Doing more with less is an attractive concept, especially for the climbing arborist. It saves energy. Less weight leads to less physical exertion pulling ourself around the tree. It creates less confusion. It leads to moving and working more efficiently. But it also slices into the perplexing issue of generating multipurpose applicatios for gear which can ease the anxiety of what to take, and what to leave behind. As tree climbers, relieving the clutter can guide us to a more universal kit of climbing components. Although it may require sacrifice. As with similar personas of the alpine climber, the ultra-light backpacker, or the hermit: what are we willing to let go of in order to live, climb and trek more freely?

Of course, much of this discussion will be identity based, meaning that we must determine what type of climbing arborist we are, and what type of climbing we tend to do most of. Although nuanced, from this identity we can make more specific gear choices. Big tree climbers or small tree climbers, pruners or removers, utility clearers or utility hitters. A highly specialized setup may be most useful, or an extremely well rounded one might make more sense.

In my earlier days I was attracted to the idea of having a setup for everything, from pitchy, single-stemmed conifers to broad deciduous trees to crane assisted removals. Five or six separate bags was the norm. But the longer I work in the trade the more I gravitate to solve-all bag for everything. I try to remember the mantra: more with less. Although not always possible, this approach makes less of a debacle out of rummaging through the back of my truck looking for the perfect combination of systems, trading out knick knacks, and maybe most importantly avoiding the dread of realizing that you’ve forgot one piece of gear in your removal bag for a big prune.

I’d like to talk about saws first, because usually the reason we are going into the crown of a tree is to cut things. Not always, but it is very likely in most cases. So then, what is it that we will be doing with our saw? Cutting large hazardous deadwood, small diameter deadwood, or felling tops and blocking wood off of the spar? A saw can most definately be one of the heaviest pieces of gear that we carry depending on how we will be forced to deploy it. It’s also one of the most crucial if we plan on cutting anything. In this sense, we must consider the old concept of power-to-weight ratio, as well as how much we want to lower and raise a power saw aloft.

About 85 percent of what I do is pruning, so for me a sharp handsaw is one of the most valuable items in my bag. Also, I despise climbing with a chainsaw on my harness, simply because of the huge amount of weight and awkwardness it adds to me, as well as the added effort of sending it up and down every time I want to use it. I know arborists everywhere that mitigate this issue of weight and awkwardness by using lighter-model power saws, battery saws, lighter bars and more creative ways of storing the saw on the saddle. All that aside, a sharp handsaw for cutting up to diameters of 4 inches is a great way to save huge amounts of weight without sacrificing much efficiency. A weight difference upwards of ten pounds or more (when comparing a handsaw to a top held power saw), can be saved right from the start by leaving the powersaw on the ground and leaning on your handsaw for the duration of the climb. The tradeoff may be a little more physical effort in cutting for saving energy moving between cuts-as well as saving some fuel and noise pollution between jobs. The handsaw is not a replacement, or course, for the chainsaw, but it is a lightweight option and many times underutilized, eclipsed by the effort involved rather than illuminated by the freedom it can offer in terms of agile movement through the crown. Using more handsaw can offer enormous savings on weight. Plain and simple.

The actual material of the gear we use can have a big impact on the overall weight of a climbing system as well. Steel versus aluminum carabiners or bridge rings; the difference in steel and carbon fiber gaffs; rope construction and diameter; as well as personal protective equipment design and comfort. The question comes back to the concept of sacrifice, and if and where we are willing to sacrifice strength or longevity or performance in order to shave a few ounces.

Carabiners and mechanical multiscenders are an interesting topic. First, let’s consider some actual rope tending/life support systems for moving rope systems. For example, if we take a spiderjack (1.12 lbs) system and compare it to the zigzag (1.02 lbs.), we see a weight difference of a fraction of a pound. Let’s pair each system with 2 Climbing Technology Oval carabiners (0.181 pounds each). This doesn’t bring the weight up much, but it does add some (0.361 lbs). Do away with the mechanical device and consider a hitchclimber based system with the same aluminum oval carabiners, and there is a significant weight savings. For most people this could be negligible because of the incredible performance of the mechanical devices, but for the gram weeny it could be a big difference. It’s also important to consider that weight of these devices are often pulled tight between the climber and anchor under the force of gravity, until tending the system when the life line becomes slack. But it’s something to think about.

Let’s now consider a standard stationary rope system multiscender set up like a rope wrench (0.279lbs.)/prussic/hitchclimber (0.264lbs)/carabiner (DMM Rhino 0.176 lbs.) set up. Depending on what type of prussic cordage and stiff tether you choose to use in this set up, chances will be that you’re still weighing in under or just at a pound on the total system weight. A rope runner alone weighs 0.542 lbs. Coupled with an aluminum oval carabiner, you’re still well under a pound if you choose to go with a mechanical device configuration in a stationary rope system. Compared to the two mechanical device examples above in a moving rope system, a stationary rope system mechanical device system is lighter in terms of the Roperunner selection. But not by much. Pus, it also only requires one carabiner, freeing up a second carabiner to be deployed in some other aspect of the climbing system at large such as a redirect or other work-positioning application. So we gain a little bit of efficiency overall in the sense of required gear. Arguable I’m sure.

Rope is one of the most critical parts in any climbing system. Let’s consider some of the weights of popular climbing ropes per 100′ of length:

Yale Blue Moon (24-strand): 6.5 lbs./100′; Yale Blaze (24-strand): 6 lbs./100′; Teufelberger Tachyon (24-strand): 5.8 lbs./100′; KMIII Max (Kernmantle): 5.8 lbs./100′; Samson Velocity (24-strand): 5.6 lbs./100′; Yale Kernmaster (Kernmantle): 5.5 lbs./100′

Of course, there are plethora of climbing lines to choose from, but in the few examples I’ve provided we see the difference of a full pound at 100′ in length. It may seem arbitrary, but if you manage a lot of rope when you climb, at 100′ in height you could potentially save a full theoretical pound every time you manage that 100′ feet of rope just by selecting a specific rope. Day in and day out, over the course of a full year, that can easily add up to thousands of pounds saved just on pulling rope. On the contrary, I understand this too is an animal of preference, especially when we consider that certain ropes can only be paired with other critical gear such as ascenders, descenders, specific tech cordage and a diversity of mechanical devices. Also, rope stretch or elongation in a system is a huge make-or-break deal, so there’s that to consider as well along with what you’re gaining in weight savings. Of course, climbing style, route planning and other innovative initiatives while aloft can all affect how much rope we pull or manage throughout our careers, but rope choice can still provide a way to save weight while aloft no matter how we choose to look at it. Whether you’re willing to sacrifice ergonomics, elongation ratings or system compatibility for a few pounds will totally be up to the climber. Needless to say, no matter how you skin it, rope is an important choice, and there’s no doubt that a happy medium can be found between weight and performance.

Another touchy subject is the harness we choose to climb in. Let’s look at two popular choices that most people are familiar with: Teufelberger’s Treemotion (5.60lbs) and Petzl’s sequoia (Size 1 3.37 lbs.). Over two pounds in weight difference between each saddle, but what do we trade in longevity, performance, customization and fit? Strictly considering the choices under the scope of weight, the choice may seem clear, but that weight difference can also be made up for in how we configure other sections of our climbing system. Whether it be with lighter gaffs, a smaller chainsaw (or no chainsaw!), less carabiners and more multipurpose combination tools that can be deployed in multiple ways throughout the duration of a climb like creative slings and custom built redirects; there are seemingly endless ways to combine the gear options available to us in order to save weight on the things we are comfortable with sacrificing.

Last, but not least, I’d like to take a look at helmets, without any added features. Three popular choices follow: Kask Super Plasma (1 pound), Petzl Vertex vent (1.08 lbs), Pfanner Protos (2.15 pounds). Of course, by adding ear protection and eye protection (absolutely necessary) in the form of ear muffs, visors and face screens, the weight of this specific piece of PPE is bound to go up and practically unavoidable. Add the sophisticated feature of a bluetooth communication system and you add a few more ounces as well. But in reference to the few base models mentioned, the weight difference is undeniably noticeable. And just like everything else mentioned, it will be a matter of preference based on personalized performance.

We are lucky to be climbing trees in such modern times with some the most revolutionized tools at our disposal. There is no proper formula for the thousands of individuals out there in production arboriculture. Just as we all have different outlooks on life and business, we can have different outlooks on the gear we choose as well. All things considered, I do think it’s possible with a bit of creative thinking for everyone to shave a little bit of weight off of their current set-up, even if it’s only for specific situations when the opportunity arises. I think it is also an interesting challenge, to do less with more, become a little more free in the canopy, so that we can spread our wings and perhaps fly a little higher and float a little lighter.

Like Michael Scott said, “You have no idea how high I can fly.”

*All product weights were researched at www.treestuff.com’s website except for the Pfanner Protos weight which was researched on Pfannercanada’s site Pfannercanada.ca