Tree huggers, can there be damage, and is any amount acceptable?

[Riverpirate]

I find this discussion funny.

[J_Squared]

IMO the potential damage done to a tree is far less than the damage of a tent on the ground. Especially considering most people clear the area of sticks and stones before they lay on it. Disturbing habitat for all kinds of insects as well as plants of all kinds. The locations for tents are far fewer than that of hammocks so hammocks would lend themselves to more dispersed camping.

The best LNT practice might be to stay at home on developed sidewalks but then would we develop more and larger sidewalks to handle the masses and take land away from more animals? If we didn't go out and enjoy national forests would the land continue to be protected or might it get developed? Like to may things I think we have to choose the lesser evil and instead of determining how much damage we are doing to the trees, consider the damage we are not doing to other things. Even the LNT fanatics that pack out their pee must be hiking on something, destroying vegetation and contributing to un-natural erosion. Personally I'll keep hanging from trees until the levitating hammock is invented.

[attrezzo]

...and with #29, we have come full circle...

I think the item to take away from what mtbikernate posted is the idea of repeated compression of the outer layers. That's the problem with camping in established campgrounds, obviously the best hanging spots will be used over and over and over again. In most cases, the webbing, huggers, or cord will be placed within inches of the person's suspension that was there the night before. Effectively giving the tree no recovery time during the season. Animal marks and scaring are random and not usually repeated day after day on the same tree. The marks are also more spread apart simply because of the size diversity of the animals making the marks.

Not to say I don't see the logic of your viewpoint, but I think the animals are more like a storm that comes through and does damage. Hammock use would be more like the Colorado River digging the Grand Canyon; a little bit at a time, but relentless.

Of course, this will only be an issue at very high usage camps, like the shelter system along the AT. The really good news, at least for the time being, is that many hammockers choose hammocks so they don't have to camp near the shelters. It's very unlikely that randomly camped hangers will cause any significant damage over any length of time. It's the consolidated camping areas that will be a mess if the popularity of hammocks continues IMO.

I wonder, in heavily trafficed areas where hammocks may be a problem over time, wouldn't it behove park rangers to install eyebolts in appropriate trees to encourage hangers to use the bolts rather than strap to the tree over and over? For that matter advertise those trees as proper hanging spots, like a hammock trail tag.

Seems to me that a one time eyebolt install would prevent severe damage over time rather than having hanger after hanger strapping up to the tree. Additionally, local arborists and horticulturalists and regulators could actively decide which trees would deal with that kind of stress better than others. Additional information could be tagged on the park's map and map legend to provoke an educational opportunity about which trees in your area deal with hammocks better, and about hammocking in general.

We can argue about whether or not people would use such a thing, but if tree damage becomes a problem in a particular area, it may be worth considering. A proper eyebolt install could limit damage to a one time thing, afterward the load transfers to the inner hardwood and avoids the sensitive parts of the tree all together.

[Cannibal]

We can argue about whether or not people would use such a thing, but if tree damage becomes a problem in a particular area, it may be worth considering. A proper eyebolt install could limit damage to a one time thing, afterward the load transfers to the inner hardwood and avoids the sensitive parts of the tree all together.

I'm cautiously optimistic that this will be what happens in the years to follow. Sensitive areas that are used for camping frequently have tent pads to reduce the impact of tenters. It would only make sense (which is the real problem) that the same logic would be carried forward if hammocks become mainstream. Whether it be eyebolts pre-set in trees or simple posts installed at high usage campgrounds, the impact to the tree population in those areas will be greatly reduced.

[opie984]

Attrezzo, there is potentially three problems with your eye-bolt suggestion. (1) The established area must have trees properly spaced and many designated campsites lack this (much less correct tree type as deemed by an arborist). (2) There are tremendous forces at play and I'm not sure an eye-bolt would hold under those forces; at least not without being extremely long and then it may cause serious damage to the tree (3) after about three or four years the tree may swallow up the eye-bolt to the point that it is no longer usable which would require new eye-bolts to be installed every four years or so causing repeated prolonged damage to the trees.

Just trying to think it through. As many people have said, "Many heads lead to success"

[attrezzo]

I won't go back to find the quote but I also agree that it would probably be better for everyone if those of us that are hangers are proactive about considering our eventual impact even if it's a little excessive.

There will always be those inexperienced weekend hangers that go to the same spots and abuse the trees just out of ignorance.

But by being careful and attentive, those of us with more experience (who basically drive the market) can help influence and encourage proper use and acceptance. The natural balance of things will eventually even it out so that we have an acceptable impact.

I guess the worst place we could be is a world where hammock manufacturers include inaccurate installation instructions with their products or advocate use of tiny damaging cords. Or parks begin to simply ban all hammocks for a variety of preventable problems. All simply because they're uneducated about ways to prevent those issues.

The better alternative is to have park officials familiar with which species are better to hang from, how tree straps work, manufacturers selling tree strap kits with proper instructions.

And you can get there by being active in promoting proper hammock use. Don't be afraid to help out a new hanger, ask the rangers in your local parks about hammocks, buy the right equipment to prevent damage. Even if your advice goes largely unheeded, and the rangers have no idea that people did that, and you have to diy to get proper equipment. All of this will essentially seed correct information in everyone you interact with. But more importantly, curiosity, so they become part of the hammock movement too and not just another camper.

Which brings us to the most important thing you can do... be active in communities like the one on this forum! :-)

[attrezzo]

Attrezzo, there is potentially three problems with your eye-bolt suggestion. (1) The established area must have trees properly spaced and many designated campsites lack this (much less correct tree type as deemed by an arborist). (2) There are tremendous forces at play and I'm not sure an eye-bolt would hold under those forces; at least not without being extremely long and then it may cause serious damage to the tree (3) after about three or four years the tree may swallow up the eye-bolt to the point that it is no longer usable which would require new eye-bolts to be installed every four years or so causing repeated prolonged damage to the trees.

Just trying to think it through. As many people have said, "Many heads lead to success"

I'm not advocating hikers installing eyebolts, I'm advocating educated park officials consulting arborists and hikers and then installing the correctly sized fixtures on their own in trees that hikers would actually use. As for the eyebolts growing into the tree, couldn't this be a part of trail maintenance? Retract eyebolts just enough once every other year or so to prevent them from growing into the tree.

For that matter, taking trees completely out of the equation is probably the best option. Putting up posts to hang from, stuff like that. But some may not be interested in having that much more human stuff in an area that should be natural stuff. I suppose you could make the same argument for eye bolts.

For me this all boils down to a question.

Would installing properly sized eyebolts in appropriate heavily trafficed trees be better than letting the same number of hangers strap to those trees?

[Harpo63]

I remember a post by someone I believe in Thailand last year where they set up a hammock area at their location where not enough trees were... they used steel posts (one in the center with clip in points and a number of smaller posts in a circular perimiter).

If anyone can find it, I cant... that would make alot of sense in the long run (better than replacing decayed wood posts). With all the technology available at zoos and theme parks- how many steel structures made to look like authetic trees are out there?- this is a realistic option for campgrounds to consider and still make it look like it fits in the area- make it look like a tall tree stump.

[Stumblefoot]

Does repeated hanging cause a lot of damage? I was thinking about all of the hammocks that are hung at Hot Springs with Ed Speer. This has occurred for years. Are the trees damaged?

[thomas533]

As far as eye bolts causing damage, the living layer of the tree is on the outside, just under the bark. The inner wood is essentially dead so putting a bolt deep into a tree would not do significant harm unless there was some bacteria on the bold that infected the tree.

The various treehouse building groups have a lot of information on this topic. They recommend using single lag bolts as attachment points for tree houses to minimize damage. Then the bolts can be unscrewed slightly every year to account for expansion.

http://www.thetreehouseguide.com/treedamage.htm