Straps: are they really that important?

[oldgringo]

What about the tent stakes? Driving them into the ground no doubt will cut into at least some of the trees roots. This cannot be good for the tree. I guess since we do not see the damage, it is ok.

Root pruning is widely practiced by nurserymen.

[TinaLouise]

I've had some pine tree roots take serious offence to my tent stakes by leaking pine sap on them. Really nasty stuff and awful to try and get rid of it. I try to stay away from pine trees now but if I can't, I'm carefull when pushing my stakes into the ground. If it feels like I'm hitting a root, I pull the stake, move it to another spot.

[gnome]

as stated it makes no difference whether ropes hurt the tree onr not. If the public the eco folk and the "authorities"( who are they?) think they hurt the tree, then for all practicle purposes that is the perception, and it becomes the new truth! therefoe we must keep our straps out and visible, facts are not important, what is generally thought (CW) is the new reality. it is that kind "O world friends! gnome

[BillyBob58]

General consensus here is that straps are necessary. Trees can overcome and "eat" fences and such, but a hammock hung on too thin of a rope may be able to girdle it. ....

That is an interesting concept. Some of the suspensions I use ( stock webbing of BMBH, HH, thin webbing of stock Claytor) only contact the tree solidly on one side which seems to take most of the pressure. Maybe on 3/4 of the surface but seemingly to a lesser degree than on the "back" side of the tree. So even if I was using rope, it could not "girdle".

The straps with my Whoopies, and to a lesser degree when I use a carabiner with webbing ( WBBB for ex) seem to come much closer to "girdling", or would if ropes were used.

It is not that uncommon for me to take some bark off of pine trees using straps. I have about quit worrying about that ( except in developed campgrounds) after considering the damage that animals regularly do to trees in the wild. I got to observe a lot more bear claw and moose/deer/elk whatever antler damage than I am used to seeing, in Alaska/Yukon recently. Some of this damage was pretty spectacular.

But, as already stated, perception is important to our future. Can you imagine if one day we read that hanging is banned in National Forests? A ranger who might enthusiastically point out tree damage by an animal (as an ex. of nature at work) might be quite alarmed by me knocking some bark off a tree. Which is why I am more concerned with some bark loss at a developed camp ground I go to. Right now, no restrictions what so ever. I'd like to keep it that way. ( BTW, I have never asked the rangers, I just hang. They have seen me doing it, and never commented except to express amazement that I didn't freeze after I slept "in that thing" when it was so cold the night before!)

[Peter_pan]

JJ, Youngblood and others make a good point on the perceptions of others, especially those who can and have shut down parks and areas to hanging...

Failure to use strapping on trees starts one on the slippery slope of minimum protection or specific definitions, all of which are more likely than not to eventually increase the hanging bans.

Example is a 1/2 inch rope ok,3/16 amstell, 7mm, 6mm,5mm,4mm,3mm,2mm...zing it? and then there is the, "Hey I only weigh 135 lbs, 150,160,175,200, 227, 275, 299 etc... Take that times the infinate variety of rope diameters and weaves is one huge number... Grizz know the actual number...

All in all... We are should all get together on the use of straps..."For surely if we do not 'hang' together on this we will all hang separately"...NOT

Pan

[Just Jeff]

Maybe on 3/4 of the surface but seemingly to a lesser degree than on the "back" side of the tree. So even if I was using rope, it could not "girdle".

Guess I should have used another word, then. In my mind, stopping the nutrient flow to 3/4 of the tree would be close enough to killing the entire tree that I took some creative license and called it girdling. I rounded up.

[bigbamaguy]

I have read this thread and have an observation/statement to propose!!!!!!!! Bear with me this could all be wrong...................

I am a large fella, do most of my camping/hanging in the Piney wood/Hard wood forests of Alabama and use straps to hang all of my hammocks. I was taught, in school, that the bark of a tree was the outer protection of the nutrient flowing "flesh" of the inner tree.

When I hang my hammock I do what essentially boils down to a "choker" loop around the tree using my straps, I have loops sewn into the straps and run the tag end of the strap through this loop then to my CB's on the hammock. I do not choke the strap down on the tree. With pine trees there is a dense bark covering of the pulpy "flesh" of the tree and conversely there is a thinner bark covering the pulpy "flesh" portion of an Oak tree. I am to understand that while I am hanging in my hammock I might possibly be strangling the tree from it nutrients........ but I dont see how that is possible!!!!!!!!

The bark/flesh make-up of the tree should compensate for ther effect that me and my straps are having on the nutrient flow through the tree. I mean to say that a pine with thick bark "soft" wood and an oak with thin bark "hard" wood are naturally built to keep the nutrient enriched fluids flowing. I do not know what the compressive forces would be on the tree but would it really be enough to stop the nutrient flow to all of the tree?????

I mean lets face it, I dont believe that we are applying enough force to stop all of the nutrients or even 1/4 of the nutrients flowing through a tree for the amount of time that we are hanging in our hammocks. If that were the case then trees would be dying around us as we are laying in our hammocks.

[Knotty]

Jeff and Cannibal have put it well. A lot of it is about public perception.

*I am an arborist, so I do know what I'm talking about*
It all depends on the tree. Some of the Oaks and Pines would be fine with just cord.
That said, the great majority of tree species will be damaged by running cord around them. Any damage that may be happening won't always be visible right away. It may take months or even years. If you hit a tree with a hammer, you WILL cause damage to the cambium, even if there's no mark on the bark. Same deal with ropes, it may not leave a big notch in the bark, but you can't be sure it's not compressing the cambium. It's much better to play it safe and use tree straps.
A fringe benefit is that it makes us (the hammocking community) appear more environmentally friendly to the public, who may have (hopefully unfounded) preconceptions that we damage trees.

Cambium: the part of the tree that transmits water up and down the tree

Simple solution: Go to Walmart, and in the camping section, near the tarps and such, they have 14' ratchet straps for $10. That's plenty for 1 or 2 setups, or $5 per hammock. That's cheap insurance, in my opinion.

Hang well,
Acer

Acer is our subject matter expert. He works in the field so why not trust his knowledge?

[oldgringo]

There are a lot of variables in play with in all this but the perception in the on-line hammock community for hanging hammocks to trees is that 1 inch or wider webbing is 'okay' and any rope, regardless of its characteristics, is 'bad' for the trees. Many people are very verbal about this, unwilling to discuss any of the variables that come into play, and condemn those that don't comply. But all in all, it isn't all that unreasonable when the 'greater good' is considered because it isn't that difficult to comply and it will do more good than bad in the overall scheme of things.

Now the tarp is another matter, apparently for the tarp we can use the lightest, thinnest, most 'unfriendly to tree' cord we can find and just ignore what it does to trees.

Let's not let this get away. Youngblood is making a good point, here.

I have one tarp that hangs on tree straps, and plan to change the others over.

[PuckerFactor]

I'm really not trying to sound preachy here, so if I come across that way, I apologize.

It's not so much that you're strangling the tree right then. Any cambium damage doesn't always sponge back out as soon as you take your hammock down. The vessels are more like pipes and less like garden hoses.
A couple of anecdotal tidbits:
1: I felled a tree once and missed my drop zone and ended up scraping an adjacent tree pretty badly. It only scraped the bark off in a couple of small spots, but we ended up having to take the tree down when it started dropping sheets of bark months later, after dropping most of it's leaves in the middle of summer.
2: Once saw a bulldozer scar that went probably 1/3 of the way round a 10"-ish oak. The following year, that whole side of the tree didn't leaf out.
3: not so much a story, but I've seen Tulip Poplars with 3" thick bark, and heard about Redwoods with bark over a foot thick! Those particular trees would probably be fine without tree huggers, (might have to with the size of the redwood!) But generally speaking, there are way too many variables (species, age, and season being the main ones) to not bother with tree huggers.

Like Dutch offered, I'll make you a set if you like, just PM me your addy.

Hang safe,
Acer