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

Re: [Hammock Camping] Re: hammock support lines

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.