Discrimination against hammocks?

[oldgringo]

Why care? Embrace the eccentric within.

[aBRG2far]

My wife and I work at the same company but slightly different hours so at the end of the day I would have an hour and half to wait. Off to the side of the parking lot I spyed a couple of trees and put up my hammock to relax. As I was unwinding a BMW pulled up and the president of the company rolled down her window and laughed as she took my picture. She thought it was great. The next afternoon however one of the security guards came by blustering I couldn't put up a hammock. I told him its cool with the president so theres no problem. Well a few days go by and I get called off the floor and was told by the general manager that I could not hang anymore because it might encourage others to sit outside in lawn chairs!

[whayneneal]

Why care? Embrace the eccentric within.

I'm with Old Gringo. Why care? I have been huggin' that craziness inside me for a long time and I ain't about to quit. That's the problem with the world today. Everyone is minding everyone else's business without tending to their own. As long as no one is being harmed, I say live and let live.

[Law Dawg (ret)]

Well a few days go by and I get called off the floor and was told by the general manager that I could not hang anymore because it might encourage others to sit outside in lawn chairs!

The beatings will continue until morale improves...

It would just stink if y'all enjoyed the company and fellow employees enough to take a sit (or string hammocks) and visit on the grounds on your own time. Lord forgive me...I really dislike the micro managers of life. Such a narrow view and they miss so much.

OK so we seem crazy and a bit edgy for doing something like sleeping off the ground (away from critters and other unpleasant things) in comfort. Well that's a title shared with visionaries like Einstein and the like, who were considered wierd and crazy. I'll gladly take that title.

[Festus Hagen]

Festus,

I have to disagree with you somewhat.

Tying things to trees and "nailing" things to trees are really two seperate issues.

You have to understand, I'm on your side with this, I'm a hammock guy too! But from an enforcement perspective, what is easier? Inspecting everything that might be touching a tree in case it might cause damage? Or just banning "fastening to trees" altogether? From the comfort of a park ranger's pickup truck, a hammock tied with tree straps or fastened with a threaded eye, bored into the tree, look pretty similar.

Also you did not address my point about liability and that's a tougher one to argue. If a big branch or tree falls on a designated tent site, well you have a legit case for negligence there. If it falls on someone who is hanging from between trees that are maybe outside of a designated tent site, you really don't... but you'll probably win the lawsuit anyways (or your survivors will). After all, "they should have told me not to hang there", right? (I hate that thinking but you know, that woman successfully sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot...)

With hammock campers still being such a minority among campers, parks have little to gain by allowing us to do our thing, even if you educate them on tree straps and they believe you. I actually have an email from a CT DEP director stating much the same reasons I've mentioned in explaining why hammock camping will likely never be allowed in CT state parks, but stating also that a hammock with independent stand should be no problem.

Sorry if this is a big derail but the subject is "Discrimination Against Hammocks" so....

[Raul Perez]

You have to understand, I'm on your side with this, I'm a hammock guy too! But from an enforcement perspective, what is easier? Inspecting everything that might be touching a tree in case it might cause damage? Or just banning "fastening to trees" altogether? From the comfort of a park ranger's pickup truck, a hammock tied with tree straps or fastened with a threaded eye, bored into the tree, look pretty similar.

I understand you're on my side I'm just up for debate

To be honest checking from a pick up truck is just complete lazyness in it's most raw form. According to various job descriptions on the net:

"Park rangers teach people to respect the delicate natural balance of our national and state parks and forests. They are employed by the National Park Service, which is an agency of the U.S. federal government, and by state agencies. Rangers work throughout the country preserving the natural environment for future generations. They protect these areas by enforcing park rules and regulations, preventing forest fires, helping to maintain an ecological balance, and seeing that visitors plan campsites wisely. Park rangers are skilled campers with a great deal of knowledge about botany and wildlife. Perhaps the greatest danger to our parks is the danger of overuse: rangers watch and regulate the number of visitors to parks. They also provide information regarding park use and points of interest, issue fire permits, and collect fees."

Can you really do that from a truck? No, get out from the truck and educate me with your vast knowledge Mr. Ranger Man!!! And from experience 99% of my dealings with park rangers are from the comfort of their trucks.

Instead of being ignorant they should just become more aware of the trend that is occurring and perhaps begin to establish rules and regulations for hammockers... such as regulating which trees you can use by species or by tree diameter... and no nails of course.

But as I work auditing government agencies... government is lazy and this will not be done for some time if at all.

Also you did not address my point about liability and that's a tougher one to argue. If a big branch or tree falls on a designated tent site, well you have a legit case for negligence there. If it falls on someone who is hanging from between trees that are maybe outside of a designated tent site, you really don't... but you'll probably win the lawsuit anyways (or your survivors will). After all, "they should have told me not to hang there", right? (I hate that thinking but you know, that woman successfully sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot...)

I believe we are viewing liability from 2 different angles. I'm arguing the liability of actually being on the receiving end of a branch or tree. You are arguing from the insurance perspective of the county or state park.

From my experience from the parks around where I used to camp there is no decrease in liability of me actually being struck by a branch or tree if I am in a tent or hammock. Maybe in your parks there is a significant amount of clearing but not in the ones I have visited on the Island or in the mainland of NY.

[Festus Hagen]

I believe we are viewing liability from 2 different angles. I'm arguing the liability of actually being on the receiving end of a branch or tree. You are arguing from the insurance perspective of the county or state park.

From my experience from the parks around where I used to camp there is no decrease in liability of me actually being struck by a branch or tree if I am in a tent or hammock. Maybe in your parks there is a significant amount of clearing but not in the ones I have visited on the Island or in the mainland of NY.

I can't really speak to how much time and $$ is spent on tree surgeons or what have you doing preventive clearing of camp sites around here, but it was a specific issue brought up in the email I got from the CT DEP. She referred to it as a safety issue, not a liability issue. I'm just cynical, though, "If someone says 'It's not about the money', it's about the money."

[oldgringo]

She referred to it as a safety issue, not a liability issue. I'm just cynical, though, "If someone says 'It's not about the money', it's about the money."

Is it wrong to love another man?