I believe that Leon has the right idea.

If I recall correctly, none other than Don Blair, in his excellent book "Arborist Equipment," strongly recommends screw _link_s because of their safety. (I sure hope I'm remembering correctly--I don't have a copy handy).

If a list is going to be made of acceptable life-support devices, it seems they should be ranked in order according to safety (not convenience, or cost, or color, etc.). That seemingly would force screw _link_s to the top of the list.

Of course, several sources (e.g., web sites for accredited rescue operations, ANSI) must be investigated in order to create the ranked list.

However, at the risk of being accused of throwing a monkey wrench into the works, I again must strongly encourage everyone to consider what would be done here by such specificity: Once we write such details in these STANDARDS, it must be assumed that every standard will be specific and comprehensive.

That means that we can leave no stone unturned--every word in the document must be examined carefully. This will mean an incredible amount of work, probably not possible by a group of loosely organized (no offense!) volunteers who don't have unlimited time and unlimited resources.

Then, before acceptance, the document must carefully be reviewed by people who really know what they are doing--experts with our technology, our practices, and with the law. Now we're almost talking about unlimited money.

Why need we do that? Because then we will have a document that can be used in a court of law. Well, why do we need that? Because it unfortunately probably, at some time, will have to be used there. You can guess why.

I have grave concerns that, as the result of our laudable desire to have a fine document, we are headed down a very slippery and dangerous slope . . . being supported only by some old cotton sash cord and one non-locking carabiner.

It's one thing to have discussions, and make recommendations, about issues such as carabiners on a board such as this; it is another entirely different thing to openly publish those recommendations as standards recommended by a recognized group.

I strongly suggest that this commission regroups and considers its purpose and goals.

Question: Do we really want a comprehensive and rigorous set of legally airtight standards, or do we want a set of guidelines that will enhance our avocation? Your choice.

I think that, in this case, less is more.

Respectfully--

Jim