Question to Ponder

[Tony]

This winter while working with Oceans on storm damage, I posed a question. Here it is for you all as well as he to respond to.


What does tree climbing today have in common with cavers of the 60's and 70's?

Tony

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

This winter while working with Oceans on storm damage, I posed a question. Here it is for you all as well as he to respond to.


What does tree climbing today have in common with cavers of the 60's and 70's?

Tony

Got to be SRT, Tom was saying back THEN, one day arborist will use these techniques. ;-)

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Not quite in the 60/70s...but the SRT light bulb came on in my head in early/mid 80's.

I don't see a lot of things incommon with cavers then and arbos now. When I read the caving history I see innovation built on innovation and acceptance. The changes seemed to make sense to the users and they moved forward to better and better systems.

Gary Storrick's site: http://storrick.cnc.net/VerticalDevicesPage/VerticalHome.shtml

seems to be a really good place to look at the history of rope ascent/descent. See how the tools evolved from hitches.

Tony...what do you see in common?

 

[oceans]

What does tree climbing today have in common with cavers of the 60's and 70's?

Tony

I think much of what is in common can be related to the overall change and introduction of new equipment. Cavers began inventing and implementing mechanical devices, which began to take place of prusik cord for single rope ascent. Rope technology also began to explode with newer materials and braid/weave patterns.

With all the rapid advancement, it's likely there wasn't much of any kind of standard for people to follow. It was a "boots in the field" effort, JUST like what has happened (is happening) with the development of the Unicender, Rope Wrench, Hitch Hiker, and Rope Runner. Someone's got to do it!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

So....Tony, what's on your mind? What do you see in common?

 

[Tony]

Sorry for the delay. Long holiday weekend followed by long week of tree work and storm damage!

The question, I'll admit is a bit cryptic, but by design. On a large scale it forces us as climbers to look at the "come around, go around" nature of our techniques. Spend enough time hanging from rope in trees and you see a lot of different stuff!

Techniques in vogue one year pass, only to resurface in another variation. Ideas from one discipline transfer to ours. Needs and abilities demand yet more variation. As always there is that ever present "urge" to do the "new" thing.
This is all good, but it will serve us well to look to the past simultaneously as we stretch to the future. There are lessons learned and paths traveled behind us that can guide the new lessons and the seemingly new paths. That is one way to answer the question.

On another level, I wanted to bring to attention that, in my mind, tree climbers have more in common with caver's than any other climbing discipline. The environment both take place in is abusive to equipment and often climber. The routes are often new and "uncharted" as well as ever changing. The amount of technical expertise is also similar. The the technical acumen of a professional arborist and a serious caver is extensive and only gained through active climbing and in field practice coupled with good training and good sense.
Sure there are recreational versions of both. Both with skilled climbers and solid technique, but when it comes down to brass tacks, tree climbing and caving at a high level exceed other forms of "recreational" climbing in skill, knowledge and experience.
I make this argument for a number of reasons. The environment can be remote in terms of ready and/or casual accessibility. It can also be ever changing from day to day, hour to hour. The biggest similarity between caving and tree climbing, the one that does not exist in the same extent to other climbing disciplines, is the sensitivity of the climbing medium, the tree or the cave. Both of these should be protected. In caving a "leave no trace" ethic dominates a serious caver's climbing equipment and technique. It should also for a tree climber. We area all well aware of the results when the tree's health is of no concern to the climber! For years we climbed the tree. Then we climbed rope, now we are doing both, looking for ways to protect both. Here is yet another way to answer the question.

On a technical level, because of the reasons stated above, tree climbers and spelunkers will always have a certain similarity. The unique combination of cordage and mechanicals. The constant search for the "holy grail" system that allows ascent and descent in equal proportions with a minimum of fuss. The tendency to require/need retrievable systems once the climb is finished. The flexibility of systems to adjust mid climb, such as redirects, new anchors etc..
Just as cavers of the 70's figured that to combine cordage and mechanicals, certain interfaces needed to be observed, tree climbers now "discover" this same thing. Efficiency is enhanced if the body stays parallel to the host line. This is best achieved if the mechanicals are mounted low on the climber's torso. Again lessons from the 70's!
For years tree climbers strove for the "big gain" in ascent. Rocking back in the footlock, thrusting the hands as high as possible. Now we have come full circle understanding efficiency as cavers learned decades ago. Mount multiple attachment pouns. Get some low, take more, shorter steps, mimic the bod's natural movement.
I think in terms of tie in points as "new" tree climbing techniques evolve, these similarities will become even more apparent. I also urge those of you who are looking for inspiration to harken back to the ideas and systems used in caving now and then for mental fodder.

Thanks for taking part all. I look forward to your responses to my answer.

Tony

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Arbos seem to be 'catching up' to where cavers were so many years ago. That's great as far as I'm concerned. Much healthier to climb like a caver than a traditional arbo.

 

[oceans]

Tony, I enjoyed your post over a cup of coffee.

I agree that if we study our past than we can better look towards the future. I sure am guilty of thinking I came across some new idea only to find it's been done long before...if not exactly, then close enough to call it a "re-hash". I think much of this comes from generational gaps, over which technology changes, and old ideas are re-born in new fashion.

There is a point, however, that I feel that these re-births are substantial enough to give them a different sort of credit. If a caver took a look at Morgan's Unicender, the caver might say "I can see how it's like a rack, although you don't need a soft-lock to hold position." I'm not a caver, so I can't say one way or another, though a caver might see no need for a Unicender. There are cases in which new technology and innovation builds on an older idea, but now provides a certain group with the most desirable advantages.

I think immediately of the Rope Runner (thank you so very much, Kevin!). Take the mechanical portion of a Rope Wrench (also, big ups, Kevin), and stack it onto the mechanical portion of the Hitch Hiker (thanks, Paul), and voila. The Rope Wrench came from the stitch plate, and the Hitch Hiker came from...I'm not exactly sure, but there must be something out there? Point is, the old ideas came forth with something so innovative that it's hard to see the direct relationship for certain generations, thus the gap. I'd be interested to see a 70's caver try using a Rope Runner. Perhaps cave elements would be too harsh for it...I don't know. They would.

I have an interest in the history of climbing, although I don't know of every possible resource out there regarding our history. I can look to the work of Gerald Beranek, Jeff Jepson, Gary Storrick's Vertical Devices inventory (WOW!!!)... I can look to publications like 'On Rope' as a fantastic resource.

Back to the original question. I don't personally know any cavers from the 70's, but I can speculate that I might share a reverence for our natural world, a draw to explore it, and some inexplicable, undying desire to do so by climbing.

 

[Tony]

Oceans,

I agree. At some point the mis-mash of combinations, the various uses possible and even personalities all combine to breath a synergy into an idea that makes it more than a re-hash, but a new and distinct entity. Part of the beauty of creativity.

Hell, what I have just described breaks down the act of writing a novel very well!

Lately, my internal musings catch me pondering the my last few decades professionally. I suppose the passing of Bruce Smith, friend and mentor, prompted the introspection. Honoring Aristotle and making mine a life worth living, brought about the reintroduction of the question and my thoughts as to it's answer.

Arboriculture is a living breathing thing, not just a job, not just people working. We each in our own way, bring something to the mix. Sometimes this is good, some times not so much!

I know for me climbing has never been an end in and of itself. I climb trees because there is work to do up there. I don't work in trees because I happen to be climbing them. I know this is just my perspective and others' differ. However, for me the best climber in the world is unless unless she or he posses the knowledge and skill to perform the job of Arboriculture safely and efficiently. In this, the spelunkers I have know are the same. They climb to access the object of their passions, discovery, a world so close, but so very remote.

It is this "drive" that we share and makes the physical way we approach our individual tasks similar.

I used to climb trees because I figured chicks dig it. I was mistaken, at least in my experience!. I needed to get far from tree work to find a partner that would put up with me!

Tony

 

[treebing]

One big difference is tree climbers generally climb for work and money and cavers climb for fun and glory. Another is that arborists climb with saws.

 

[TreeLogic]

So Tony, how do you feel tree climbing and caving differ from rock climbing?

 

[treehumper]

Great read. To me, climbing is the means to the end, whether in a cave or a tree. We didn't look for somewhere to hang a rope but saw a rope as the way to gain access to our goals. TL, in my view, rock climbing is just that. Ropes are a back up to protect the climber from a fall but not a tool to ascend with. The goal of rock climbing is to scale the wall not to access it by means of rope.

 

[Tony]

Kevin,
I agree. Although rare, I imagine research pays for some caving expeditions. A saw is a big difference no doubt. One I think arborists will always have


TL,
I think on the whole rock climbing is more accessible as an activity. It is more popular than either caving or tree climbing on any level. Instruction is more readily available as is gear and areas to practice. Seems every where I turn around me another indoor rock gym is opening.
Short of some hard core individuals, rock climbing for a great majority is a highly physical activity, with mostly physical challenges. I see tree and caves as much physical as mental challenges. Especially when we are speaking of production tree work.
The are of course the differences TH pointed out. I admit that all climbers rock and tree and cave climb for their own reasons, but on the whole I think it is safe to generalize.

Thanks all for the responses. I am enjoying the conversation.

Tony

 

[TreeLogic]

Good stuff.

 

[sherwood7]

Interesting stuff. I think big wall climbing/aid climbing needs a place in this discussion. Most of the original single line gear and techniques come from big wall climbing. Also in caving you are pretty much always using or placing fixed anchors of some kind. In tree climbing we have the luxury of using lots of different gear. We pick and choose depending on the situation. In caving they want the least amount of gear possible, and strive to make it work in any situation they might encounter. These discussions r great because the crossover between these activities spurs innovation and learning across the board.( my neighbors are into caving and we have traded tips and gear many times)

 

[treebing]

I really think that all of these at height undertakings are very similar. They all take intense focus to constantly remain one step ahead of gravity. Rock climbers and cavers and other rec climbers often end up becoming arborist and proffesional rope access guys because they can feed their families and still get air time. I think because of the professional part, professional arborists and rope access workers have the most in common in regards to how much going home at the end of the day is important. Mountaineers, cavers, rock climbers and other dare devils almost have an expectation that at some point the mountain or cave might win. Most arborists are working on the clock and fully expect to return home every day. This attitude I think changes a lot the mindset that goes into a climb. Not to say there are not some daredevils in the arbworld and professionals in the caving world.

 

[TreeLogic]

I feel like the arbworld has changed for the better in that respect, in the last 15 years. The internet has helped many learn what's safe and what's not.

 

[Tony]

Sherwood,
Good points. In my scale of rating, the big wall stuff is on the far end of accessible rock climbing, but certainly relevant to the discussion. Perhaps one thing in common between aid climbing and tree climbing is the need to be ready to handle an emergency in the absence of readily available rescue. For big wall climbers the problem with rescue is distances and possible weather, for tree climbers our problems stem from accessibility and/or the lack of qualified climbers to aid where a fire rescue squads cannot tread.
Your point about caving and a select amount of gear holds true for me as a tree climber as well. I may own a lot of gear, but very little goes on any specific climb and only what I need. As tree climbers we have the advantage of calling down for more gear as needed, unlike many other types of climbers.

Kevin,
I agree all the high angle disciplines/sports have much in common. I just decided to split hairs between them for this discussion. The thing they share the most though is it takes a certain personality to pursue these ventures day to day weather for money or not. I make a good living and help raise my family comfortably through tree work, but there are many other jobs I could do for more money and far less physical effort. I choose tree work. Or perhaps it has chosen us?

TreeLogic,
I agree 100%. In fact, since my very early days in tree work, I have been fortunate to see a constant level of "kaizen." I think it is because of the people involved. Of course there are many out there who just go through the same motions taught to them, by people going through the same motions taught to them. You know, the people who claim to have 20 years experience, but in actuality have 1 or 2 years 20 or 10 times over.
However, there is a core in this industry that pushes to get better, to apply new thoughts on old things. The topic of this discussion! Thanx for bringing it around!

Thanks all. More please!

Tony

 

[opposablethumb]

When I read 'On Rope', I was struck by how much respect cavers have for sharp objects, such as a Spyderco knife or something of the sort. There are a couple points in the book where the authors vehemently state that all sharp objects should be kept closed or sheathed whenever a climber is on rope...at all times...I think I am remembering this correctly.

Then you have us, who wave around our Silkies like butter knives, and have our climbing chainsaws swinging around on our hips, winding lanyards and climbing lines around the bar and chain from time to time.

After reading 'On Rope' as well as some posts by Tom D., I now always lanyard in when handsawing, in addition to chainsawing, which I already did.

I wonder if cavers would have a hard time transitioning to tree work if the aversion to sharp objects around ropes is actually characteristic of their tribe.

 

[oceans]

When I read 'On Rope', I was struck by how much respect cavers have for sharp objects, such as a Spyderco knife or something of the sort. There are a couple points in the book where the authors vehemently state that all sharp objects should be kept closed or sheathed whenever a climber is on rope...at all times...I think I am remembering this correctly.

Then you have us, who wave around our Silkies like butter knives, and have our climbing chainsaws swinging around on our hips, winding lanyards and climbing lines around the bar and chain from time to time.

After reading 'On Rope' as well as some posts by Tom D., I now always lanyard in when handsawing, in addition to chainsawing, which I already did.

I wonder if cavers would have a hard time transitioning to tree work if the aversion to sharp objects around ropes is actually characteristic of their tribe.

I'll say, I was once the kind that had a chainsaw swinging around from my hip, but not anymore. I even use a scabbard on that. I've had people ask if it slows me down, but it actually speeds you up. It's one less thing to mitigate as you move about, which you'll be doing far more than prepping for a cut here and there. Of course the larger saws hang traditionally, but the top handle gets stowed nicely.

Your point makes me think about exposure, and the distance you are from something hazardous. When the saw is in your hand, you may feel LESS exposed than when your line could slide over a sharp rock edge hundreds of feet above you in a cave. When you're out of reach from that hazard, I just imagine feeling MORE exposed. Interesting.