone else’s park and have a good time if their cool with it... But I am not taking part in any climbing comp in any trees I am personally connected to. Does that make me an asshole?
Maybe a "not in my back yarder," but I'd never call you an asshole. ;)
 

KentuckySawyer

Well-Known Member
After volunteering for 77+ TCC's, I would not want a comp to "trash" my trees.
The only TCC I've ever been a part of that "thrashed" the trees was JAMBO 2. Wether or not a TCC leads to "trashing" a tree is a longer term question. Ethically speaking, it seems like this is a question that the ISA should really examine, but in my experience they are less inclined to provide leadership in revolutionary thinking and are generally more inclined to repeat established industry standards.

I don't know how many TCCs I've been a part of, but JAMBO 2 is the only one that felt like those trees would probably suffer mid-long term effects.
 
Top