AHPP

I was going to ask similar but there's already enough on the internet about SRT for trees that I shut my hand in a filing cabinet drawer instead. I put it to someone on facebook a while ago that he was getting himself into employers' liability territory by sending an apprentice (that he'd already taught good SRT to) to college to learn about blakes hitches. Blank looks.

I've heard the energy dissipation thing before but can't remember where. What are your sources for it? Either way, I know what I prefer. Strapped on. I like wearing a helmet full stop actually. Muffs on and visor down lets me really plough into the work. Whatever works for you though.

If you spiked ten feet up a stem and some dead wood fell on your head, you'd expect your climbing helmet to help you. I had a quick look and, without wanting to fuck about trying to understand the various standards, nothing was explicit other than the HSE link someone posted on this thread and some of the blurb about Husky helmets on the Honey Brothers website (neither hugely authoritative legal sources). The thing I find mad about helmets is the lack of chinstraps on the ground ones (same could be said for all other industries that wear helmets). I'm no terrified safety poof but I wear my chinstrap for everything and can't understand why anyone wouldn't. Loads of the videos on the internet of people having accidents cutting trees include their helmets pinging off into the undergrowth before they continue being thrown about, getting stuff dropped on them etc.

Why wouldn't you want both of those things in the woods?

What makes a forestry helmet a forestry helmet and a climbing helmet a climbing helmet?

Yeah. That's a fairly typical minarchist position. I didn't say police though. I said law enforcement to include courts etc.

I've put a fair bit of thought into my political ideology. If 0 is complete anarchy and 10 is complete totalitarianism, I'm about a 3, a moderate libertarian.

.

Big question. Not 100% sure. Law enforcement, probably an army, probably some other stuff (but nowhere near as much nonsense as is currently funded by taxation).

So the government took a load of your money and spent it on poisoning and now you trust them with more of your money? Trust them enough to buy into a scheme you happen to like that is. Ideologically flexible. Of course that's not really the point though. If 51% of people like poisoning, maybe 100% of people should pay for it. Or perhaps if 51% of people like poisoning, maybe that 51% should pay for it and the other 49% should spend what they want on what they like.

Are you or would you be happy about that?

You may personally be. I'm personally not. If so many of you really do want to to contribute to these experiments, your voluntary contributions should cover the cost without the need to force mine. Of course experiments are fine. I'm happy for people to experiment with whatever they like. You could call it R&D. The experimenter can then reap the rewards. They volunteer to take the risk of losing time/resources for the potential benefit. The point I make is a general one, not specific to tree cutting. Perhaps I would rather this or some other land is used for a poison factory and I declare there is a sufficient interest in poisoning that everybody should be forced to contribute to poison research. You might not like poisoning but you're going to be forced to pay for it anyway.

If that was the case, the whole of society that wants to benefit from that particular acreage of biodiversity will voluntarily pay for it. The premise that it is necessary is bollocks though. Nature needs no help from from a few artistic cutters. They're only trees. They live, they die, bits fall off them, some last, some don't. You can look at them, sit under them, string hammocks from them, build with them, burn them, whatever takes your fancy. If one dies or gets cut down, they generally grow back or some others will somewhere. Pretending that this is necessary work makes you as deluded as the hairdressers and telephone sanitisers. http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B Alternatively, if people who own land aren't making enough on the swings to absorb the losses from the roundabouts, why are people who don't own land being forced to subsidise their lack of business acumen? They've got a monopoly over one of the only resources that actually means anything and they're being paid to fuck it up.

Is there a benefit in it? If yes, why wouldn’t the land owner pay for it himself? If no, why am I paying for something that has no benefit?

Me then.

Who's paying for this fannying about?

Thanks but that's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid.

Thanks again. Mark_Skyland, No idea. Whatever are about a fiver from saw shops and similar.

I follow putting it high up the stirrup but not sure what the cord does? Could you post a picture please.

Not Bolam.

Much obliged. Anyone any suggestions in leather?

Are they different to the “normal” rubber ones you’d pick up a couple of pairs of while you’re in a saw shop?

I’m fed up of those rubber palmed gloves that only last two climbs. Are there any good fitting leather (or another material) gloves out there that still let you clip biners etc easily?

I currently just use a CT on my right , strapped on over my spike stirrup. I’m thinking of getting a lefty one and bolting it to my left spike stirrup. Will I be forever spiking myself with them both clipped in?