ENTS, I posted tie following message to a couple of tree climbing forums on Facebook. I would welcome the input of people here in ENTS as well.
Tree Climbing and Tree Measuring I am curious why tree climbers as a group do not measure more trees. I have been corresponding with several people individually on the subject, and am now opening the conversation to the wider group. I am a member of the Eastern Native Tree Society, http://www.nativetreesociety.org - a groups described by one website as tree measuring fanatics. One respondent said (paraphrased): The majority of the folks .are coming from the realm of connecting with nature, in an almost philosophical way. They seem to look at the trees as friends and don't seem that interested in the trees stats. Kind of like hanging out with your friends, do you ask them how much they weigh or how tall they are? Other people suggested that there really are two groups of tree climbers - those that do it recreationally and those that do it as a business. It was suggested that those who do it for a business might not want to take measurements at the expense of work time. There is commonly "production pressure" that often makes it unfeasible for employees of many companies to take the extra time needed for accurate measurements. Many of those that climb recreationally might be more interested I the experience of climbing rather than the taking measurements. Another commented that many climbers do not climb to the very top, or near the very top of trees needed to do tape drops because of safety concerns especially when dealing with thin topped conifers. Personally I would disagree with the idea that measuring a tree detracts from the one with nature experience. As a caver I enjoyed mapping caves, because it forced me to take the time to see the small details I would have missed in a typical trip through the system. Likewise I find measuring trees in the forest gives me a richer and more meaningful trip than a simple hike. I am actively looking for different species of trees, of the relationships between them, of the structure and detail of the canopy, of the bark details, and signs of age. They are brought into focus by the process and time it takes to make measurements. I am sure the same would be found to be true for those that take the time to measure the trees they climb in more detail. One person suggested that often the girth is measured, but the heights are only estimated, and that is good enough. Perhaps there is not a realization of how badly off these estimates of heights might be, even when using standard forestry techniques of distance x tangent of the clinometer angle taught in most forestry courses. Errors are commonly in the range of 20%. I want to know how tall of a tree is being climbed, why are bad estimates good enough? (ENTS laser rangefinder/clinometer methods can accurately measure heights to within a foot of the actual height - but require some instrumentation). Would some written guidelines on the process of doing tape drops, or even the more complex trunk volume calculations be of interest or useful to recreational tree climbers? Or at least of interest to some climbers? Certainly it would bring more big tree discoveries to light if more climbers were measuring. I am looking for your thoughts ideas, and input on the subject. If you have something to say, please reply. You can message e individually if you prefer. Ed Frank "Beauty is a summation of the parts working together in such a way that nothing is needed to be added, taken away or altered." Elio Caretti -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
