Be kind to trees

[+geoJimi]

I'm posting this question with etiquette in mind. There’s been a rash of new hides in my area where hooks have been screwed into trees to hang the container from. I cringe every time I find one of these hides. Do I simply let it go? Or is there a nice way of saying to the cache hider: “Please be kind to our trees.”

[Mag Magician]

If I recall from geocaching 101, creating a hole of any type is a no-no for placing a cache.

However, this can become a catch 22 if you report your findings to the local reviewer. The onus is upon the community to keep geocaching within reason and not making more problems for ourselves in regard to more landowners just saying NO!

Do you raise a stink, hush up and disregard, or privately e-mail the offending cache owner about what you see as a problem? IMO it seems to fall into the abyss of reality vs conscience.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm posting this question with etiquette in mind. There’s been a rash of new hides in my area where hooks have been screwed into trees to hang the container from. I cringe every time I find one of these hides. Do I simply let it go? Or is there a nice way of saying to the cache hider: “Please be kind to our trees.”

 

I'm not sure that I have a problem with a "small" hook. I've come across some interesting hides where a small keychain is attached to a hook that is inside a hole in the tree. Let's be serious here, putting a little tiny hook into the tree is not hurting anybody or anything.

 

If someone was drilling a big hole 6 inches deep into the tree, then we could definitely have a worthwhile debate, but come on.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Against the guidelines...if their on public property (parks etc), I'd report them to the reviewer. Better to have the cache owner mad at you than caching banned for a bad decision.

[+elmuyloco5]

My response isn't in regard to the placement guidelines, but to the hole in the tree issue.

 

Maple syrup requires a tap to placed into the tree (hence a hole) and cross country diamonds are nailed onto trees (a hole), and trees are sampled by taking a nice long chunk out of the tree without harm (another hole). I'm sure there's other things I'm not thinking about this second.....but holes are put in trees all the time with no adverse affects. A small screw will not be "mean" to the tree, that tree will outlive you or I even with a hole in it.

[knowschad]

I'm posting this question with etiquette in mind. There’s been a rash of new hides in my area where hooks have been screwed into trees to hang the container from. I cringe every time I find one of these hides. Do I simply let it go? Or is there a nice way of saying to the cache hider: “Please be kind to our trees.”

 

I see we're already getting the "all it takes is one to get geocaching banned forever" group here, but I have to point out that tree surgeons put bolts and screws in trees frequently, maple syrup farms drill holes into their cash crop and pound metal tubes into the holes. I've seen barbed wire fences, 1" thick iron cables, bolts, & railroad spikes going clear through trees that have grown around them. Kids have been building tree houses forever. Adults have been nailing birdhouses to trees forever. Trees can take it, even if geocaching can't.

 

Does nailing something to a tree hurt the tree?

[+barondriver]

This issue has been addressed before..a search in the forum should bring it up..

Edited November 14, 2007 by barondriver

[Keystone]

If I tap the maple trees on your property for syrup without asking you, would you be upset?

Or say I'm a forestry student who takes random samples from trees in your suburban neighborhood... is that OK?

"Hi, I'm a tree surgeon, and I was passing by your home and saw some drooping limbs, so I chopped them off."

"My kids like your yard better, so they built their treehouse in your oak tree. You gotta problem with that?"

 

See a pattern? It's not simply whether there is harm to the tree. It's a land manager perception issue, and an issue of amateurs not being expert enough to know when a hole is too big of a hole.

 

Permission cures the problem in my maple syrup, forester, tree surgeon and treehouse examples.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Permission cures the problem in my maple syrup, forester, tree surgeon and treehouse examples.

And here we go again assuming that there is NOT adequate permission in spite of the clear requirement therefor to get the cache listed.

 

How about we assume that the cache hider HAS followed guidelines (re: permission) for a change? Sorry the OP is upset over the perceived offense, but each case stands or falls on its individual merits.

 

Take it from a (literal) Tree hugging family, "screw in a tree?" No big deal.

[Keystone]

And here we go again assuming that there is NOT adequate permission in spite of the clear requirement therefor to get the cache listed.

You have that pretty much bass ackwards, but that's a separate thread.

[+meralgia]

why do any of you want to screw trees? that's just sad, sick and wrong.

[+elmuyloco5]

The OP never said that the cache was placed by someone without permission. The whole post is about how they think it's unkind to trees. It's the reviewers job to ensure the cache is placed in a spot that has been permitted. It's not our job as cachers to police people's caches. I think the majority of responses have been clear, the screw won't hurt the tree, no reason for the OP to be alarmed.

 

Nobody's mentioned the fire tacks that are used for night caches.

Edited November 14, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+StarBrand]

The tree will be fine. No lasting problem from a single small screw or hole.

 

The owner/caretaker of tree however might get so upset that geocaching becomes banned in the area.

I dont worry so much about caring for the trees as I do caring about the opinion of the land manager. Permission or not - sets a really bad example for others to follow.

[+Confucius' Cat]

And here we go again assuming that there is NOT adequate permission in spite of the clear requirement therefor to get the cache listed.

You have that pretty much bass ackwards, but that's a separate thread.

Wasn't referring to YOUR assumptions... to the OP's.

[+Confucius' Cat]

The OP never said that the cache was placed by someone without permission. The whole post is about how they think it's unkind to trees. It's the reviewers job to ensure the cache is placed in a spot that has been permitted. It's not our job as cachers to police people's caches. I think the majority of responses have been clear, the screw won't hurt the tree, no reason for the OP to be alarmed.

 

Nobody's mentioned the fire tacks that are used for night caches.

you are right.

 

I guess I have the same knee-jerk reaction as others. Since I am reasonably sure it is not particularly "unkind" or harmful to the tree, i assumed that the real issue is whether or not the cache was placed with adequate permission.

 

Since there are so many "this cache type should be banned" threads on the forum, I interpreted this as just another one of many.

 

"Permission" trumps "should be banned" in nearly all cases, but does not in any way address issues of "damage" to cache supporting structures- intentional or not.

 

Anyway, if there was adequate permission, the bold certainly applies.

[+Confucius' Cat]

The tree will be fine. No lasting problem from a single small screw or hole.

 

The owner/caretaker of tree however might get so upset that geocaching becomes banned in the area.

I dont worry so much about caring for the trees as I do caring about the opinion of the land manager. Permission or not - sets a really bad example for others to follow.

Evel Knievel set a pretty bad example for motorcyclists to follow.

 

I must have missed the predominance of motorcyclists that are dying because they are emulating him. (I should watch the news more often)

 

The "if one does it, everyone will want to" argument is pretty hackneyed.

[knowschad]

 

Permission cures the problem in my maple syrup, forester, tree surgeon and treehouse examples.

My post made no mention of permission or of the lack of it. That is an entirely different issue. My point is that trees are not the delicate flowers that some people seem to think they are. My guess is that if you could ask the tree's permission, it'd say, "eh? whatever."

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Permission cures the problem in my maple syrup, forester, tree surgeon and treehouse examples.

My post made no mention of permission or of the lack of it. That is an entirely different issue. My point is that trees are not the delicate flowers that some people seem to think they are. My guess is that if you could ask the tree's permission, it'd say, "eh? whatever."

"And the tree was happy, (but not really)"

- "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein

 

OBTW- should be "required reading" for all humanity IMHO

[knowschad]

 

Permission cures the problem in my maple syrup, forester, tree surgeon and treehouse examples.

My post made no mention of permission or of the lack of it. That is an entirely different issue. My point is that trees are not the delicate flowers that some people seem to think they are. My guess is that if you could ask the tree's permission, it'd say, "eh? whatever."

"And the tree was happy, (but not really)"

- "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein

 

OBTW- should be "required reading" for all humanity IMHO

 

Wikipedia sez: "Ever since the book was published, it has generated controversy and opposing opinions for its interpreted messages, on whether the tree is selfless or merely self-sacrificing, and whether the boy is selfish or reasonable in his demands of the tree."

So, is is selfish to pound a nail into a tree even though it can "take it"? Is it reasonable to demand that the tree can "take it"? Hmmmmm.....

[+meralgia]

Wikipedia sez: "Ever since the book was published, it has generated controversy and opposing opinions for its interpreted messages, on whether the tree is selfless or merely self-sacrificing, and whether the boy is selfish or reasonable in his demands of the tree."

So, is is selfish to pound a nail into a tree even though it can "take it"? Is it reasonable to demand that the tree can "take it"? Hmmmmm.....

Am I reasonable in wanting to grace my dinner table with flowers or am I helping the plant by allowing it to put more energy into the foliage... I digress. I don't believe in asking permission of inanimate objects--I don't ask the flowers in my garden if they'd like to be cut.

 

Likewise, I don't cut flowers that aren't mine. I think the big issue here is what we're trying to teach our son: "if it's not yours, don't touch it." If you'd like to research who the tree belongs to and obtain their approval, go for it. Otherwise, find another place to hide the cache.

 

BTW, how can someone be <i>humane</i> to animals when animals aren't <i>humans</i>. Hmmmm...

[+Sagefox]

“Please be kind to our trees.”

 

People should not screw hooks into trees if the gc.com guidelines say not to.

 

But, as for the tree. A hook is no harm to a tree. A while back I went with a couple of foresters into in university owned demonstration forest to "do plots". This is a statistical method for examining forest growth and production. Each plot is a circle of about 30 radius (I forget the exact number). All the trees within this circle are measured for height and diameter. Then the plot is remeasured periodically over the decades to see what is happening.

 

The pertinent part here is that each tree has a numbered tag to identify it for future measurements. When it was time to setup a plot in a new growth area we were drilling small holes into trees as small as 1" diameter and installing number tags on a plastic lead that would not be grown over by the next reading date. All the older plots had tags on nails.

[+simpjkee]

I have a bison tube up in a tree, but I have it secured by zip ties. Maybe a polite email suggesting that they can use zipties which would achieve the same effect while not damaging the tree would be best.

[+Ambrosia]

I have a bison tube up in a tree, but I have it secured by zip ties. Maybe a polite email suggesting that they can use zipties which would achieve the same effect while not damaging the tree would be best.

Just a word of warning (which has been mentioned in other threads). If you use a zip tie or a string or whatever, to tie a cache to a tree or tree branch, please make it loose and check on it over the years. Trees grow, and over time the tree will grow into the tie, around the tie, etc. and could cause damage.

[Keystone]

And here we go again assuming that there is NOT adequate permission in spite of the clear requirement therefor to get the cache listed.

You have that pretty much bass ackwards, but that's a separate thread.

Wasn't referring to YOUR assumptions... to the OP's.

Ahhh, sorry... thanks for clarifying!

 

From a listing guidelines perspective, as opposed to a pure "save the trees" perspective, the issue is inextricably linked with permission. The guideline exists as a basis for questioning the normal assumption that adequate permission has been obtained. If a reviewer learns that an object like a tree was defaced, it is reasonable to ask whether the cache owner had permission to do this.

[+briansnat]

I'm posting this question with etiquette in mind. There’s been a rash of new hides in my area where hooks have been screwed into trees to hang the container from. I cringe every time I find one of these hides. Do I simply let it go? Or is there a nice way of saying to the cache hider: “Please be kind to our trees.”

 

I see we're already getting the "all it takes is one to get geocaching banned forever" group here, but I have to point out that tree surgeons put bolts and screws in trees frequently, maple syrup farms drill holes into their cash crop and pound metal tubes into the holes. I've seen barbed wire fences, 1" thick iron cables, bolts, & railroad spikes going clear through trees that have grown around them. Kids have been building tree houses forever. Adults have been nailing birdhouses to trees forever. Trees can take it, even if geocaching can't.

 

Does nailing something to a tree hurt the tree?

 

It's irrelevant whether or not it harms a tree. The guidleines prohibit it. End of story

[+Rockin Roddy]

Yep, the bleeding heart here again...as has been pointed out, it's against the guidelines. A reviewer won't know the type of hide unless someone actually SAYS they screwed a tree, so saying we already have reviewers to keep track of this isn't quite right (anyone knowing it's against the guidelines...which would be all who READ the guidelines...won't likely tell a reviewer of this type of hide).

 

Asking if permission were given isn't an automatic slight against the hider, it's actually someone doing the responsible thing...sorry if it upsets anyone! Saying to ask the tree...come on!

 

Best to follow guidelines and keep land owners happy!!

[+Stargazer22]

I would encourage you to run this by one of your local reviewers and see what they think.

 

Chances of damaging the tree - one in a million

Chances of damaging geocaching in the area - much higher odds

 

I have a series of caches placed in the Ocala National Forest that are at tree plots. I noticed that all the trees are tagged for identification.....with a heavy wire and tag that sticks IN THE GROUND near the tree.

I assume that they went to the extra expense and labor of using wires and tags that don't harm the trees for a reason. I will follow their lead.

[+elmuyloco5]

Yep, the bleeding heart here again...as has been pointed out, it's against the guidelines. A reviewer won't know the type of hide unless someone actually SAYS they screwed a tree, so saying we already have reviewers to keep track of this isn't quite right (anyone knowing it's against the guidelines...which would be all who READ the guidelines...won't likely tell a reviewer of this type of hide).

 

Asking if permission were given isn't an automatic slight against the hider, it's actually someone doing the responsible thing...sorry if it upsets anyone! Saying to ask the tree...come on!

 

Best to follow guidelines and keep land owners happy!!

 

There's tons of night caches that are approved on here all the time that use firetacks (and the descriptions state it too)......they're hammered into trees. How is this different? Seems to me that it only depends on the permission, which obviously needs to be obtained, but still had nothing to do with the issue that the OP brought up. They asked if they should notify their reviewer, in which they have assumed the placer didn't have permission. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the reviewers wouldn't want a flood of emails from every individual who questions whether or not someone obtained proper permission before placing a cache. Can you imagine how many emails they would start getting if this became the norm?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Yep, the bleeding heart here again...as has been pointed out, it's against the guidelines. A reviewer won't know the type of hide unless someone actually SAYS they screwed a tree, so saying we already have reviewers to keep track of this isn't quite right (anyone knowing it's against the guidelines...which would be all who READ the guidelines...won't likely tell a reviewer of this type of hide).

 

Asking if permission were given isn't an automatic slight against the hider, it's actually someone doing the responsible thing...sorry if it upsets anyone! Saying to ask the tree...come on!

 

Best to follow guidelines and keep land owners happy!!

 

There's tons of night caches that are approved on here all the time that use firetacks (and the descriptions state it too)......they're hammered into trees. How is this different? Seems to me that it only depends on the permission, which obviously needs to be obtained, but still had nothing to do with the issue that the OP brought up. They asked if they should notify their reviewer, in which they have assumed the placer didn't have permission. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the reviewers wouldn't want a flood of emails from every individual who questions whether or not someone obtained proper permission before placing a cache. Can you imagine how many emails they would start getting if this became the norm?

 

If the cache page doesn't STATE permission was granted for that type of hide, I'd be asking too.

 

I can't say much for the firetacks except the fact that they are merely a TACK! (at least all I've seen) A tack won't even go through the rough bark of most trees, so no harm at all to anything.

[+elmuyloco5]

Yep, the bleeding heart here again...as has been pointed out, it's against the guidelines. A reviewer won't know the type of hide unless someone actually SAYS they screwed a tree, so saying we already have reviewers to keep track of this isn't quite right (anyone knowing it's against the guidelines...which would be all who READ the guidelines...won't likely tell a reviewer of this type of hide).

 

Asking if permission were given isn't an automatic slight against the hider, it's actually someone doing the responsible thing...sorry if it upsets anyone! Saying to ask the tree...come on!

 

Best to follow guidelines and keep land owners happy!!

 

There's tons of night caches that are approved on here all the time that use firetacks (and the descriptions state it too)......they're hammered into trees. How is this different? Seems to me that it only depends on the permission, which obviously needs to be obtained, but still had nothing to do with the issue that the OP brought up. They asked if they should notify their reviewer, in which they have assumed the placer didn't have permission. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the reviewers wouldn't want a flood of emails from every individual who questions whether or not someone obtained proper permission before placing a cache. Can you imagine how many emails they would start getting if this became the norm?

 

If the cache page doesn't STATE permission was granted for that type of hide, I'd be asking too.

 

I can't say much for the firetacks except the fact that they are merely a TACK! (at least all I've seen) A tack won't even go through the rough bark of most trees, so no harm at all to anything.

 

But the point is, neither will harm the tree at all, so tack or screw, it doesn't matter. But, if you follow the guidelines, neither is allowed as BOTH deface the tree. You can't have it one way and not the other and be fair to everyone. Most caches don't state that the owner obtained permission.......so shall we bog down our reviewers with questions about all of them? Not just one, but all of us? They'll be so busy answering email that they'll never be able to publish anything new.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Yep, the bleeding heart here again...as has been pointed out, it's against the guidelines. A reviewer won't know the type of hide unless someone actually SAYS they screwed a tree, so saying we already have reviewers to keep track of this isn't quite right (anyone knowing it's against the guidelines...which would be all who READ the guidelines...won't likely tell a reviewer of this type of hide).

 

Asking if permission were given isn't an automatic slight against the hider, it's actually someone doing the responsible thing...sorry if it upsets anyone! Saying to ask the tree...come on!

 

Best to follow guidelines and keep land owners happy!!

 

There's tons of night caches that are approved on here all the time that use firetacks (and the descriptions state it too)......they're hammered into trees. How is this different? Seems to me that it only depends on the permission, which obviously needs to be obtained, but still had nothing to do with the issue that the OP brought up. They asked if they should notify their reviewer, in which they have assumed the placer didn't have permission. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the reviewers wouldn't want a flood of emails from every individual who questions whether or not someone obtained proper permission before placing a cache. Can you imagine how many emails they would start getting if this became the norm?

 

If the cache page doesn't STATE permission was granted for that type of hide, I'd be asking too.

 

I can't say much for the firetacks except the fact that they are merely a TACK! (at least all I've seen) A tack won't even go through the rough bark of most trees, so no harm at all to anything.

 

But the point is, neither will harm the tree at all, so tack or screw, it doesn't matter. But, if you follow the guidelines, neither is allowed as BOTH deface the tree. You can't have it one way and not the other and be fair to everyone. Most caches don't state that the owner obtained permission.......so shall we bog down our reviewers with questions about all of them? Not just one, but all of us? They'll be so busy answering email that they'll never be able to publish anything new.

 

Do you work with trees? Are you assured no tree can be hurt by using a screw, rope, wire or nail? I do work with trees, we own a golf course! Some trees (mostly soft bark trees) are more prone to diseases than the thick bark trees, a small hole in their protective cover (bark) could be all it takes for disease to take hold! Ropes, wires and such...bad! A tight wire or rope will cut into a tree as it grows and could allow disease as well.

 

As with today's health problems, trees are getting more and more diseases each day. We've lost several of our pines to a disease which starts when a small insect bores a hole into the tree...

 

BUT, as was said...it's not about IF the trees can be hurt, it's about the perception of the property owner!

 

Oh, and IF everyone reads the guidelines (and follows them) we won't need to worry about tons of emails will we? It's up to the hider to use good sense and do what the guidelines state.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+Markwell]

The tree will be fine. No lasting problem from a single small screw or hole.

 

The owner/caretaker of tree however might get so upset that geocaching becomes banned in the area.

I dont worry so much about caring for the trees as I do caring about the opinion of the land manager. Permission or not - sets a really bad example for others to follow.

Evel Knievel set a pretty bad example for motorcyclists to follow.

 

I must have missed the predominance of motorcyclists that are dying because they are emulating him. (I should watch the news more often)

 

The "if one does it, everyone will want to" argument is pretty hackneyed.

Comedy Central has a special on 1:00 am this Saturday (Eastern Standard Time).

 

If that human nature doesn't suffice, how about the preponderance of lamp-post-skirt-micros? Someone thought of it. Someone saw it and said "That's cool" and copied it. And they told to friends, and THEY told two friends, and so on, and so on...

Edited November 14, 2007 by Markwell

[+tozainamboku]

why do any of you want to screw trees? that's just sad, sick and wrong.

Eww! I just found a cache hidden in a knot hole in a tree about waist high.

[+ReadyOrNot]

why do any of you want to screw trees? that's just sad, sick and wrong.

Eww! I just found a cache hidden in a knot hole in a tree about waist high.

 

I will never stick my hand in a knot hole again!

[+egami]

ReadyOr...Knot?

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...See a pattern? It's not simply whether there is harm to the tree. It's a land manager perception issue, and an issue of amateurs not being expert enough to know when a hole is too big of a hole.

 

Permission cures the problem in my maple syrup, forester, tree surgeon and treehouse examples.

 

True enough. The problem isn't the hole. It's the perception by the person who owns the tree.

[+StarBrand]

...

True enough. The problem isn't the hole. It's the perception by the person who owns the tree.

Exactly!!

[+baloo&bd]

If that human nature doesn't suffice, how about the preponderance of lamp-post-skirt-micros?

 

Has anyone ever checked if those are harmfull to the lamp post?

 

Kidding aside, I do have knowledge in this area and a tack or screw WILL NOT harm a otherwise healthy tree. Rope, zip ties, fishing line, etc WILL.a

 

As to the permission issue (off topic but everyone seems to want to comment) I am confused;

 

If I own the land, and thereby the trees, is it OK for me to use a screw or tack? If I get permission from whomever, is it? I ask because there appear to be ome conflicting responses.

[+ReadyOrNot]

If I own the land, and thereby the trees, is it OK for me to use a screw or tack? If I get permission from whomever, is it? I ask because there appear to be ome conflicting responses.

 

The real question is "Can I own a tree?"... What about the tree's civil rights?

[+TotemLake]

My response isn't in regard to the placement guidelines, but to the hole in the tree issue.

 

Maple syrup requires a tap to placed into the tree (hence a hole) and cross country diamonds are nailed onto trees (a hole), and trees are sampled by taking a nice long chunk out of the tree without harm (another hole). I'm sure there's other things I'm not thinking about this second.....but holes are put in trees all the time with no adverse affects. A small screw will not be "mean" to the tree, that tree will outlive you or I even with a hole in it.

Actually, "without harm" is a misplaced notion. Any wound to a tree will be noted by a scarred area as the tree tries to heal itself. That scarred area is called a knot for a reason. Nutrients going up must go around that knot. Some trees, such as the Elm is not fed from a centralized system, but rather each root feeds that vertical section of the tree. Put enough scarring tissue around the area and you can easily kill that part of the tree.

[+baloo&bd]

If I own the land, and thereby the trees, is it OK for me to use a screw or tack? If I get permission from whomever, is it? I ask because there appear to be ome conflicting responses.

 

The real question is "Can I own a tree?"... What about the tree's civil rights?

 

They could protest, but what would they attach the signs to?

[+egami]

They could protest, but what would they attach the signs to?

 

People...

[+Renegade Knight]

If I own the land, and thereby the trees, is it OK for me to use a screw or tack? If I get permission from whomever, is it? I ask because there appear to be ome conflicting responses.

 

The real question is "Can I own a tree?"... What about the tree's civil rights?

No worries. Tree's are all bark.

[+meralgia]

If I own the land, and thereby the trees, is it OK for me to use a screw or tack? If I get permission from whomever, is it? I ask because there appear to be some conflicting responses.

If you choose to have folks grubbing around your property looking for a cache, sure--go ahead and drill holes in anything you like. Good luck getting it approved by the reviewer, and don't be surprised when the tree huggers don't look for another of your caches.

Edited November 14, 2007 by meralgia

[+TerraTrekkers]

Isn't it ironic that environmentalist used to spike trees to discourage logging and now we're worried about a hook or fire tacks.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm watching the hemlocks die. They're magnificient trees! Hemlock wooly adelgid was imported into the US in 1924 through the port of Baltimore from Japan. It's only natural enemy is the Japanese lady bug. It has spread slowly, but now infests major parts of the east. I don't remember the elms or the chestnuts. But they're gone. Guess I'm not that concerned about cup hooks in trees. Support ISPM-15!

[+ReadyOrNot]

If I own the land, and thereby the trees, is it OK for me to use a screw or tack? If I get permission from whomever, is it? I ask because there appear to be some conflicting responses.

don't be surprised when the tree huggers don't look for another of your caches.

 

Is that a premium membership perk?

[+Confucius' Cat]

I have a bison tube up in a tree, but I have it secured by zip ties. Maybe a polite email suggesting that they can use zipties which would achieve the same effect while not damaging the tree would be best.

Just a word of warning (which has been mentioned in other threads). If you use a zip tie or a string or whatever, to tie a cache to a tree or tree branch, please make it loose and check on it over the years. Trees grow, and over time the tree will grow into the tie, around the tie, etc. and could cause damage.

More than just damage, anything that totally encircles a tree trunk or branch will eventually result in DEATH of the "ringed" member. If it is the main trunk, the tree will die.

 

Trees use ONLY a small layer of the inner bark (called cambium) to transport food and water up the tree. If this layer is cut all the way around (called "ringing" the tree) the tree literally starves to death.

 

Given a choice of nail, screw or Ty_Rap ® to secure something to a tree, go with the nails and screws every time.

 

I'm watching the hemlocks die. They're magnificient trees! Hemlock wooly adelgid was imported into the US in 1924 through the port of Baltimore from Japan. It's only natural enemy is the Japanese lady bug. It has spread slowly, but now infests major parts of the east. I don't remember the elms or the chestnuts. But they're gone. Guess I'm not that concerned about cup hooks in trees. Support ISPM-15!

Interesting because we ALSO have a big problem with the Japanese lady bug.

 

BTW, Elm and chestnut (specifically American Elm and American Chestnut) are not by any means "gone" or extinct. They used to thrive by the millions and are now rare, but they are still holding on. The American Chestnut Society is working feverishly to restore them to their original habitat and grandeur.

 

i have three American Chestnuts (Castenea Dentata) in my back yard and they are doing well. Unfortunately there used to be 4. I think I lost the one due to overheating when i burned brush near it.

 

The "jury" is still out whehter they will survive long term but they are about 8 yrs old now. (still no nuts- bummer)

[+egami]

If you choose to have folks grubbing around your property looking for a cache, sure--go ahead and drill holes in anything you like. Good luck getting it approved by the reviewer, and don't be surprised when the tree huggers don't look for another of your caches.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing...

[+Ambrosia]

I have a bison tube up in a tree, but I have it secured by zip ties. Maybe a polite email suggesting that they can use zipties which would achieve the same effect while not damaging the tree would be best.

Just a word of warning (which has been mentioned in other threads). If you use a zip tie or a string or whatever, to tie a cache to a tree or tree branch, please make it loose and check on it over the years. Trees grow, and over time the tree will grow into the tie, around the tie, etc. and could cause damage.

More than just damage, anything that totally encircles a tree trunk or branch will eventually result in DEATH of the "ringed" member. If it is the main trunk, the tree will die.

 

Trees use ONLY a small layer of the inner bark (called cambium) to transport food and water up the tree. If this layer is cut all the way around (called "ringing" the tree) the tree literally starves to death.

 

Given a choice of nail, screw or Ty_Rap ® to secure something to a tree, go with the nails and screws every time.

 

Are you specifically responding to me, or just adding to what I said for everyone else's benefit? If it was for me, then thank you for the lesson.