Natural Anchor Practice

So looking through a new anchor book I have purchased it shows a natural tree anchor that is simply a sling girth hitched around a tree. Is this actually used as an anchor? To me it simply seems like a piece of protection as there is no redundency in the system. I would not want to use this as an anchor at all.

It also shows a cordelette wrapped around a tree with a figure-8 on a bight tied to make a master point. This seems much safer as it is redundant but is still only two pieces, not three, which I was under the impression it optimal. Is it general practice to belay from this system?

The internet is not the place to learn anchor building, so I probably shouldn't be responding, but...

There are several ways to attach to a tree; girth hitching a sling is one way to do it. It has pluses and minuses (as with just about everything else in anchor building) that I won't get into. You are right - it is not a proper i.e. SRENE anchor in and of itself, but can be one component of an anchor. If the tree is big and solid, it MIGHT be all you need. But redundancy is required, and the tied cordelette you refer to is a common, efficient means to provide that.

John Tex wrote:a cordelette wrapped around a tree with a figure-8 on a bight tied to make a master point. This seems much safer as it is redundant but is still only two pieces, not three

A tree is still only one piece of protection (not two), no matter how many slings or cordalettes you tie around it. If it's a fatty (6+" in diameter), well rooted tree I am fine with girth hitching and belaying off of it, but to each their own. I feel fine using a girth hitch in a situation where the cord i'm hitching doesn't run across any sharp edges or move back and forth across rock, etc.

I think the redundancy your anchor book is talking about refers to the number of protection points you build into your anchor, not the number of slings tied to each one or how you tie them. I.e., would you consider a single small cam or micro nut redundant even if you tied three slings to it?

Might not be a bad idea to hire a guide for an anchor building clinic day.

I use two slings, and two lockers around a very secure tree.

If the tree is secure (i.e. big and well rooted--shake it a look at the roots) I just sling the tree with the rope. Quick, fast and boomproof.

TEX, if you wont trust a tree as an anchor, maybe climbing is not the best sport for you.

If you think about it, some.

A single cord around a tree is an extremely common anchor. Most people use a 6" rule for tree thickness, but you'll see people use trees much smaller. Unless the tree is half hanging off a cliff, there's no reason why a single tree wouldn't be extremely solid for an anchor. Like stated above, there's numerous ways to use trees as anchors and all of them have perks. An anchor clinic is highly recommended. Books are great starting points, but there no replacement for personal instruction from certified guides.

Max Forbes wrote:A single cord around a tree is an extremely common anchor. Most people use a 6" rule for tree thickness, but you'll see people use trees much smaller. Unless the tree is half hanging off a cliff, there's no reason why a single tree wouldn't be extremely solid for an anchor. Like stated above, there's numerous ways to use trees as anchors and all of them have perks. An anchor clinic is highly recommended. Books are great starting points, but there no replacement for personal instruction from certified guides.

One of the more dismaying developments in climbing is the fetish for certification. It is a common problem in our society in general--way too often certification can simply be a way of setting in concrete conventional wisdom that ain't--but it really goes against the grain about what drew me to climbing in the first place. A bomber tree (if you can't figure that one out you're in trouble anyway, though I did have an confrontation at T-Wall one time with a guy 'who leads 5.12 in the gym' who evidently had the common sense portions of the brain removed in illegal medical experiments and couldn't. But then, he was also incapable of placing adequate cams in a perfect hand crack [Golden Locks]), girth hitched with a knotted (OMG!) 1" sling (I know, no one uses 1" webbing anymore, but if you really want over engineered components...) plus a locking biner is an anchor that was considered quite adequate when I came along. And I've used for decades with no worries. Yeah, it's not redundant, but if any of that goes (I'm assuming this is your own gear that you are familiar with and the history and examine regularly, but maybe that assumes too much with so many climbers now) then God had it in for you and there's not much you can do about that. If you want to get atom bomb proof safe then throw another sling and biner in the system. It really doesn't require a lot of thought or analysis or being blessed by someone certified to do so.

Tho' it does remind of an incident ~10 years ago(?) when a guide service/climbing school in ATL took their guides(!) out for a training session. The lead guide girth hitched a sling around a tree for a rap station and clipped the rope (with redundant biners) to the wrong end of the girth hitched sling. The first guide to go over the edge went right to the ground. 'Effed her up pretty bad. So much for 'certification', I'll go with common sense.

And two bomber pieces are plenty adequate for an anchor as well.

Jim Corbett wrote: One of the more dismaying developments in climbing is the fetish for certification. It is a common problem in our society in general--way too often certification can simply be a way of setting in concrete conventional wisdom that ain't--but it really goes against the grain about what drew me to climbing in the first place. A bomber tree (if you can't figure that one out you're in trouble anyway, though I did have an confrontation at T-Wall one time with a guy 'who leads 5.12 in the gym' who evidently had the common sense portions of the brain removed in illegal medical experiments and couldn't. But then, he was also incapable of placing adequate cams in a perfect hand crack [Golden Locks]), girth hitched with a knotted (OMG!) 1" sling (I know, no one uses 1" webbing anymore, but if you really want over engineered components...) plus a locking biner is an anchor that was considered quite adequate when I came along. And I've used for decades with no worries. Yeah, it's not redundant, but if any of that goes (I'm assuming this is your own gear that you are familiar with and the history and examine regularly, but maybe that assumes too much with so many climbers now) then God had it in for you and there's not much you can do about that. If you want to get atom bomb proof safe then throw another sling and biner in the system. It really doesn't require a lot of thought or analysis or being blessed by someone certified to do so. Tho' it does remind of an incident ~10 years ago(?) when a guide service/climbing school in ATL took their guides(!) out for a training session. The lead guide girth hitched a sling around a tree for a rap station and clipped the rope (with redundant biners) to the wrong end of the girth hitched sling. The first guide to go over the edge went right to the ground. 'Effed her up pretty bad. So much for 'certification', I'll go with common sense. And two bomber pieces are plenty adequate for an anchor as well.

I agree with everything you said. Perhaps I could have better stated my advice by revising it to say "from a certified guide or a close friend with proper experience." I do not mean at all to cast doubt on people without certifications, and in fact many of my training and mentorship has been from people with absolutely zero professional training whatsoever. My point is that reading a book is often not cast a complete look into every environmental variable, and in often cases as you mentioned above, the books "bare minimum anchor standards" as written by the AMGA are often MUCH more than whats needed. I have used thin trees and two bomber nuts in situations and felt extremely safe. Which is exactly why I think that a book doesn't to justice to real world situations and experience, but mearly provides a good baseline understanding to begin training. My statement was brief, and the first thing that came to mind was taking a class, but by no means reflects my entire opinion on the proper way to learn anchor construction.

5, 5, alive has always been my go to parameters for using a tree.

5 feet tall, 5 feet around, alive.

Obviously check to make sure it has a decent root system as well.

Tedk wrote:5, 5, alive has always been my go to parameters for using a tree. 5 feet tall, 5 feet around, alive. Obviously check to make sure it has a decent root system as well.

I'm guessing you meant 5 inches around, rather than 5 feet.

I've seen people sling a big tree -- 2 foot diameter trunk, 20+feet tall and back that up with a piece of gear. I've laughed -- if the tree goes, do they really think the little piece of metal is actually going to hold that tree?

I do, though, prefer to put two slings around the tree, just in case I rig one of the slings wrong, or the sling is worn, or especially since I tend to prefer knotted webbing for trees (keep sap, etc, off my sewn slings), in case there is a join in the webbing or something similar that I've missed.

Robert D. wrote:If the tree is secure (i.e. big and well rooted--shake it a look at the roots) I just sling the tree with the rope. Quick, fast and boomproof.

^^^^^^^ This

Don't forget to double check for Ents. They move around

John Tex wrote:It's not necessarily the tree that I worry about. That's just a judgement call on your part just as you have to judge the rock quality. It's more of the single sling. I know that in should and will work 99.99 percent of the time. But I was taught to always have at an absolute minimum to have at least 2 pieces if not three. Now on a tree I have used one sling before but I just don't feel right about it. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But in my opinion two seems necessary. Maybe I brushed up against the rock and snagged the sling a little. Maybe the sling gets cut by a branch or some bark on the tree. I understand that checking the placements for these things goes without saying but I also feel that it only takes one time to go plummeting over the edge. Why not throw an extra sling on there? I think of it like it's taught in avalanche study. If you go out X number of times and practice only X number of mitigation skills, your average lifespan will be X. I climb very often so I feel I should practice the safest skills so that I may live to climb another 60 years. Who knows what it could be that takes us out. Am I way to paranoid? Because it sounds like most people only use a single sling around a tree. I just figure a little redundancy never hurt I guess. How crazy am I?

If you feel it's necessary to use two slings, do it. There is virtually no downside to doing so and it is ultimately your decision to do what keeps you and your partner safe.

A single sling in good condition is absolutely and utterly fine for a tree anchor

For sharp rock horns however ... Double it up

A good condition newish sling wont break ... But they can get cut

Alot of what wastes time and gear for newish climbers is irrational fear ... If you want to climb somewhat lighter and faster, you need to conquer that

Fear (and inexperience/lack of climbing) is what causes you to waste time at belays and bringing up much more gear than what you need

;)

bearbreeder wrote:Alot of what wastes time and gear for newish climbers is irrational fear ... If you want to climb somewhat lighter and faster, you need to conquer that Fear ...

I am still in that category. Too much gear and too much time building anchors. But I am better at it this year than last year.

I would rap a single (good condition) web off a healthy tree. Climbing on it I would look for some redundancy. And how about the ghosting technique, where you have a knot that can come untied.

Climbing is risky, you can never remove all the risk. So it gets to become the practice of managing the risk until you reach an acceptable level of risk. Each of us has our own level of acceptable risk. Does not mean one is right and another wrong, just different.

And the true measurement of success is how long you live and the number of injuries you don't have.

John Tex wrote: But I was taught to always have at an absolute minimum to have at least 2 pieces if not three. Now on a tree I have used one sling before but I just don't feel right about it. Maybe I'm just paranoid. But in my opinion two seems necessary. Maybe I brushed up against the rock and snagged the sling a little. Maybe the sling gets cut by a branch or some bark on the tree.

When building a 3 piece anchor with a cordalette, do you use two cords?

When climbing a long route and rope brushes of the rock and edges do you climb with 2 ropes?

RNclimber wrote: When building a 3 piece anchor with a cordalette, do you use two cords? When climbing a long route and rope brushes of the rock and edges do you climb with 2 ropes?

No, but when I use a cord, I construct it in a manner that cutting of any one leg will not compromise the whole system. And many people do climb on two ropes for that very reason. People have died from having their rope severed. It is a rare event, but it is a reasonable fear in some circumstances.

I'm fine with a single sling or the rope around a solid tree if I can be reasonably sure there is nothing that will cut the rope. But, I'm not sure why people are so bent on convincing the OP that using two slings is such a bad practice. It's not like there is much, if any, of a downside. It might take all of 5 seconds longer and use one additional sling. If it makes the OP feel all warm and fuzzy, then go for it.

csproul wrote: No, but when I use a cord, I construct it in a manner that cutting of any one leg will not compromise the whole system. And many people do climb on two ropes for that very reason. People have died from having their rope severed. It is a rare event, but it is a reasonable fear in some circumstances. I'm fine with a single sling or the rope around a solid tree if I can be reasonably sure there is nothing that will cut the rope. But, I'm not sure why people are so bent on convincing the OP that using two slings is such a bad practice. It's not like there is much, if any, of a downside. It might take all of 5 seconds longer and use one additional sling. If it makes the OP feel all warm and fuzzy, then go for it.

Good point, but I have never pictured or even worried about any part of my cord being caught on anything or cut to compromise my 3 piece anchor. The reason I was taught or what I have always imagined regarding anchor failure would be a piece popping out or failing on its own. While I have never heard of people dying from their rope being severed while climbing, except for top ropping over an edge, I'm sure it has happened.

I don't think people here are bent over trying to convince the OP to NOT use two slings. In fact most of the response are actually geared toward using a tree as a one point anchor without redundency, and not about using two slings vs one. His first initial question was regarding just using a tree then later revising it about using two slings to be redundent around that said tree. The OP posted a question so off course people are going to state what they think he should do, along with what they do from their experience or what they have been taught.

Webbing tied with a water knot (ring bend), wrapped twice around the tree then an overhand tied to isolate each strand. Redundant and isolates your knot just in case you are too cheap to leave a tail and the water knot slips a bit.

I always have a back up for my back up whenever I build any anchor. It's not the fact I don't think a single component won't hold, but what if? Especially if others are going to be trusting my anchor. How would you cope if your wife/best friend/stranger trusted your rigging and they were seriously injured and/or died? When I go out I always set my own gear and climb on my own gear. It's a trust thing I guess. It's always a good day when your walking out.