Jump to content

Nails In Trees


Fife Club

Recommended Posts

I've already seen the arguments about not putting nails in trees. That's been discussed before. What I haven't seen discussion on is whether it matters if a tree is alive or dead already. What if the tree was already fallen? Would it still cause a big stink amongst geocachers if somebody used a nail to affix a geocache to an already fallen tree?

 

My primary curiosity is about how people feel about a nail in a dead tree, but I'm also curious what people think about taking that same concept a step farther. Hypothetically, what if you carved a hidden compartment out of the dead log? Would people who think a nail in a dead tree was OK, still feel it was OK to go that far? Just curious.

Edited by Fife Club
Link to comment

Is it your tree?

 

That's what it comes down to. You can't deface property, even a tree, to hide a cache.

 

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

Once the cache is gone all signs that cache was ever there should be gone.

 

Edit for typo

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment

Is it your tree?

 

That's what it comes down to. You can't deface property, even a tree, to hide a cache.

 

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

Once the cache is gone all signs that cache was ever there should be gone.

 

Edit for typo

 

What I had in mind is a fallen tree just yards past my property line. Technically the tree was once on my property but it fell toward and into the forest a while back.

 

I had never seen the statement "No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find." before but that's good to know. Thanks. (I assume they mean no *existing* object may be altered, because I've seen tons of crazy 'altered' contraptions used for hiding a cache, and often physically attached to trees (with string, ropes, fasteners, etc.).)

Link to comment

Is it your tree?

 

That's what it comes down to. You can't deface property, even a tree, to hide a cache.

 

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

Once the cache is gone all signs that cache was ever there should be gone.

 

Edit for typo

 

What I had in mind is a fallen tree just yards past my property line. Technically the tree was once on my property but it fell toward and into the forest a while back.

 

I had never seen the statement "No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find." before but that's good to know. Thanks. (I assume they mean no *existing* object may be altered, because I've seen tons of crazy 'altered' contraptions used for hiding a cache, and often physically attached to trees (with string, ropes, fasteners, etc.).)

 

At this point your posting here doesn't make sense. You're trying to justify the nail in the tree.. either take the advice or just put the nail in the tree.

 

I tire of hearing about nails in trees. Especially since half the people telling you how bad it is have put nails in trees themselves at some point. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Why a forester uses nails? :ph34r:

 

Sense no make English.

 

First time you ever heard a forester or a forest engineer nailed tags, ribbons, and whatnot to trees? :blink::ph34r::blink: They place it about eye level because its out of the way for the faller (a person the cut trees down with a chainsaw)

 

If its ok for a forester to uses nails, it means doesnt hurt the tree. Just need to be short so the debarker (a machine that take the barks off) take it out before the tree goes through the mill.

Link to comment

Is it your tree?

 

That's what it comes down to. You can't deface property, even a tree, to hide a cache.

 

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

Once the cache is gone all signs that cache was ever there should be gone.

 

Edit for typo

 

What I had in mind is a fallen tree just yards past my property line. Technically the tree was once on my property but it fell toward and into the forest a while back.

 

I had never seen the statement "No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find." before but that's good to know. Thanks. (I assume they mean no *existing* object may be altered, because I've seen tons of crazy 'altered' contraptions used for hiding a cache, and often physically attached to trees (with string, ropes, fasteners, etc.).)

It's from the guidelines.

 

This is not directed at the OP as much as at all new hiders....

 

By reading the guidelines before you hide a cache you will save yourself, you're reviewer and for the matter all of us a lot of grief.

 

Edited because it sounded was too snarky at first.

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment

A tree may well be dead -- but, it is still defacing.

 

Aside from that, it is about the overall perception of what others see or think, not necessarily that it actually harms anything.

So, there are two sides to this coin -- that which is, and that which it appears -- both happen to fall negatively upon geocaching.

 

Exactly!

A concrete wall is not alive either, but if I see graffitti on it, I consider it to be defaced. This would include geocaching coordinates, containers, or mountings as well, whether on a living tree, dead tree, or any other object.

Consider how people outside of geocaching would perceive it, especially land managers.

Link to comment

Why a forester uses nails? :ph34r:

 

Sense no make English.

 

First time you ever heard a forester or a forest engineer nailed tags, ribbons, and whatnot to trees? :blink::ph34r::blink: They place it about eye level because its out of the way for the faller (a person the cut trees down with a chainsaw)

 

If its ok for a forester to uses nails, it means doesnt hurt the tree. Just need to be short so the debarker (a machine that take the barks off) take it out before the tree goes through the mill.

We had Pine beetles almost wipe out Pine trees in our local Forests, then something attacked our Hemlocks. I guess I have found close 100 tags nailed at eye level on Hemlock trees in the last few years by the forstery service.

Link to comment

Why a forester uses nails? :ph34r:

 

Sense no make English.

 

First time you ever heard a forester or a forest engineer nailed tags, ribbons, and whatnot to trees? :blink::ph34r::blink: They place it about eye level because its out of the way for the faller (a person the cut trees down with a chainsaw)

 

If its ok for a forester to uses nails, it means doesnt hurt the tree. Just need to be short so the debarker (a machine that take the barks off) take it out before the tree goes through the mill.

We had Pine beetles almost wipe out Pine trees in our local Forests, then something attacked our Hemlocks. I guess I have found close 100 tags nailed at eye level on Hemlock trees in the last few years by the forstery service.

 

Odds are, the entity they work for owns those trees.

 

If it ain't yours, don't go driving nails in it. Or screws, or spikes, or paint it.......

Link to comment

Ok let's look at this another way.

 

Can you drive a nail into a telephone pole to hide your cache?

 

 

According to this NO.

 

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

So why is a tree any different?

 

 

It has NOTHING to do with harming the tree. It is dafacing property and that is against the guidelines.

 

It is that simple.

Link to comment

Depends on where you are I would say.

 

An example...

 

In some cities in Texas... Driving a Nail into a Utility pole IS considered defacement. Doesn't matter if your posting a sign for your "Garage Sale", "Lost Dog", or a geocache.

 

Yet on the other hand. Some cities don't consider defacement, and you are pefectly allowed to drive nails into the Utility pole to place a sign, a geocache, or whatever. So long as it doesn't break any other laws, or cause the Utlitiy pole to fail, or prevent the Utility pole from doing its intended job. In regards to Trees in public right of way, or on public property. One CAN use a nail on the tree. However depends on the Tree as well. Example of this, a tree in the public right of way along the highways (even inside city limits" is ALLOWED to be used an an ALTERNATIVE to a fence post. So in Texas, you will see ALOT of Barbed Wire fences using a Tree as the fence post & thus see Nails & other stuff driven into them

 

On the other hand... a nice transplanted tree, that is in a landscaped area of a city park, or other public building you can't drive a nail or anything else into. Or even hang anything FROM that tree. WITHOUT prior authorization from the apropriate City official.

 

You also can't drive nails into any tree that is on personal property, WITHOUT permsion. If its on personal property, you can do anythign you want to that tree that the property owner allows you to do.

 

You CAN however drive a nail into a tree that is in the so called back country woods, or other "Wilderness" type area. Depending on what your doing. Hanging a bird feeder, animal feeder, Remote Camera, etc.. or other animal monitoring device is allowed. As far as doing so for a "Geocache" the jury is still out.

 

So In TEXAS I would say, that if you can legally attach a sign, a camera, a bird feeder, a bird house, or other animal feeder/home, or fence, etc... Then you can attach a geocache. If you can't do any of the other things legally. Then you can't attach a geocache either.

 

I almost forgot one other note... In certain parts of Texas (As well as other states), where there is an area that is designated as a "National Forrest", even land owners have certain restrictions to what they can do with their trees, even though its on private lands, those trees were designated as being part of a "National Forrest" & becasue of that, certain restrictions apply no matter if it's private or public land. (This includes dead trees as well as those still living)

 

TGC

Edited by texasgrillchef
Link to comment

>No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place

 

HAHA if we all follow all the rules 100%

then go out and disable 90% of all caches..

 

NO OBJECT can be altered..

 

come on.. drilling holes in dead lugs is common,

adding a nail to a dead or even a live tree is also common,

forrest administators hang up signs and bird cases on trees, using nails,

if it is bad for trees I am sure they will not do it.

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment

Why a forester uses nails? :ph34r:

 

Sense no make English.

 

First time you ever heard a forester or a forest engineer nailed tags, ribbons, and whatnot to trees? :blink::ph34r::blink: They place it about eye level because its out of the way for the faller (a person the cut trees down with a chainsaw)

 

If its ok for a forester to uses nails, it means doesnt hurt the tree. Just need to be short so the debarker (a machine that take the barks off) take it out before the tree goes through the mill.

We had Pine beetles almost wipe out Pine trees in our local Forests, then something attacked our Hemlocks. I guess I have found close 100 tags nailed at eye level on Hemlock trees in the last few years by the forstery service.

 

Odds are, the entity they work for owns those trees.

 

If it ain't yours, don't go driving nails in it. Or screws, or spikes, or paint it.......

I understand why they are there. They are on National forest property that is being logged near my home. I say let High Knob stand, and many of us that are geocachers support http://clinchcoalition.net/

Link to comment

>No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place

 

HAHA if we all follow all the rules 100%

then go out and disable 90% of all caches..

 

In many European countries this is indeed the (sad) reality.

 

Unfortunately, many of the changes are such that the object cannot be reinstalled to

its original condition. When I started geocaching we did not have hideouts of that type. This

has been the result of the trend to encounter ever and ever more creative and new types of hideouts.

Back then we put the container at the roots of tree or inside of a tree stump and that was it.

 

forrest administators hang up signs and bird cases on trees, using nails,

if it is bad for trees I am sure they will not do it.

 

They typically do it with permission which changes the issue considerably.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I once saw a cache deface a corkboard! They drove a nail - sorry, pushed a pin - into the corkboard to hide a geocache hanging amongst other very thin slices of wood that were weathered and fluttering naturally in the wind, and people had even defaced those by writing on them, and actually using them for personal gain, like selling things, looking for things, and announcing things! Couldn't believe mine eyes...

Well, at least I found the cache. :P

:ph34r:

Link to comment

I once saw a cache deface a corkboard! They drove a nail - sorry, pushed a pin - into the corkboard to hide a geocache hanging amongst other very thin slices of wood that were weathered and fluttering naturally in the wind, and people had even defaced those by writing on them, and actually using them for personal gain, like selling things, looking for things, and announcing things! Couldn't believe mine eyes...

Well, at least I found the cache. :P

:ph34r:

:laughing:

 

Before somebody attacks this one.....

 

That would not be dafacing because once removed all trace of the cache, or this case clue, would be gone. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

HAHA if we all follow all the rules 100%

then go out and disable 90% of all caches..

:blink:

Not here.

 

You hide right or you don't hide it. We don't want the game banned around here and everyone is and does watch you here. Just because some cacher play fast and loose wiht the rules, doesn't make it right.

 

I essentially agree with you, but being from Europe like OZ2CPU I know that geocaching is quite different in most European countries. (The situation is not the same all over Europe - e.g. UK and the Netherlands have more rules than e.g. the German speaking countries and the Scandinavian ones).

 

Some types of defacement are what the local cachers in the mentioned areas regard as perfectly normal since it is what they encounter every day - so it is not a issue of a few not willing to follow some rules (which do exist in every system).

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Just go and hug some trees to make up and it will all be good.

 

@ Cezanne: It's no use tryin to explain to them how bendable the rules are, because if you bend the rules in the US, you will get shot, pepper sprayed or tasered. (Or blown up)

 

Edited, so I don't get pepper sprayed, shot or tasered.

Edited by Otis.Gore
Link to comment

There is a huge issue with nails than didn't seem to be mentioned yet (Can't believe it), which has nothing to do at all with permission.

 

I'd rather see a part of the dead tree cut out and altered for hiding purpose than seeing a nail in a tree. Of course, a tree thats alive should not be harmed either way. But even if the tree is dead...

 

...nails do not belong into nature, they can be extremly dangerous for animals.

Edited by Kochibu
Link to comment

There is a huge issue with nails than didn't seem to be mentioned yet (Can't believe it), which has nothing to do at all with permission.

 

I'd rather see a part of the dead tree cut out and altered for hiding purpose than seeing a nail in a tree. Of course, a tree thats alive should not be harmed either way. But even if the tree is dead...

 

...nails do not belong into nature, they can be extremly dangerous for animals.

Although it a good point, again that has nothing to do with why you can't do it.

 

THE GUIDELINES SAY DON'T DO IT. (unless it's your tree)

Link to comment

I'm afraid to ask a follow up question after seeing so many tangent arguments. But what the heck, I will.

 

I've seen fake rocks placed in public places. Those were objects that were altered (or created) to hide a cache, but I gather they're OK with most people because no previously existing objects were altered to hide the cache. The fake rock hides the cache but it is essentially part of the cache.

 

So now, I have tons of short cut stumps - basically for firewood but they haven't been split yet. If I carved a hiding spot out of the stump and then placed the stump in a public place (out of the way, obviously) then how is that any different than the fake rock hiding spots? Seems to me that since the carved out stump wasn't there to begin with, you can't argue that I defaced anything that was already there. Plus, like the fake rocks, nobody passing by would know anything fake was there. The only difference I see would be the size of the stump compared to those small fake rocks I've come across.

 

P.S. I don't have the tools or skills to do any of this. I'm just curious.

Link to comment

The guidelines also say to obtain permission.

 

With thousands of caches existing without permission, it's easy to see why the guidelines are not taken seriously. Plenty of land managers don't mind nails in trees, whether they are dead or alive. It's odd that when caches are listed on private commercial property the reviewers always assume permission has been granted. Then a cache gets listed with a nail in a dead tree and the defacement guideline is cited. Some of those hides have permission.

 

It appears that some of the guidelines are really written under the assumption that other parts of the guidelines will be ignored. :huh:

Link to comment

I've seen fake rocks placed in public places. Those were objects that were altered (or created) to hide a cache, but I gather they're OK with most people because no previously existing objects were altered to hide the cache. The fake rock hides the cache but it is essentially part of the cache.

 

So now, I have tons of short cut stumps - basically for firewood but they haven't been split yet. If I carved a hiding spot out of the stump and then placed the stump in a public place (out of the way, obviously) then how is that any different than the fake rock hiding spots?

Fake rocks are acceptable because the containers belong to you. Similarly, carved out stumps also are acceptable, as long as you own them. Take one of your firewood stumps, carve a hole for a cache, place it in a public forest, and you probably won't have any problem getting it published.

Link to comment

Which raises the point about "perception to the public" being a reason for the rule - how would they know if a carved out stump was there before, or created and placed there?

The carved out stump is not going to be rooted in the ground.

If it's camouflaged to look like a stump it will (appear to) be. You missed the point though - if creating an object that is intended to hide as a natural object in its otherwise natural location is ok, but using an object from that location and doing the same thing is not, then the argument that it's about "perception to the public" doesn't hold...

 

Not that I disagree with the point, but interesting questions and examples were raised in this thread. Just continuing discussion...

 

Putting a nail in a dead tree is not ok (because of the perception geocaching may have to the public)

But putting a nail in a tree that was yours which you've fashioned at home and placed in the same location - is that ok? (because perception to the public would be exactly the same)

Carving out a notch in a log just off a trail in which to hide a cache is not ok (because of the perception it gives)

But carving out a notch in a log of your own at home, then placing it just off the trail - is that ok?

 

I've seen examples of all four cases... so, is "perception to the public" a universal guideline?

IMO, it's another one of those "spirit of the guidelines" situations <_<, which is then open for much interpretation and contextual judgement depending on who you talk to or which reviewer you get.

 

Which is to say, the easiest, safest, and quickest way to progress is to follow the guideline instead of 'testing the waters', as it were.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Which raises the point about "perception to the public" being a reason for the rule - how would they know if a carved out stump was there before, or created and placed there?

The carved out stump is not going to be rooted in the ground.

 

But it might look like it was...some people can do awesome things in their woodshops

 

hmmmm....crosspost

Edited by Otis.Gore
Link to comment

today I found a cache, under a water drain in the road, a puplic road,

to get to the cache, you must offcourse lift up the iron top part..

nothing is altered, just playing with stuff that is allready there,

its form and function is left unharmed, at least for now..

 

come on, it just cant be all in a forest, under that same old tree stub,

this game can be played in the city also, you just need to be a little smarter,

and still try to follow all the good rules.

Link to comment

Which raises the point about "perception to the public" being a reason for the rule - how would they know if a carved out stump was there before, or created and placed there?

The carved out stump is not going to be rooted in the ground.

If it's camouflaged to look like a stump it will (appear to) be. You missed the point though - if creating an object that is intended to hide as a natural object in its otherwise natural location is ok, but using an object from that location and doing the same thing is not, then the argument that it's about "perception to the public" doesn't hold...

When the person lifts the stump to look at the carved hole underneath it, they will realize the stump is not rooted in the ground.

 

While driving a nail or screw into a live tree probably will be perceived poorly by some people, not every natural object in a natural location is going to be similarly perceived. If you drill a hole in a rock to insert a bison tube, then it's unlikely that many will frown upon that. As long as you own the rock, Groundspeak likely will publish it.

Link to comment

I'm afraid to ask a follow up question after seeing so many tangent arguments. But what the heck, I will.

 

I've seen fake rocks placed in public places. Those were objects that were altered (or created) to hide a cache, but I gather they're OK with most people because no previously existing objects were altered to hide the cache. The fake rock hides the cache but it is essentially part of the cache.

 

So now, I have tons of short cut stumps - basically for firewood but they haven't been split yet. If I carved a hiding spot out of the stump and then placed the stump in a public place (out of the way, obviously) then how is that any different than the fake rock hiding spots? Seems to me that since the carved out stump wasn't there to begin with, you can't argue that I defaced anything that was already there. Plus, like the fake rocks, nobody passing by would know anything fake was there. The only difference I see would be the size of the stump compared to those small fake rocks I've come across.

 

P.S. I don't have the tools or skills to do any of this. I'm just curious.

Basically if carry it in and when the cache is longer in service can carry it out and the area look the same, you're good.

Link to comment

Which raises the point about "perception to the public" being a reason for the rule - how would they know if a carved out stump was there before, or created and placed there?

 

When I hide a cache that might appear to violate the guidelines, (e.g. my own carved stump, using an existing hole) I mention on the cache page that I there was no guideline violation because I constructed the hiding place from my own materials, or used an existing terrain feature.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
If you drill a hole in a rock to insert a bison tube, then it's unlikely that many will frown upon that. As long as you own the rock, Groundspeak likely will publish it.

That's been debated/discussed before (not by me, but I've heard rumblings of that method) and it's the same thing - you're dissuaded from doing it to existing rocks at the location, but you have a better chance of it publishing if it's your own rock.

Umm? How would anyone know the difference? The cacher, the reviewers, or general populace?

Again, I'm not complaining, just presenting situations where reasonings presented above haven't remained completely feasible (other than that it's the spirit of the rule and decisions are made on a case by case basis)

 

When I hide a cache that might appear to violate the guidelines, (e.g. my own carved stump, using an existing hole) I mention on the cache page that I there was no guideline violation because I constructed the hiding place from my own materials, or used an existing terrain feature.

Right, but that doesn't address the 'general populace' factor as described earlier in the thread, and other threads (eg, the no burying caches rule which has been beaten with a dead horse, or something like that :P )

That is, the geocaching population can be clearly informed, but the muggle population that doesn't read any disclaimer can still get the 'wrong idea' about the geocaching activity.

Link to comment
If you drill a hole in a rock to insert a bison tube, then it's unlikely that many will frown upon that. As long as you own the rock, Groundspeak likely will publish it.

That's been debated/discussed before (not by me, but I've heard rumblings of that method) and it's the same thing - you're dissuaded from doing it to existing rocks at the location, but you have a better chance of it publishing if it's your own rock.

Umm? How would anyone know the difference? The cacher, the reviewers, or general populace?

The point is that not all natural-object hides are going to give geocaching a bad reputation. It's not like a muggle who stumbles upon a bison tube inside a drilled rock is going to complain that the hiding method might kill the rock. So who really cares if the general populace doesn't realize that the rock came from elsewhere?

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

The point is that not all natural-object hides are going to give geocaching a bad reputation. It's not like a muggle who stumbles upon a bison tube inside a drilled rock is going to complain that the hiding method might kill the rock. So who really cares if the general populace doesn't realize that the rock came from elsewhere?

The point is, I have a friend who wanted to publish a rock hide, but was denied because he was putting a hole in a rock.

He had to take it to appeals for it to publish.

What is the reasoning the reviewers use for denying that style of hide? Damage to a rock? Damage to a rock that's not your own? Perception to non-cachers?

It's a complex judgement call, dealing each of these points, with results both for and against - whether it's a rock, tree, stump, or what have you.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

There is a huge issue with nails than didn't seem to be mentioned yet (Can't believe it), which has nothing to do at all with permission.

 

I'd rather see a part of the dead tree cut out and altered for hiding purpose than seeing a nail in a tree. Of course, a tree thats alive should not be harmed either way. But even if the tree is dead...

 

...nails do not belong into nature, they can be extremly dangerous for animals.

 

Hmm.. it leaves me wondering where the iron came from. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to comment

>but was denied because he was putting a hole in a rock.

 

you got to be joking !

man if I ever get my hands on a rock drill, you better watch out poor rocks out there :-)

why do you feel you need to inform the reviewer or the cache page about how the cache was made or hidden ?

just write small/micro or what ever,

no one is going to ask you.. eh did you alter any object at all ?

well you cant actually make or put a cache any where, with out altering any objects at all.

it is just like offcourse you cant damage or alter any object of value to any one,

even if it is you own rock or tree or box you paint.

funny they dont rephrase it a bit.

Link to comment

Why a forester uses nails? :ph34r:

 

Around here, they all do that. It doesnt hurt the tree as long its short.

But are they geocachers?

It's their job to put tags on trees.

It's not our job to put nails in trees to hide a cache.

Yes short nails won't damage a tree but why do it when there are other options like a wire hook around a branch?

Link to comment

Site guidelines aside:

 

My personal guideline is that when I place a cache and it eventually becomes archived, the day after I retrieve the cache if someone came looking for the cache, they would find no evidence that once had ever been there (and hopefully there would be less trash around the area than before the cache was there).

 

Nails in trees would not fit in my personal guideline.

Link to comment

Just a personal note on the topic...I've been working in civil engineering for the better part of 13 years and we commonly use large nails in trees as benchmarks. I've gone back on numerous occasions to old job sites to re-shoot the benches and assuming the tree hasn't consumed the end of the nail we can still use the benchmark and I have never seen a tree be adversely affected by a single nail. You can rest assured that if there were ever a problem with this practice, we surely would have found out by now.

 

Now, multiple nails in wood presents an issue. I am talking on the order of hundreds of nails. I've seen many power poles with wood that is falling completely apart where people have posted garage signs and the like. Something about the rusting metal of hundreds of nails and staples in the wood causes the wood to weaken tremendously. I've seen wood on a power pole get so screwed up that the bottom broke completely off at ground level. I pushed on a pole once and the bottom swung out about 2 feet. The only thing holding the pole vertical was the dozen or so wires up top. You could say I needed to change my undies when that happened. I am not sure if the same phenomena happens in wood of a live tree or not. This may be happening because the wood is dead...

 

I am not going to debate the rules and how to interpret them just sharing my experiences.

 

-Dave

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...