Peak bagging, real or myth?

A climber from the PNW mentioned on the Aboristsite rec climbing forum that peak bagging is on the rise in that area. Any comments from climbers out that way? Is it real or is it a negative myth that gets reinforced as "truth" through retelling?
-moss

What is peak bagging? I would think some of those peaks out that way are too big to put in a bag...

Good one crtreedude

I'll lay out a definition as I know it...

Peak bagging is a mountaineering term for setting goals of climbing to the top of particular mountains, usually the highest available in a particular area. Such as "I want to summit all of the mountains over 4500 ft. in one year in East Borneo. Translated to tree climbing it could be something like "I want to climb to the top of the tallest recorded tree in each state in the U.S."
-moss

I think that we had this discussion about six months back and we agree that most Recreational tree climbers do it for the fun of it regardless of how high the tree is. They talked about "TreeTime" and how most of us do not care too much about how many we climb but rather the amount of fun we had at each climb. Yes, I would love to climb some huge trees but them again what is the point? Some of the ones we did in the Oregon Rendezvous this year were well over 200 ft tall and we visited the Giant Sequoias in Norther CA that are over 250 to 300 ft tall and could be 3000 years old. Majestic and Challenging for sure. If you ever have a chance to see the Tickle the Sky video or the Bogachiel Spruce Climb it will give you a good idea of the level of difficulty and the challenge of climbing some of those giants. You can get both videos from New Tribe or Sherrills Supplies
Climb on!

I guess this would kind of include me being when I rec. climb, I will only climb trees that are over 80' but preferably over 100'. But being in NJ 100'+ trees aren't all that common. You kinda have to really look.

Moss and all,
I think that was me on Arborist site and I am positive that the peak bagging mentality is alive and well.

I say- stay out of all record trees, trees with signs, trees in the public eye.
frankly I don't think that my preaching will help much. People will seek out the special trees to climb just because they are special.
Climber020 is a self procalimed example of this tendency -no offense there.

Personaly I don't see that the big ones are all that hard to climb in most cases. If you ve got the gear and a bit of know how and attitude its basically easy to climb the biggest trees.

I have yet to encounter anything like the route finding and first ascent risks that are inherrant in rock climbing or mountaineering in tree climbing usng current methods.

I hoe that this post gets some responses...i love to stir the pot!
Scott

Hi Scott, yup that was you on Arboristsite

I think what climber020 is doing is not peak bagging. He's trying to find big trees to climb. It's fun and exciting to get way up there, nothng wrong with wanting to climb high. I think peak bagging is as you describe, going after say the tallest tree in the state for a given species or historic or landmark trees. That is clearly a potential problem and should be discouraged IMHO.

I like climbing in the woods away from the public eye but think there is a role for rec climbers to play climbing in public and showing how safe it can be for the climber and the trees.

I think we all can agree that the challenge is in the tree not the height. Oldtimer expressed it well. I've climbed some very challenging smallish trees, I'm sure many of you have. Big hardwoods can have unique challeges compared to smaller specimens. Depending on the species the canopy structure can present some interesting puzzles and up the ante on danger.

Agreed that most of the rock climbing first ascent, and blazing new routes stuff barely applies and that's good. Helps to lower the ego factor. The challenges are very different, different paradigm.

Thanks for checking in Scott,
-moss

One problem that I've discovered with "the tallest tree" of a certain species in a particular state is that, often as not, it really ain't the biggest and baddest one.

For example, the folks around Highlands, North Carolina, are quite adament that a tulip poplar a couple of miles southeast of town is the tallest of that species in that state.

It ain't so! I've climbed four or five in the southern Appalachians around the Carolinas and Georgia that would put the Highlands tree to shame.

I think a more appropriate "game" for those of us who're into adventure, research and educational treeclimbing would be to find trees of specific species which break that state's record. It seems to me that a goal of this sort would be far more enjoyable -- if for no other reason that the biggest and tallest trees are often way back in the woods and well off the beaten paths. Who wants to climb a tree while there are a bunch of blue-haired ol' ladies at the base with their binoculars, trying to "bag" that silver-throated purple leaf warbler which they've been seeking for twenty years...?

Have you hugged your trees today,
Wild Bill from Dawsonville
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Scott- Are you from the north west area? I could see more of this peak bagging with the tall trees. Tall trees = big ego to some climbers I imagine. Probably something not all that important to most tree climbers or they would be climbing impossible rock routes to get the status often needed by some climbers.

State champions are on the same level with national champion trees in my view. I have climbed champion trees in the past, but always with permission from the owners or governmental managers. I was doing photo articles and articles, which I used as a reason for climbing these giant trees and gaining access.

Older trees are indeed more fragile- just like old people. They can easily be over climbed and abused. I keep my favorite trees secret and share them only with people who are skilled climbers and tree lovers.

First ascents has a draw for me at times. Knowing I am the first climber up a certain tree has me going for harder trees to climb. These trees are very often not the biggest however. Their location DOES have meaning to me at times, like over water, near a ridge line, etc.

Maybe it all comes down to meaning. What does it mean to climb? What are you looking to get out of it? Adventure, challenge, exercise, getting off the ground, birding, sharing with others, risk.....and on and on and on. Different strokes for different folks. "Why do you climb" is is a common question asked by those who do not climb. No doubt there are a number of reasons why a climber would focus on the largest and oldest trees to climb.

So I'll ask that question. Why would a climber focus on climbing landmark or champion trees? What's the draw? Surely climbers don't "notch" their ropes after bagging a big 'un.

As per putting a "notch in you rope":
When either pruning or removing large tree to I fill this. Not for rec. climbs do I. I prefer larger trees for rec. climbing because of the view. The heigher you are the more pieceful it is.

I also tend to pick out bigger trees for the view. Get off the ground, you leave the ground behind. Get well into the canopy, you occupy a different world. Poke out above the canopy, and everything just opens up. Some days I climb for that.

The longer the route, the more stamina it takes to get there. For me, being strong is as much a part of climbing as the skill and fun of it. Better cardio if you keep it going. And ain't the rapelling a hoot when it's a long way down!
So tie in high. Don't just look good. Be STRONG!

i think there is a little confusion here about peak bagging. as i understand it, peak bagging is climbing trees of special mention: the one tallest or largest of a given species. for instance, peak bagging giant sequoias would be climbing the general sherman or the general grant.

this is not to be confused with hunting down and climbing the biggest, tallest or best tree you can find in a given stand of timber. the type of trees that fall under peak bagging probly have trails devoted to them, or plaques next to the tree or are mentioned in books or the national register of big trees as being the greatest of its species.

i think the other thing that distinguishes rec climbing from peak bag-climbing is that rec climbing is done for the fun of it, while peak bag is done for no other purpose than for that person to say, "I climbed the Generic Giant Tree"

I think you are more on target Sitka. It's the famous trees that are sometimes targets for climbing and in my opinion should be avoided because they are already impacted by people that know about them.

I would think climbing a famous tree should be avoided - after all, if too many people do it, it won't even be a tree anymore.

As has been said, there are plenty of huge trees out there - discover them, climb them and enjoy.

Oh, here, a 100 foot tree is a baby...

We have a 200+ foot Ceiba on the property - and serveral 150 foot trees like Caobillas, etc. Not all that interesting to climb because you don't get to the first limb for 100+ feet. Just climbing rope more than climbing a tree.

The views are incredible though.

I prefer to climb the younger trees truthfully - an 80 year old tree is OLD in the tropics. You start climbing it, and it might just come to meet you. They rot from the roots usually. The tree can look pretty good to a Northerner.