High Ropes Course Tree Assessments

ArborVista

ArborVista

Location
Lake of Bays
As ISA certified Arborists we evaluate trees within an Arboriculture framework. Within High Ropes course elements, Steel cables, eye bolts, large steel staples are necessary and installed for foot-holds etc. Many times there are unusual forces being imposed on the tree due to course lay-out. Consideration for the trees health is compromised. We must appreciate that the use of the tree is for the installed activity.
How do we evaluate trees for risk assessment when the tree's use is defined by the course elements being installed? We want to be an advocate for the tree, but we also want to encourage the activity of High Ropes courses for camp kids.
Thank-you for your input.
 
[ QUOTE ]

How do we evaluate trees for risk assessment when the tree's use is defined by the course elements being installed?

[/ QUOTE ]The same way as any trees; just factor in the stresses and strains and target durations from their use in the course.

Or maybe I'm not understanding your question.

confused.gif
 
I have worked on and around ropes courses since the 70's.
Personally I do not think that building them in living trees is a good idea. The trees are basically ruined over time and the hardware especially those crazy staples renders the tree unusable as lumber.
I have seen several courses abandoned - unsafe and ugly after a pretty short lifetime. This is not, IMO, an intelligent use of trees as a resource.
If you have to have a course in the woods uses poles...a common design... that way the feeling of being in the trees is there and the trees will be there too! I have aso heard that some folks designed a course that could be removed and reset...a good idea I think.
 
This makes me think of what the poor pecan that was used in the the belayed speed climb at a TCC event looked like after two days of abuse. But maybe this would be better discussed in another thread.
 
Scott, I think there's more to it than that. I've worked on a ropes course that has been up since the 70s. The camp takes care of it, replaces things when needed, maintains the trees properly (by me!)

I can sure see how a neglected ropes course would be a waste. Perhaps even a waste of an entire little section of forest..

From a lumber standpoint...lumber = money. If ran properly, a tree can earn you so much more as a ropes course then it ever could as lumber.

Javier (a member here) may chime in...I think he's done some work with removable ropes course. Indeed, this is the best of both worlds.

Arborvista- I say focus on the tree. The builders of the ropes course should be the ones responsible for the loads on the tree and stuff like that. Obviously, if you see something glaring that they missed you'd wanna mention that, but Assess each tree individually as you would with any other tree, with the exception that you are now also going to focus on the entry points of all the hardware.

Maybe bring along a sounding mallet to check for decay?

love
nick
 
Nick Tom and all,

Yesterday, while on my bike, I saw a brand new Ropes course that really backed up my opinions. Put up by one of the groups that do it "professionally" but without any respect for... or knowledge of the trees. Dozens of those crazy staples, boards lagged tight to the trunks...bridges with no accommodation for movement. Growth on these trees will be 4-6 increments per radius inch = fast. They certainly have it engineered to hold the loads but otherwise ugh! short sighted!

I believe that if you take into account the value of the trees that get wrecked over the long term that any savings as argued by Nick are a false economy.

Nick how are you avoiding damage on the one you work on?

I remain a skeptic...love the idea of the courses...but not the idea of building them in trees with hardware as a key component. SDB
 
Scott, it sounds like a "highest and best use" evaluation of the trees. This falls flat in the face of the numbers of trees we as arborists chip or split into firewood regardless of a higher value use. When I have raised the question with tree services of salvaging the timber, I here the same arguments of no market, inconvenience of processing, foreign objects in the wood,etc...

High rope courses are another use, not necessarily the best use of these trees. However, if set up and maintained correctly they can generate a useful life of these trees in an economic sense.

With the many custom furniture makers and other artisans that will use what to mainstream mills unusable timber it's high time we really take a different approach to what we do with the materials we remove.
 
I have seen pictures of "tree bridges" recently on trees (I'll ask the owner of the picture if I can post it here) that look like they are non-invasive to the host tree.

It was kind of a metal ring with wide "supports" that went below the platform, to spread the load. They were probably secured with hardware somewhere, but the design looked like it was meant to expand with the host tree's growth.

Has anybody seen any platforms, or bridges between trees, that appear to be a longer term approach to installment with the tree's health in mind?

When I was young, I had the good fortune to go to a summer camp in central PA for about 9 summers straight. They had a high ropes course, complete with a zip line at the end. As I think back to the design of the course, it was terrible for the Pines involved. I would love to go back there now and check out the trees up close. It's been a long time since I saw those trees (1995).


I love high ropes courses for the lessons it teaches young people, and old.

TD, I am not familiar with ACCT, but I will look it up. Is that something you are involved with too?



SZ
 
This is great feed back! It is appreciated.
Many times we evaluate trees for their inherent risk. On a ropes course, we see the tree as being more than a tree in a forest, or the beauty of the tree in an urban environment...it now has a very domestic use...not unlike merchantable timber, or syrup production. This is the trees use.
Some of the care and maintenance of these trees seems contradictory to what we as Arborists hold true. Steel cables with through bolts attaching an element into two or three different trees. There are elements that cause the tree to load in ways that perhaps the tree was not designed to do in a natural environment. Staples and other hardware are very invasive and injurious. We still need to evaluate the trees objectively. Does the evaluation differ from a course tree to a backyard tree? The backyard tree may be considered as reasonable, but on the ropes course the same tree condition may be considered as unreasonable. We think we have a handle on loading a tree for removals but how does that integrate itself with loading for different course elements.
I really like the idea of High ropes courses. They can introduce many people to the wonder of trees. They help so much in character building of individuals. Do we develop dynamic "software" to help support course elements? Stainlees steel hardware, cushion mounted hardware? Poles are ideal, but they take away from the "forest" idea.
At times we are asked to assess the tree from both points of view...I like the link to ACCT Tom. That's great for follow-up.
 
For a while I was on the ACCT Standards committee. I've been to a couple of their conferences and made a presentation at one in Denver that was well received. In the presentation I laid out the idea that while ropes course techs were building int trees they were arborists first and rope techs second. In their minds it was the other way around. Later in the conference I had several interesting discussions with techs who understood what I meant. They also told me that I pissed off a few techs because they felt that I was out of bounds...such is life.

At that time ACCT was trying to develop an ANSI standard for their profession. They were long on the way to have a good standard that accounted for trees.

Most of the ACCT courses are built on poles these days not trees. Poles can be tested and engineered trees can't.

When possible, pole courses have been sited inside tree groves to maintain an environment.

Staples have fallen out of favor because there is no way to account for their pull-out strength.
 
Like I posted earlier, I am not a big fan of utilizing the trees for the rigging points in a rope course. Whereas trees are composed of wood they are not lumber. Many mathematical formulas have been formed to calculate strength and load limits on lumber and are quite repeatable. This doesn't work as well with trees themselves.

So not only is it difficult to create repeatable safety limits it is hard to discount the damage produced by such creations. The whole point of the course in the forest is the allure of the forest. Where the tree canopy environment is the purpose for building it there, one should take great pains to respect the beauty and health of said forest.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom