Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: hammock support lines

Expand Messages
  • sebastiantoney
    I use 1.5 inch webbing for my hammock. There is gonna be some damage no matter what you do. Here s what I think: the last tornado that came throught town did
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I use 1.5 inch webbing for my hammock. There is gonna be some "damage"
      no matter what you do.

      Here's what I think: the last tornado that came throught town did a
      whole lot more damage to trees than I ever could. If you look at the
      number of trees destoryed by hurricanes, earthquakes, floods,
      droughts, lightning, thunderstorms, tornados, tsunamis, etc, those
      natural disasters have probably done a million times more damage to
      trees than the entire hammock hanger population world wide.

      So if a little bark falls off, big deal. Once another tornado hits my
      little town that tree might not be there.

      --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "tim garner" <slowhike@...> wrote:
      >
      > yeah, there`s been quite a bit of talk here & on other backpacking
      > groups/sites about tree damage. others here can do a better job of
      > explaining the in`s & out`s of it, but here`s what i`ve gathered so
      > far.
      > the damage will vary from one kind of tree to another (like a
      > smooth bark beech or a rough bark pine). and then there are differant
      > kinds & thickness` of rope.
      > some bark could probably take it with-out any sign of damage,
      > especialy not anything that would show up as a problem for quite some
      > time. but even though a hammock gives us a lot of freedom in where we
      > sleep, the best place we find our hammock for the night may be using
      > trees with thin bark.
      > it seems a much better idea to err on the side of caution,
      > especialy when we`re encouraging others to try hammocking & some of
      > those folks may not know any differance from one tree to another.
      > and some of them probably wont care. so it`s better to encourage
      > the use of a flat webbing tree hugger or the hollowbraid rope like
      > dave & several of us are using (being hollow, it flatens out when
      > streched).
      > ...tim
      >
    • John Wilson
      ... Yes, but some over-zealous park official isn t going to propose (and probably get passed) a regulation banning tornados and hurricanes from state or
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:53 AM, sebastiantoney wrote:

        > Here's what I think: the last tornado that came throught town did a
        > whole lot more damage to trees than I ever could. If you look at the
        > number of trees destoryed by hurricanes, earthquakes, floods,
        > droughts, lightning, thunderstorms, tornados, tsunamis, etc, those
        > natural disasters have probably done a million times more damage to
        > trees than the entire hammock hanger population world wide.
        >
        > So if a little bark falls off, big deal. Once another tornado hits my
        > little town that tree might not be there.

        Yes, but some over-zealous park official isn't going to propose (and
        probably get passed) a regulation banning tornados and hurricanes
        from state or national parks. But let a little tree damage from
        hammocks occur, and see if this doesn't happen. The fault of your
        analogy is that natural disasters (you didn't mention forest fires)
        are unavoidable, while much more minor damage (or even perceived
        damage) from hammocks is avoidable by passing a regulation. As one
        who used to write regulations for a natural resources agency, I know
        of which I speak -- if your only tool is a hammer, every problem
        seems like a nail. And if your only tool is prohibition . . . .

        John



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ralph Oborn
        ... Yes, but some over-zealous park official isn t going to propose (and probably get passed) a regulation banning tornados and hurricanes from state or
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > So if a little bark falls off, big deal. Once another tornado hits my
          > little town that tree might not be there.

          Yes, but some over-zealous park official isn't going to propose (and
          probably get passed) a regulation banning tornados and hurricanes
          from state or national parks. But let a little tree damage from
          hammocks occur, and see if this doesn't happen. The fault of your
          analogy is that natural disasters (you didn't mention forest fires)
          are unavoidable, while much more minor damage (or even perceived
          damage) from hammocks is avoidable by passing a regulation. As one
          who used to write regulations for a natural resources agency, I know
          of which I speak -- if your only tool is a hammer, every problem
          seems like a nail. And if your only tool is prohibition . . . .


          Hey,
          Before I knew about tree huggers, I got harrased in Yellowstone by a
          backwoods ranger for harming tree bark with a cheep string hammock. He
          failed to see the humor when I pointed out that most of the bark had been
          stripped off by bears sharpening their claws on said bark!! :]


          Bears, tornadoes, bark beetles etc = natural = good

          You and me in a hammock = un natural = bad

          And they don't have a sense of humor! Use a tree hugger, it shows them you
          understand the issue and are attempting to trad lightly.

          Ralph


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • kbwaddy
          land managers won t hesitate to ban any activity they percieve as a problem, where i live, it seems the kiosks list almost every activity as being not
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            land managers won't hesitate to ban any activity they percieve as a problem,
            where i live, it seems the kiosks list almost every activity as being "not
            allowed" sometimes i half expect to see signs banning people all together
            when i go to these places, it wouldn't surprise me. whoever mentioned
            "percieved damage" was right, it probably doesn't even matter if you are really
            hurting the tree or not, rangers and land managers live to write tickets and
            ban activities, i think they actually enjoy it, and don't think you can hide from
            them just because you think you are stealth camping, they love to hide behind
            the bushes and then sneak up on you just as you are breaking a rule. as i've
            seen in the climbing community the actions of a few can adversly affect
            everyone, so if we decide that tree straps are the way to go, we should really
            push everyone to use them, because it only takes a few people to ruin things
            for everyone. i just checked and yatesgear.com(yates climbing gear) has
            spectra/dyneema webbing for 80 cents/foot...Brandon



            --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph Oborn" <
            Ralph.oborn@...> wrote:
            >
            > > So if a little bark falls off, big deal. Once another tornado hits my
            > > little town that tree might not be there.
            >
            > Yes, but some over-zealous park official isn't going to propose (and
            > probably get passed) a regulation banning tornados and hurricanes
            > from state or national parks. But let a little tree damage from
            > hammocks occur, and see if this doesn't happen. The fault of your
            > analogy is that natural disasters (you didn't mention forest fires)
            > are unavoidable, while much more minor damage (or even perceived
            > damage) from hammocks is avoidable by passing a regulation. As one
            > who used to write regulations for a natural resources agency, I know
            > of which I speak -- if your only tool is a hammer, every problem
            > seems like a nail. And if your only tool is prohibition . . . .
            >
            >
            > Hey,
            > Before I knew about tree huggers, I got harrased in Yellowstone by a
            > backwoods ranger for harming tree bark with a cheep string hammock. He
            > failed to see the humor when I pointed out that most of the bark had been
            > stripped off by bears sharpening their claws on said bark!! :]
            >
            >
            > Bears, tornadoes, bark beetles etc = natural = good
            >
            > You and me in a hammock = un natural = bad
            >
            > And they don't have a sense of humor! Use a tree hugger, it shows them
            you
            > understand the issue and are attempting to trad lightly.
            >
            > Ralph
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • sebastiantoney
            You re saying that being human is not natural? Oh, man... Dude, this planet has sustained far more damage than we humans can ever do. I don t want get into
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              You're saying that being human is not natural? Oh, man...

              Dude, this planet has sustained far more damage than we humans can
              ever do. I don't want get into this too deeply, but I just don't
              believe humans are powerful enough to destory a planet. Life will go
              on. Whether you believe with creat6ion or evolution this planet was
              doing just fine without us. Even with us in it it's still doing fine,
              there fine whole se species of animals, big animals we've never scene
              before, coral reves that we've never seen before despite all the
              "polution."

              Life will go on despite what we do. As if we really have control over
              what happens in this universe.

              Anyway. You belive differently from me that's fine. I'm done talking
              about this.

              --- In hammockcamping@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph Oborn" <Ralph.oborn@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > > So if a little bark falls off, big deal. Once another tornado hits my
              > > little town that tree might not be there.
              >
              > Yes, but some over-zealous park official isn't going to propose (and
              > probably get passed) a regulation banning tornados and hurricanes
              > from state or national parks. But let a little tree damage from
              > hammocks occur, and see if this doesn't happen. The fault of your
              > analogy is that natural disasters (you didn't mention forest fires)
              > are unavoidable, while much more minor damage (or even perceived
              > damage) from hammocks is avoidable by passing a regulation. As one
              > who used to write regulations for a natural resources agency, I know
              > of which I speak -- if your only tool is a hammer, every problem
              > seems like a nail. And if your only tool is prohibition . . . .
              >
              >
              > Hey,
              > Before I knew about tree huggers, I got harrased in Yellowstone by a
              > backwoods ranger for harming tree bark with a cheep string hammock. He
              > failed to see the humor when I pointed out that most of the bark had
              been
              > stripped off by bears sharpening their claws on said bark!! :]
              >
              >
              > Bears, tornadoes, bark beetles etc = natural = good
              >
              > You and me in a hammock = un natural = bad
              >
              > And they don't have a sense of humor! Use a tree hugger, it shows
              them you
              > understand the issue and are attempting to trad lightly.
              >
              > Ralph
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.