Michael, I started from the ground at the base of the tree and got a reading up to about 80'. When I got that limb I took another measurement, and so forth up the tree. When we got to the top I spent 5 or so minutes trying to get a reading all the way to the ground. I couldn't do it, so passed the device to Robert. In the first 30 seconds he got a reading of 158', so we took that added a final measurement of 5' from his \" measuring perch\" to the top of the tree, subtracted a foot just to keep it honest, and
voilà ! 162 feet.
Robert and I had climbed this tree several months ago and didnt think about the height until we were at the tippy top. He dropped his throwline
until it he could \"feel\" that it had hit the ground, then we tied a knot at that spot in the throw line. On the ground, we walked out the throwline, laid it next to my climbing line, then went, \" well, my climbing line is a 150, and that is about 10' shy of knot, sooo\" and we called the tree a 160'. The measurement didn't inspire much confidence and seemed a little too good to be true. That's why I wanted to bring something a tad more precise.
I'm with you about everyone not being able to teach themselves. I firmly believe that some one that needs an instructor to learn will either find a good instructor, or they just won't climb.
I love that tree!
love
nick
Would you like a lanyard spliced up, or anything else for that matter??? Give me a call- 323-384-7770 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.