Here we go again... not seeing the big picture, and/or being closed minded. If one is stump grinding, or air spading, or you guessed it, wearing gaffs/spikes, boots can be ideal/safer. Shoes can have just as much arch support, outsole strength, and guess what even steel toad. Meanwhile being more agile to move quicker to avoid getting injured, where a boot may be irrelevant to the possible injury, being not swift/agile enough, to avoid catastrophic injury.
Shoes seem more ideal for pruning large expanses of a crown? Or take down of a large crowned tree, unless need of gaffs is ideal?
It was implied that if one wears shoes enough in treework (and hiking), they will develop sufficient necessary muscles [and arguably more important, muscle motor memory] to have unaided ankle support, to the point will they won't need to rely on boots to do treework, in situations where gaffs aren't necessary.
If I cut from top, or near top of extension ladder, I'm not going to cut unless I'm tied in with a lanyard. Is the implication that one shouldn't cut from top of extension ladder ever?
OTHER, seemingly discerning people, HERE, are concerned about having a rope that flattens minimally (by reason of milking it well), or dare we let it be understood, that if many could have a rope that doesn't flatten, they would by deduction prefer a rope would never flatten under normal use situations.
Why are we so distracted from the topic of different rope color scheme of seemingly same ropes, by same manufacturer? Was that not the first thing mentioned in the post.
