LNT Recommends 2-4-inch Webbing Straps

This article came out a while back, but I came across it again and did a double-take after reading the Leave No Trace Center's recommendations on hammock camping, particularly the size of the webbing straps.

LNT recommends straps at least 2-inches wide and up to 4-inches wide.

I've known Ben, the LNT Education Director, for a few years now, so I got in touch with him about the statement. He said that the recommendation comes from discussions from different land agents (presumably their partners at National Parks, Forest Service, etc.).

We had a good back-and-forth and he did agree to update the post to include 1.5-inch webbing, but that's about as far as he would push it.

It is an interesting revelation, especially with what I'm seeing as a trend here on HF with folks looking to get narrower and narrower straps (e.g., 0.75-inch Mule Tape or 0.5-inch strap). I think we should proceed with caution in this vein because of the potential PR damage we could make for ourselves. New hangers in particular will be looking for the recommended standards in which to operate.

On this topic, I think it is in our best interest to look at some sort of scientific study on strap use, tree damage, etc., to provide the best recommendations to land agents and camp hosts, etc. From my own observations, there is a lot of subjective opinion out there on strap usage, what works best, and what doesn't. It would be nice to have an objective study done that could put some of these questions to rest.

Thoughts?

I think going narrower than 1" will work against us. I also think 2-4" is ridiculous. I guess I'll never be LNT-friendly.

I agree with the above. 1'' works fine. I have never seen the bark compress from the weight of a hammocker.

Ever since I got my HH, my default and preference has been 2", though my longer straps (which I only use when necessary) are 1.5". Trees are our friends!

The 4" straps I found in a quick web search have a breaking strength of 20,000 pounds (!!). That seems quite excessive for our purposes. And if it were possible to find one that was paper-thin (unlikely), it would have problems of its own (i.e., might be difficult to prevent it from creasing when going around the tree (crease would be a stressor to the tree).

I agree that it would be nice to have some science behind whatever recommendations are put out. But it seems to me that it would be difficult to measure how much harm were done to a tree when testing. IF it were possible to do such tests, the results would almost certainly be tree-specific (e.g., Minimum width strap for a Red Oak found to be 1"). It would also be a function of the user's weight (or, more precisely, the tension on the suspension system, which in turn is a function both of user weight and hang angle).

No -- I'm thinking that generating this sort of scientific guidance is impractical.

We recently started offering 1.5" webbing. We have thousands of yards of it. But our supplier, one of the largest in the country, don't make anything any larger. I wonder where they expect folks to come up with 2-4" webbing? It's not a normal size range.

The LNT Center should not make a specific "recommendation", but instead remind hammockers to choose sites, trees and gear which minimize their impact.

Webbing width is not the only variable to consider. The type of tree is also important as is the force applied to the bark due to the load. Some trees and their respective barks can handle 1-mm cord and a small elephant in the hammock without damage to the tree. Others, even the 4-in would compress the cambium layer. When the LNT center begins to recommend such specifics without consideration for the reality of the impact they tread on dangerous ground of having many LNT advocates begin to dismiss the organization itself, while still following the principles embodied in LNT. The same is true with all other aspects of outdoor ethics. The principles are ethical outdoorsmanship. LNT as an organization runs the risk of making themselves irrelevant if they head down this trail of dictating specific actions instead of general principles.

Thanks dehoja. I agree 4 inches is excessive. I. liked my 2 inch straps that came with my hh. When I got my bb and use the 1 inch straps. I am a LNT trainer and promote hammocks as a low impact camping mmethod. I have been really looking at the trees I use with. the one inch and haven't seen damage. Once I did knock down some bark off a pine tree when removing the straps.My vote would be 1 inch straps being the smallest used. 1 1/2 may be ideal. I would be okay with that. I am not that weight crazy as some. This is an area you shouldn't try to cut weight. Save the trees. Been trying to look at what I can use for my tarp line. Was thinking round hollow strap to feed line through that would protect the bark from the line I use. Curious how others feel.

How about a tree pad?

A piece of 1/8" thick closed cell foam to wrap around the tree before deploying the straps?

Could be enclosed in cordura with a cam buckle or velcro to hold it in place. Make it bright so that you don't forget it.

BV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richtorfla

Been trying to look at what I can use for my tarp line. Was thinking round hollow strap to feed line through that would protect the bark from the line I use. Curious how others feel.

---

I've been curious about that too. Keeping a nice tight tarp ridge with the very small diameter line most of use seems like it might cause problems. I looked at some hollow webbing the other day, but couldn't decide if it would actually disperse the force enough or if the line would just press through the strap with minimal increase in surface area pressing on tree.

Has anybody tried this? What happened?

This is how I use my mule tape, I also do the same for my tarp ridgeline. This has proven to leave less markings on a tree than using 1 1/2 in straps. With this method I don't have to worry about the strap even touching the tree.

I feel educating the hangers is the way to help alleviate tree damage. I have seen very careless use of wide tree straps and thin tarp suspensions.


Attachment 56844

Some tree stand companies,,carry 2" webbing to lock the lightweight lock-on type tree and ladder stands to trees that I use. The webbing doesn't stretch as I have left some of my tree stands up for 4 or more months before removing. If your looking for 2" webbing you might try contacting one of them to find out where they get it as its pretty lightweight stuff. Big Dog Tree Stands is one company that I use. Personally,,,I think its all overkill and have said it before and will say it again,,trees are very resilient and will take a beating. Never ever have I seen a tree killed from hanging tree stands, screw in tree steps, hammock hanging.. But then again,,there are people out there ,,,that feel that trees have feelings and we are hurting them. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgibson

We recently started offering 1.5" webbing. We have thousands of yards of it. But our supplier, one of the largest in the country, don't make anything any larger. I wonder where they expect folks to come up with 2-4" webbing? It's not a normal size range.

---

Not hard to find, really.... though I agree that 4" webbing would be too heavy to carry for backpacking.
A few seconds on the internet turned up:

http://www.jtstopshop.com/products/p...sp?category=27

http://www.mec.ca/product/0407-049/w...tbelt-webbing/

http://www.uscargocontrol.com/Webbing/4-Inch-Webbing

Most of the time, I wrap the tree at least twice with my straps. That would broaden pressure across a wider surface area.

Numerous variables and lack of hard data make any recommendatons a tad arbitrary. It's a given that wider is better but using 4" seems excessive to me. I suppose they have draw a line somewhere but I just wish it was more substantiated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejoha

I think we should proceed with caution in this vein because of the potential PR damage we could make for ourselves. New hangers in particular will be looking for the recommended standards in which to operate.

On this topic, I think it is in our best interest to look at some sort of scientific study on strap use, tree damage, etc., to provide the best recommendations to land agents and camp hosts, etc. From my own observations, there is a lot of subjective opinion out there on strap usage, what works best, and what doesn't. It would be nice to have an objective study done that could put some of these questions to rest.

Thoughts?

---

+1:thumbup1:
Though in practice it will be tough to get valid data- as has been pointed out.

Another thought - the 'average ranger' I've encountered will not accept easily the argument that Zing-It supporting a taut tarp is not damaging the trees. Most folks here at HF seem to concentrate on the strength issue ( and gram counting....:eek:) and I think we may be missing the bigger picture.

You would think that the hammock vendors (including the 'boutique/cottage' vendors) would be leading the charge on tree-friendly gear, but it looks like Hennessey is the only one doing this. (?)

A 4 inch wide piece of webbing isn't really a "strap" if you ask me. It's more like a corset.

Many organizations have been trending toward the nearly absurd in their recommendations for "responsible stewardship" over the last few years. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years down the road they all recommend just staying out of the woods entirely.

I am all for conservation and stewardship of our parks, woodlands, and backcountry areas. I teach my son and my Scouts in that vein. We practice LNT principles all the time. There comes a point, though, that those reaching for those same goals will overreach to the point that it's just not fun to go out anymore.

There has to be a balance between practical use and enjoyment and conservation, especially in a time when more and more people are opting to stay inside rather than venture out into the outdoors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgibson

We recently started offering 1.5" webbing. We have thousands of yards of it. But our supplier, one of the largest in the country, don't make anything any larger. I wonder where they expect folks to come up with 2-4" webbing? It's not a normal size range.

---

Hennessy Hammocks sells 2" polyester treehuggers in the following lengths:
42" - These are what come standard with several of their hammocks
72"
96"

For me, my 2x42 tree huggers are my first choice. If the tree is too big and/or the distance between trees is too wide, I go to my longer 1.5" tree huggers (just got some from Paul at Arrowhead).

I Note that HH also has 1.5".

I don't have any problem with 1.5 to 2 inch straps. Bigger than that and you're getting into some weird thinking not based on evidence, but on bureaucratic bungling.

Yes, I'm one of those weirdos that have been using the .5" mule tape. I wrap multiple times to get the same 1" width, but with less bulk. I seem to be able to compress the mule tape easier.

I'm becoming less concerned with weight :eek: and more with the bulk.

I'm very concerned with LNT, but 2" and up is a bit ridiculous. I use primitive sight selection as one of my LNT methods as to not make a habit of using the same trees. I might have to rethink the smaller straps when staying in places that'd frown on my 1/2 inchers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireInMyBones

Yes, I'm one of those weirdos that have been using the .5" mule tape. I wrap multiple times to get the same 1" width, but with less bulk. I seem to be able to compress the mule tape easier.

I'm becoming less concerned with weight :eek: and more with the bulk.

---

Yeah, right - you're becoming less concerned with weight. Ha, ha. That's funny. However, it seems like you'd have to have longer straps using .5" mule tape and the weight would be about equal to shorter straps with more width.

Why does .5" mule tape seem more compressible? I'm not following that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilvrSurfr

Yeah, right - you're becoming less concerned with weight. Ha, ha. That's funny. However, it seems like you'd have to have longer straps using .5" mule tape and the weight would be about equal to shorter straps with more width.

Why does .5" mule tape seem more compressible? I'm not following that.

---

An 8 ft set of mule tape is much smaller in bulk than a 8 ft set of 1 in webbing. Also my 8 ft mule tape straps weigh 1.2 ounces each vs. 4 ounces each for my 8 ft 1 in webbing straps. I would say the bulk is half the size

for the last half of the summer I have been running my tarp line through a 12" hollow webbing when it loops the tree. even if the tree has a larger diameter, the main pressure would be on the opposite side of the tarp and the trees are not that wide. 12" covers the back 1/4 of the tree. the zing it hasn't worn through and I haven't noticed anything on the bark. that said I usually hang with people who have worked forestry. they are trying it as well, just to be on the safe side.
the one inch straps haven't been a concern with them either. wrap the tree a few times and it doesn't budge=no friction=no wear and tear. as for compression issues, after 5 nights (in wind as well) no marks are left on the tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountnman

An 8 ft set of mule tape is much smaller in bulk than a 8 ft set of 1 in webbing. Also my 8 ft mule tape straps weigh 1.2 ounces each vs. 4 ounces each for my 8 ft 1 in webbing straps. I would say the bulk is half the size

---

FIMB is saying that he's doing multiple wraps, which implies longer mule tape. Therefore, he'd have 16 ft. of .5" mule tape versus someone using 8 ft. of 1 inch mule tape - in which case I'd expect the bulk to be the same.

What people do not understand is that the problem is load/unit area on the tree. If it gets high enough it crushes the inner cambium the tree uses for circulation. That layer is between the bark and the inner wood.

Figure it out. Sticks have to be very strong not to bend under the compression of the webbing so they do vertical damage but leave circulation paths.

Narrow webbing or amsteel have higher loads/unit area so they create a compression scar around the tree cutting off cirulation. Multiple wraps do not address the problem as most of the load is still on the first wrap.

2" is seat belt webbing. 1" is a push. Mule tape is very questionable.

I prefer webbing based suspensions. I would willingly go to 2" webbing if appropriate cinch buckles come available.

I think 1" is adequate, but if various controlling authorities disagree with that assessment, I am strongly disinclined to dig in and make a fight of it.

Imagine carrying 15' of 1.5 webbing or 2" webbing on each side of a hammock,,and a giant Dutch Buckle if just using buckles and webbing for your suspension. Your going to end up carrying a pound of weight. they get radical on this LNT crap,,and I will go back to using 7/64 single strand of amsteel and let them try and catch me. :lol: I bet this statement is going to upset a few of yas.!:boggle:

But!! figure your weight out for 2 inch and what it takes for straps and buckle setup and we, who are using this system, is pretty much screwed on weight savings. As far a hurting trees,,I don't see it after all my hunting escapades, all the farming technics the farmers use to hang fence, barbed wire, and everything else and now we have more trees than ever in the history of forest growth,,and we are going to worry about how we hurt trees. Tell that to the timber industry that clear cuts. And besides,,hammock hangers are in a very big minority compared to other campers and their styles.

I do love and protect my trees on my 40 acres,,I do practice TSI on my property. I do protect my trees I hang from also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldgringo

I prefer webbing based suspensions. I would willingly go to 2" webbing if appropriate cinch buckles come available.

I think 1" is adequate, but if various controlling authorities disagree with that assessment, I am strongly disinclined to dig in and make a fight of it.

---

You could use 2" webbing as tree huggers and then have that attached to a 1" webbing/cinch buckle system. Example: 2" webbing with loops in both ends -- take it around tree and use biner to attach one end to the 2" webbing (like a dutch clip). Then use another biner at the other end of the 2" webbing to attach to the 1" web system.

You can still use a 1" web/cinch buckle setup while still using 2" tree huggers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altruistguy

You could use 2" webbing as tree huggers and then have that attached to a 1" webbing/cinch buckle system. Example: 2" webbing with loops in both ends -- take it around tree and use biner to attach one end to the 2" webbing (like a dutch clip). Then use another biner at the other end of the 2" webbing to attach to the 1" web system.

You can still use a 1" web/cinch buckle setup while still using 2" tree huggers!

---

So right,,your defeating the buckle and strap setup tho. totally.

Take 4' or 5' of 2" webbing with a loop on the end,,sewed to 1" webbing and use a longer toggle or beiner and you keep the dutch buckle and have 2" webbing around a tree. I can go for that. hummm,,still thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acer

...Take 4' or 5' of 2" webbing with a loop on the end,,sewed to 1" webbing.......hummm,,still thinking.

---

If I was going to play with this, I would start with polypropylene for the 2" webbing.

I recently received 20' of 2" lightweight polypro webbing and 2" polyester seatbelt webbing from Strapworks.

The 2" polypro only has a 1200 lb breaking strength, but the 20' roll weighs 6.6 oz. compared to the seatbelt webbing roll at 12.5 oz.

'stead of getting excited at the requirement, which is clearly not impossible to satisfy -- seat belt webbing is nominal 2" (and stronger than needed) -- construct the strap of two parts.

The first part is whatever you like and currently use, in whatever configuration and with whatever buckles are available to you.

The second part runs in parallel to the first, complements it to make up 2"-4" to distribute the load more broadly, but is no longer than 3/4 the circumference of the largest tree you will hang from, and clips onto the first part. IOW we just need to pieces of hardware to convert the single strap to a variable-location sling.

[QUOTE=dejoha;1113633]This article came out a while back, but I came across it again and did a double-take after reading the Leave No Trace Center's recommendations on hammock camping, particularly the size of the

I've known Ben, the LNT Education Director, for a few years now, so I got in touch with him about the statement. He said that the recommendation comes from discussions from different land agents (presumably their partners at National Parks, Forest Service, etc.).

We had a good back-and-forth and he did agree to update the post to include 1.5-inch webbing, but that's about as far as he would push it.

It is an interesting revelation, especially with what I'm seeing as a trend here on HF with folks looking to get narrower and narrower straps (e.g., 0.75-inch Mule Tape or 0.5-inch strap). I think we should proceed with caution in this vein because of the potential PR damage we could make for ourselves. New hangers in particular will be looking for the recommended standards in which to operate.

On this topic, I think it is in our best interest to look at some sort of scientific study on strap use, tree damage, etc., to provide the best recommendations to land agents and camp hosts, etc. From my own observations, there is a lot of subjective opinion out there on strap usage, what works best, and what doesn't. It would be nice to have an objective study done that could put some of these questions to rest.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE

it sure would be a hard job trying to predict future demands on our natural places.
with todays economy and the present world conditions people are seeking entertainment closer to home.

the trend in the population is of older people getting back into outdoor activities based on lighter gear choices.
these campsites could possibly see a rise in use of 10 times that of todays flow.

Im curious if the fact that not everyone uses hammocks now lets our huggers seem harmless to us,but a vision is in my head of campsites full to the brim to the point of reservation only use on a limited basis.
They also realize hammocks have a bright future on the outdoor scene.
can you see the kids one generation from now asking grampa what a tent was,the forests and park services can.

My hats off to all who undertake such a daunting tack.

Just for comparison purposes - Clark Hammocks sell 2" tree straps - 2-81" straps come in at 3.6 oz according to their site.
Right now I use 1" webbing suspension but I can see that an 'all in one' with a 2" tree strap extension would not be impossible for me to accept.

For what it is worth, my primary backyard hanging tree is a big-diameter ash tree, bigger than I would normally choose in the backcountry. Ash has a very cork like bark with external "folds". I noticed a band of compression damage the first time I hung there. I use standard, one inch AHE tree straps with whoopies and a biner. I can easily see certain trees in high-use camping spots showing visible damage. If you are restricted to camping in designated spots, there are only a limited number of trees available for hanging, and these will get regular use. If these happen to be the type of trees that are easily damaged, or at least show visible evidence of damage, you could pretty quickly get into a situation where a ranger or other LNT person would start to have a bad opinion of hammocks damaging trees.

In my case, unfortunately, it probably won't matter because my ash tree will not survive the onslaught of the emerald ash borer anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weaver2469

I can easily see certain trees in high-use camping spots showing visible damage. If you are restricted to camping in designated spots, there are only a limited number of trees available for hanging, and these will get regular use.

---

This would be no different than putting a tent in the same spot all the time and killing the grass. LNT also talks about low impact and moving around to allow the ground to heal or not be killed in the first place. If you see trees that look "overused", make sure to set up elsewhere.

Let us not forget that the Hang Angle and Weight of the Occupant Play a Large Role in How Much Force is applied to a given area on the Tree..The Higher the Forces the more risk of damage to the tree-Period!

I don't know what the fuss is about...screw a hook into the tree and forget it. <sigh>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowl-maker

I don't know what the fuss is about...screw a hook into the tree and forget it. <sigh>

---

:lol::lol::lol:

Actually, this is probably the least damaging method to hang on the same tree over and over for years. Think state park campgrounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gmcttr

:lol::lol::lol:

Actually, this is probably the least damaging method to hang on the same tree over and over for years. Think state park campgrounds.

---

Every year,,just unscrew the screw a half a turn and your good to go,,,I do that on tree steps that I leave in same trees I hunt out of and they hold great and don't damage the bark or tree and stay strong.

It would seem prudent based upon the collective wealth of knowledge assembled, that HammockForums issue ther own consensus statment regarding "Best Practices". As hammock camping expands there may come a time where National and State Parks need to adopt formal policies. For simplicity, they will typically adopt something already in writing. The collective experience of thousands of hammock users must be more credible than the process utilized by the LNT Center.

Alternatively, members of this forum could submit to LNT center, photographs of trees from which they have hung with 1" tree straps. Perhaps an avalance of evidence is what the LNT center requires to tailor their statement to reflect what we as a forum know.

Just looking down the trail.

Trees seem to withstand a fair amount of rough play. Nails, screws, hatchet strikes, woodpeckers, lightning strikes, beavers, fencing wire, being topped, tree houses built in, roads built next to damaging roots, acid rain, logging, fire, spikes from hunters and such.
I know when I hang on two trees I take as much care as I can within reason enjoying their company for the night in the piney woods. My tree straps may leave a light mark sometimes....tree dependent. I look around at other trees in the area to see what condition their bark is in and this is usually in the backwoods trails. Often see a lot of chipped and marked bark just from being a tree in the wild. Bug holes and bird holes.
But when camping I look at the ground where tents stay for the night and it is a large area of mud and bald ground.

In public areas where Officials wander I would use a 2" strap for LNT purposes if it comes to that but I find myself less and less wanting to camp in areas where Officials with thier rulebooks roam.
Thus...Shug of the Third Person is off to backpacking trails.
I have never seen an Official down in the Linville Gorge, only on the rim where one can park the truck and walk.
Same on other trails.
I think we just need to be aware of where we hang and vigilant as to who is watching our techniques. Play the game as needed and required. I feel most folks on this site are way more LNT conscious than many campers from what I have experienced.
Shug

I would have no issues with 1.5" straps, if I could find them at a decent price. Has anyone ever tried to tie a marlinspike hitch with 2" webbing? Just curious..

I started with 2" seatbelt webbing because I had access to a roll of it. In my opinion it ties a better MSH and gives a good knot to hold the whoopie sling under so that it doesn't slip off the knot and onto the toggle. That being said, they were very heavy compared to the 1" webbing I use now. As for damaging a tree, I don't put much stock in it. We have a tree at my grandfather's old home that has a bicycle rim around it that has gone from being at an angle to now level as the tree has grown over my life. One would argue that it is exerting more pressure than we would in a hammock, yet the tree has just grown over the rim and kept going. I would argue that camping around a given set of trees if damaging at all, is no more so due to hammocks than it would be from tents. Also, trees aren't meant to last forever, and one old tree dying makes room for many other plants to live. It's the circle of life.

I get really upset when I see trash on trails and the side of the road because of careless lazy people. That's uncalled for. I do my best to conserve and appreciate my surroundings and leave it in a way that others can do so as well. I do so because I appreciate the Maker. No doubt some trees are more suited to hang from, but if they were as fragile as some people make them out to be, why would you ever hang from them at all?

Shug brings up some real good points...Trees are subject to alot of natural abuse and tend to rebound.. I was in REI a couple weeks back and the salesperson asked a customer buying an eno hammock if they wanted to buy some straps as well..the customer says" How much are they"..$19.99 salesman said..customer says "no i don't think so..i'll use something else"..REI salesman says "you can use some rope or 5mm climbing cord instead..that will work fine too"....I almost fell over...Yikes!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shug

Trees seem to withstand a fair amount of rough play. Nails, screws, hatchet strikes, woodpeckers, lightning strikes, beavers, fencing wire, being topped, tree houses built in, roads built next to damaging roots, acid rain, logging, fire, spikes from hunters and such.
I know when I hang on two trees I take as much care as I can within reason enjoying their company for the night in the piney woods. My tree straps may leave a light mark sometimes....tree dependent. I look around at other trees in the area to see what condition their bark is in and this is usually in the backwoods trails. Often see a lot of chipped and marked bark just from being a tree in the wild. Bug holes and bird holes.
But when camping I look at the ground where tents stay for the night and it is a large area of mud and bald ground.

In public areas where Officials wander I would use a 2" strap for LNT purposes if it comes to that but I find myself less and less wanting to camp in areas where Officials with thier rulebooks roam.
Thus...Shug of the Third Person is off to backpacking trails.
I have never seen an Official down in the Linville Gorge, only on the rim where one can park the truck and walk.
Same on other trails.
I think we just need to be aware of where we hang and vigilant as to who is watching our techniques. Play the game as needed and required. I feel most folks on this site are way more LNT conscious than many campers from what I have experienced.
Shug

---

Well said Shug and I agree 100%.

Maybe one could make straps where the first 3 or so feet was 2" material, and the rest was 1" to save weight and work with existing suspension setups?

I'm all in, say the word I will switch tomorrow, 2", 3" or 4". I'm a rule follower, as long as everyone else follows the rules. Whatever it takes, I'm not going back to the ground. If I have to wrap the tree in a thermarest sleep pad, I ain't going back to the ground.

After reading and trying several widths and I use 9/16 wide climbing runners due to their strength. (Had ENO straps break at the thread) However, one thing you have to keep in mind is how many times the tree see the straps wrapped around it and length of time. Most times when I through hike is one night and very rarely do I stay in one spot more then 3 nights. I do think that explaining to new HF hangers that it is important to not pull bark off prior to tightening the strap.

Peace

From what I gather, most of the trees that have this much traffic are probably in campgrounds close to car camping. That's where TDS's come in if there are any pushbacks from the rangers and there you go, no problems. Or, at those campsites, I chose Oaks that can take more abuse than I can/will dish out.

When I hike and hang, it's away from the crowds where there is less traffic and more animals that love hitting the trees. These animals will chew, rub, scratch, pull the bark off of trees with no ill effects to the tree. I don't fear my 1" straps, on the occasion, will hurt the trees enough to see any damage.

To quantify the despair of some:

A pair of 2" wide polyprop straps as supplied by Clark, each 7' long, weighs a hair over 4oz.

I use 3/4" grosgrain with a ladderlok for hanging my tarp -- seems to be pretty gentle on the bark. I'm still using 1" tree huggers, but I pad them when the bark seems soft.