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.
 

Crazy_Jimmy

Well-Known Member
Theres a local Park near me that has had the comp a few times and the trees literally have no ill effects that I have noticed . WE did a workshop in the workclimb tree and I literally couldnt tell it had ever been climbed . But most of the trees are Bur oaks and have really thick Bark , so I think thats important factor to consider . I maintain the park that held last years compettion and the trees look fantastic, Ive climbed several since . Matter of fact the trees are so much better off now after the careful pruning that was done. But these are Bur Oaks and Pecans , both thick bark and very hardy trees . It seems like our chapter does a pretty good job of pruning the trees properly and discorouging people climbing like animals in them .
I also think species choice is so important and setting up the events that make for smooth climbing .
 

evo

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?
Yes, and a hypocrite:censored:;)
 

RyanCafferky

Well-Known Member
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.
Jambo 2 was ridiculous. Greg Manning's tree got completely gutted. Having every climber set lines from the ground was cool but certainly helped make the damage even worse than 60 climbers running through them...
 

GregManning

Super Moderator
Staff member
Jambo 2 was ridiculous. Greg Manning's tree got completely gutted. Having every climber set lines from the ground was cool but certainly helped make the damage even worse than 60 climbers running through them...
I agree, Tree D at Jambo 2 was severely damaged by climbers during the competition.
This was the most damage that I've ever seen to a comp tree. (i.e. primarily broken branches)

I'm glad this was not MY tree. (I did not own, or even climb it.)

I am not a "formally trained / certified" arborist, however IMHO, comp trees can also be "excessively" pruned by the volunteers during prep & setup.

This may be done to:
- improve visibility for video taping
- improve visibility for judges / scoring / safety
- remove branches that may interfere w/ hitches (e.g. footlock prussic, ascent, speed climb, etc)
- remove due to potential of climber breaking it (i.e. keep the climb the same for subsequent climbers)
- clearance for bucket truck access
- etc, etc
 

RyanCafferky

Well-Known Member
I agree, Tree D at Jambo 2 was severely damaged by climbers during the competition.
This was the most damage that I've ever seen to a comp tree. (i.e. primarily broken branches)

I'm glad this was not MY tree. (I did not own, or even climb it.)

I am not a "formally trained / certified" arborist, however IMHO, comp trees can also be "excessively" pruned by the volunteers during prep & setup.

This may be done to:
- improve visibility for video taping
- improve visibility for judges / scoring / safety
- remove branches that may interfere w/ hitches (e.g. footlock prussic, ascent, speed climb, etc)
- remove due to potential of climber breaking it (i.e. keep the climb the same for subsequent climbers)
- clearance for bucket truck access
- etc, etc
Greg-

Sorry for insinuating it was “your tree”. You were the judge on a tree that got hammered but every tree there got hammered. All of the judges had a different brush pile waiting to be chipped after the comp that was all from competitors ripping off foliage.
 

GregManning

Super Moderator
Staff member
Damage by climbers could be significantly reduced by decreasing the size of broken branch penalties.
e.g.:
- 3/4" Vs 1" - DQ (really depends on tree species)
- 3/8" Vs 1/2" - Points deduction
- Branches that break, but don't fall to the ground:
- Inspect by Tree Tech with decision: 1. need to remove (penalty) or 2. wound will heal (no penalty).

A) This would obviously increase climber times, but this should be relative.
B) The smaller the branch size will also increase the possibility of accidental breakage, but it would also increase the premium for rope management & climber control.

Charlotte TCC - has a tendency (at least in last 3 years) to be more strict on size than typical ISA events.
ISA TCC's - broken branch size varies from chapter to chapter, venue & species; but is fairly consistent among chapters.
Non-ISA Events (Jambo, Capture-the-Canopy, etc) - tend to be more video & climber oriented Vs Tree protection oriented. [I have tried to reduce branch sizes over the last number of years; I should probably try harder !]

However, many competition climbers will probably be willing to gamble: penalties Vs time.
 
Last edited:

New2trees

Well-Known Member
Question from a non climber.

On the basal anchor issue, wouldn't it be a simple matter for the comp organizers to use a large nylon ratchet strap with a series of short straps with biners at the ends setup in advance to allow competitors to attach their lines to? Seems a 3 inch wide strap with a series of tethers to clip onto would cause basically zero damage and although it would remove the element of speed/technique of attachment of the basal device to the tree, it seems a small sacrifice as opposed to just an outright ban on basal anchors?
 
Top