Mark is the name and If there is more than one way to understand what I just said....I meant the good one.
Earth First! We'll dirt bike ride the other planets later.
The aspen are close enough together so that I should be able to run the straps out and then place weights in a wooden box so that it would be similar to a person in a hammock. The trees don't have any conks but do have a couple of seams.
I noticed some slight damage on a set of trees I hung on in a local park several times. I wonder if a scrap of closed-cell foam under the straps would work to lessen the damage?
The scenario would be if hammocking gets popular enough that a park that allows it has a few campsites that are perfect for hanging. If those sites were to be "hung" in for an entire year what would be the impact? Any park ranger who notices a set of trees being hung in every week then dieing the next year would probably come to only one conclusion.
If I go to a park that allows hanging I'm pretty sure I'll bring along a set of CCF scraps to use.
hammocks to the trees and terminate with Duch Clips or 'biners, I think I will start packing my old 2" HH tree huggers just to use in developed campsites. If fo no other reason, just to show goodwill toward the rangers.
It would be a solid PR move if we all did something like the ccf or wide straps to demonstrate a responsible concern for the trees. This would be especially true at group hangs.
It has always been my private conviction that any man who pits his intelligence against a fish and loses has it coming.
Jim, I agree! Even from what I said the other day about it causing no real harm (aka death) to the tree, aesthetical bark damage can cause a negative image and parks could stop letting us hang there based soley on that! Plus we aren't worried about the extra weight of some wide strap when we are car camping!
I would loose 100 lbs! Tree huggers ain't nothin.
Well, since our resident forrester endorses the idea, I will make it my personal policy. Thanks!
Odd thread from my POV. Every week I see hundreds of trees maliciously hacked with machetes in the wilderness by lazy hunters making "trails". Saplings cut down or smashed, limbs ripped off, exposed roots trampled, larger trees deeply "blazed" (sometimes 10 or more slashes deep into the wood!), some completely girdled, moss and epiphyte layers ripped off, entire trees poached, etc... Pfff! I wouldn't tie to a rare tree, but otherwise my treehuggers are a loving embrace in comparison.
If a problem with scarring trees really does become apparent in campgrounds, then the logical answer would be to install poles for hammockers to use, not to ban hammocks, but in my experience, the Park executives will always choose the latter, sledge hammer approach. They LOVE to ban new uses.
Here, in the Ozarks, wind and ice storms destroy and damage so many more trees than people on hammocks could ever even leave a mark on that it would seem downright stupid to restrict or ban them, but I'd bet heavy that they, at the very least, will spend money on considering it very soon, and I wouldn't bet a nickel against them restricting and banning it afterwards.
Personally, I'm not at all convinced that either ccf or wider straps will lessen the damage to bark, and in fact, they may do more. Wider straps impact more bark, and foam will grip the bark harder may tend to tear it more as a result. It's likely much more a matter of your total weight, and how much you're moving around when your in the hammock.
Logically speaking, if you use a hammock, and you want to lessen the impact on trees, and you're overweight, losing weight will do way more good than tying off with a 1" wider strap and placing a piece of foam under it. And, regardless of your weight, if you sit in your hammock and swing in it a lot, stop doing that.
(Disclosure: I'm small and skinny, my logic may be skewed