Having recieved an e-mail from a Mr Karl Palsson (which i presume everybody on this list did), 
we thought a more scientifically based arguement for 'save-the-tree' anchors would be in order.
Firstly, a number of our 'regular' climbing crew are graduates / postgraduates from disciplines 
including environmental science, plant breeding, and land resource science.  (Basically, we 
can hold our own with respects to plants and environmental sustainability).  We unanimously 
agree that anchors that protect the trees from ringbarking are good.  Anyone with a basic 
understanding of tree biology will realise the consequences of a tree being damaged in such 
a way.  Initially, the tree will not die.  Instead, the roots and any lower limbs (below the 
ringbarking) will be starved of the assimilates produced through photosynthesis.  Water movement
will not be restricted from the roots to the top of the plant, as this occurs through another 
(deeper) type of plant tissue.  Thus, the tree will remain fully turgid and look healthy for 
a time......but under the ground it may be a different story.

What are the consequences of starving the roots of food?  They will die, which is kind 
of disturbing when considering that obviously these give the tree stability (and keep it 
from toppeling over with us roped to it).

Yeah, sometimes it could be hard to believe that simply pulling an unloaded rope from 
a tree could cause such damage.  However, any damage to the bark of a tree will at the 
very least offer a possible entry point for a range of little pathanogenic nasties.  
Just have a look for evidence of this at K-point.  How mant trees are showing at least 
some sign of die-back here?  Most we think.

Now, even if we just ignore the first part of this, let us consider a sport which is as 
dear to our hearts (well, nearly) as climbing......and maybe learn from experience.

Mountain Biking in SE Queensland has undergone an incredible popularity boom over the 
past decade.  Gone are the days when a ride at Gap Ck or Tooheys forest could pass without
crossing another group are riders.  While this is great in terms of increasing the sports
profile, there are always dickheads.  The result?  Tooheys forest (to name just one) is 
now largely forbidden for off-road riders due to the massive environmental impact (and 
neglect) that has occured because of increased traffic.  Other areas will undoubtedly 
follow.  Are we as climbers (and dickheads do climb as well) going to ignore the fact 
that traffic at our most beloved crags is on the increase?  Measures have to be taken 
to ensure that environmental impact is minimised, or access is inevitibly going to be lost.
OK, so the idea of going into the wilderness and launching up some horrible looking 
crack, only to find a protective anchor around the belay tree may detract a little from 
the overall experience.  But at popular crags such as frog, does anyone really believe 
they will be the first (or last) to follow that line?  And lets face it, if a tree is 
bomber enough for us top rap of it, then feeding the rope through a chain around that 
tree is hardly going to ruin the experience had.

WE ARE NOT TALKIN AT ALL ABOUT BUYING INTO THE BOLTS / NO_BOLTS WAR.  This is only our 
opinion on the validity of the tree anchors.  We are not talking about DBB's or anything 
to do with the whole trad vs rad arguement.  We are simply environmentally concerned 
citizens, and want to be climbing in SE QLD when we are old as well.

We hope this is taken in the spirit it was written.  If any of this can support your case, 
then great.  If you are sick of reading this, fine as well.  Just put the 5 of us down as 
save-the-tree anchor supporters.

Cheers mate, and keep up the good work,

AP
KC
JD
KP
GR