Scientists wear & tear canopy trails: Atlas Grove

A few of you have read a page of mine already, although probably in it's infancy:

http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

Parts of it grew into a another page about potential canopy impact from recreational and research climbers:

http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_climbing.shtml [/quote]

This thread could have had a question mark originally, because the page is intended to remain more or less neutral.

Chime-in.

Cheers,

M. D. Vaden


Iluvatar's base

Scientist or not, those are some of the most famous and well known trees, and they want to climb them because of it. I agree, there needs to be some self control exhibited by these guys, these trees do not need to be climbed yearly for research reasons, every 20 years is even pushing it without a good reason. What makes these trees so spectacular, is all the things that go on their canopy, and by chasing their desires to see these amazing sites, they will most certainly disturb them, and possibly in the end cause their destruction. It sounds like blind ambition to me.

Wyatt Harrison wrote:

Scientist or not, those are some of the most famous and well known trees, and they want to climb them because of it. I agree, there needs to be some self control exhibited by these guys, these trees do not need to be climbed yearly for research reasons, every 20 years is even pushing it without a good reason. What makes these trees so spectacular, is all the things that go on their canopy, and by chasing their desires to see these amazing sites, they will most certainly disturb them, and possibly in the end cause their destruction. It sounds like blind ambition to me.

Just two days ago, I zipped-off an email to the hesd dude at the Save the Redwoods league about this. Not in a complaining way, but just mentioning the matter for consideration, and acknowledging I know it may not even be something they could even handle.

I recall from The Wild Trees, Preston relaying Sillett's strong desire to know everything about how these trees function. And it is possible that the need for research has been affected by \"ambition\".

One thing I stated in the email, was that there seems to be a lack of professional tree experts who hold a neutral position with those trees as far as research or political stuff.

In one way, and I can't prove this, the research group can appear to have their own big tree climbing club, cloaked under the guise of \"research\" - but coupled with a true desire to learn of course.

Scientific inquiry requires long-term study. I don't agree with everything that every scientist does but I doubt that the presence of Sillett and associated researchers is going to be a more than a blip in the multi-thousand year lives of the specific redwoods they study. For rec climbers who are going up for their own enjoyment it makes sense to limit repeat climbs on trees with sensitive ground, understory and canopy habitat. I'm glad that Sillett et al are doing the research to open our eyes to the old-growth redwood story. I don't think we can conceive of the potential benefit to old-growth tall trees and humanity in general that may result from the research.

To address some of your specific points I don't think the researchers are saying that the trees they are studying are remaining \"pristine\". It's a basic conundrum of science: that by observing we change our subject. Of course there are going to be minor effects and artifacts (PVC pipe caches and a storage box in a cavity etc.) around their research area.

Just wondering, it might be useful to contact Dr. Sillett directly with your concerns (in a non-confrontational way) to hear his comments. The tone of your post suggests an axe to grind, not sure what it's about but it's there.
-moss

mdvaden wrote:

In one way, and I can't prove this, the research group can appear to have their own big tree climbing club, cloaked under the guise of \"research\" - but coupled with a true desire to learn of course.

Of course they have their own tree climbing club. Defacto they are part of a select group with federal permits to climb and do research. Good for them, how fortunate they are to be able to do this. Anyone is free to apply to the feds for a research permit to climb protected old-growth, right? Although you'd have to devote your career to science to do so.
-moss

I wonder why there is always this \"Us vs Them\" mentality in most of these discussions? Mario has a significant amount of knowledge of trees and their care in urban setting from his many years of arboriculture and forestry studies (I assume- http://www.mdvaden.com/) and I think that just because he asks a question for consideration by the scientific community there is not need to look for \"ulterior motives\" on his asking or \"having axes to grind\" w/ anyone.

Many of the questions people asks from our public officials, researchers and scientists forces them to think in a new way and to look for alternative ways of doing their work that many times encourages them to look at the alternatives and achieve the same or very similar results at a lower cost to the subject under study: be them human, bugs or trees.

I am sometimes amazed at how single minded we are in making a big deal about a small issue and miss the big picture in the end. Somebody steps on a fern and kills it and we make a big stink of it. On the other hand an entire country (Amazonia in Brazil) is being deforested daily under our own eyes and we do not think it is a big deal or raise our voice in protest against it. ( Look at the recent \"MTV makes mess in Panama article at the TCC site for example, where is the outrage?)

Humans have and will continue to have large impacts on the environment even if the current thinking is that they are \"natural cycles\". In the long run we are all interconnected and yes we impact the climate, the plants, the trees etc but many of the same scientific developments have saved lives and improved the standard of living of humans in general. So, no need to get into another heated debated about if large historic trees should or should not be climbed and let's concentrate our efforts to do it in a positive manner taking the maximum amount of care while doing it. Even including and consulting with some local arborist if we have too. We will be surprised how much love for the trees and dedication to their care is there in that community also.
Cooperation among the different groups is the key here: Humanity will be better for it at the end.

oldtimer wrote:

I wonder why there is always this \"Us vs Them\" mentality in most of these discussions? Mario has a significant amount of knowledge of trees and their care in urban setting from his many years of arboriculture and forestry studies (I assume- http://www.mdvaden.com/) and I think that just because he asks a question for consideration by the scientific community there is not need to look for \"ulterior motives\" on his asking or \"having axes to grind\" w/ anyone.

Mario has demonstrated a consistent adversarial stance against Wild Trees author Richard Preston and Sillett, it's on his web site and in his posts to the arborist forums. I am genuinely curious to know why Mario has taken this position. Some of my best climbing partners are working arborists, I have no issues with the arborist community at all.
-moss

Moss, with you posting in the arborist forum that I'm \"dissing\" or here about axes to grind, I'd guess that readers would not be looking my way when the term \"adversarial\" writing is introduced.

There is more to this than just permits.

Part of the matter is politics and financing too.

Sillett probably would not be the first name to pick out of a hat to discuss this.

When I contacted him mentioning that two of his photos were probably taken from the same angle, and that an Atlas Grove tree in one image, and another identifiable item in another image were probably 1/2 mile from each other (max), he responded that Atlas Grove was nowhere near the other thing. But it was close - about 3000 feet.

Ever heard the term \"core sample\" used in reference to a business or operation before? That communication was a core sample. Likewise with the fact that he pulled the image off the internet about 30 minutes after I emailed about it, prior to the rest of that communication. He would be a secondary or later down the line contact.

Actually, I suspect that little will change about how ancient redwoods are climbed in the near 10 years. But it seemed appropriate to toss the idea out there. Then it opens the door for several people to consider. To not bring it up, would be selfish, retaining the idea to a limited opinion.

This is not really similar, but reminds me of when I expressed on my website that I did not agree with Preston about Michael Taylor discovering Atlas Grove. And Moss, wasn't for that expression that you implied that I \"dissed\" Preston? This is interesting.

What I'd like people to realize here, is if I don't express what I am learning, folks like Moss don't make statements about me. But if I express facts about real experience, then their vocabulary changes.

Personally, I think when someone says I'm \"adversarial\" when they don't like me wpresenting a second opinion, I'd be wondering where the shoe really fits.

Moss, you don't understand why someone would write the actual facts on a webpage about an actual experience at a place, and how that experience compares to what someone wrote about it?

To other readers, regarding what Moss wrote here, and at other forums, I'd like to point out what some of you know, that Moss's illustrations were in the book The Wild Trees. And I'm assuming his business relationship and work were directly involved with Richard Preston. For some context, and your consideration.

Image: Groovy redwood next to Screaming Titans

mdvaden wrote:

Moss, with you posting in the arborist forum that I'm \"dissing\" or here about axes to grind, I'd guess that readers would not be looking my way when the term \"adversarial\" writing is introduced.

I'm cool with taking a position, it is adversarial. It's not personal, I'm interested in the full story as well. I still don't understand your resentment towards Preston and Sillett. Re: my Wild Trees work: you'd be amazed at how little money I made for the hours I put into the Wild Trees maps and illustrations. Not to complain, I was paid fairly for an unknown and unproven non-professional illustrator. It was a great experience and a labor of love. I get no residuals etc. everything I've done was work for hire. I have no current business relationship with anyone involved, My opinions are my own, I'm an independent-minded person. As always,
-moss

mdvaden wrote:

There is more to this than just permits.

Part of the matter is politics and financing too.

Well lay it out then, it's tough to work with hints and innuendo. It takes an open discussion to figure it all out.

Is your main point that tree researcher's are endangering redwoods? Or that tree researchers are using their status as cover to have fun in tall trees?

The pursuit of scientific careers or any careers for that matter has always involved politics. Politics is trying to get along with others in part to achieve your goals. Are you saying that you'd like to climb these redwoods as a researcher but can't because you don't have the finances or the political capital to pull a permit? I imagine that Sillett has spent quite a bit of time and energy over many years getting to the point where he was legally allowed to climb these trees and do research. More power to him for succeeding at it.
-moss

mdvaden wrote:

Right now, it's not the general public impacting the ancient redwood canopies, but the scientists. And I've got no beef with them climbing in the redwoods for research. Just putting the brakes on a bit and moving around a lot more to other old trees where maybe growth is just beginning for canopy life, rather than established with the heaviest accumulations.

Mario, I'm just re-reading your original post to get a handle on what your issue is with Sillett and other old-growth researchers. You're hinting at it here. My guess is that they are focusing on specific trees and re-climbing them to maintain canopy instruments that are in place and to gather samples and document on a continuing basis to provide the greatest scientific value implementing a consistent method (limiting the variables by staying in a specific canopy context). I don't know the details of all of the studies they have going on but it appears there is value in doing the studies in the older trees that do have the most accumulation of canopy material (epiphytes, organic detritus, other plant forms, animal forms etc.). Clearly there is going to be wear and tear from their movements in and around these specific trees. If they continuously shift studies to different trees then there would be a net increase in destructive effects. It makes sense to limit their efforts to specific locations, I think.
-moss

mdvaden wrote:

We could monitor the growth of a redwood by just climbing it every 20 or 100 years. Actually, if they would put but just one little speck of paint or teeny marker on the top leader, it could be a reference point. If needed at all. Careful comparison of photos can even use limbs of previous years for reference, which means that photos can be take from other nearby trees with zoom lenses to spread the wear and tear to other trees.

I covered this somewhat in the last post but want to mention that redwood growth rates are one point of research, I imagine they are looking at all parts of the redwood old-growth ecosystem.

But what I really get from your comments is that you have ideas and want to be involved in old-growth research. There is a rich history of citizen science, citizen scientists have been and still are great contributors to the body of natural history knowledge. For instance the Eastern Native Tree Society has a great group of scientists and non-scientists working together to document and quantify many aspects of old-growth ecology. There is a huge amount of work to be done finding, measuring and studying the rich conifer ecosystems in the western U.S. old-growth. ENTS member Bob Van Pelt is a key figure in this effort in the PNW. Sillett has his niche well covered but what about the rest of it? It seems there are many opportunities to get involved.
-moss

For those reading this post, here's the best example I can think of to convey why I wrote one step further than just a passive piece of information.

Many of you know about Stout Grove - right? It's - like - famous. (I could just as easily use a little known grove, but using one people are familiar with seems to help paint a mental image).

Now ... suppose I just happened to notice something unusual about a few trees back in the perimeter of Stout Grove, and did some measurements for the first time. What if one was really big and unnoticed, and I gave it a name. What would you think if I wrote about it, that I discovered \"Saturn Tree\" and \"Saturn Grove\", referring to the same stand of trees as Stout Grove.

Hello !!

What if someone else wrote that I discovered and \"bushwhacked\" into \"Saturn Grove\" - when in reality it is \"Stout Grove\".



What if it was Lady Bird Johnson Grove, and I wrote of it as discovering \"Gemini Grove\", off in the \"uncharted\" hidden valleys of Redwood National Park?

Even if it was a small memorial grove of nearly unknown status - same basic deal.

And if nobody is ever told where it is or how to get there ..... ? Wouldn't that be convenient.

Now, this is the nature of of the Atlas Grove story, as told by R. Preston.

I understand your point. However, could there be studies taking place, which require measurements of new growth or sap/cone analysis near the top in successive growing seasons or even throughout a season to understand the affects of weather conditions?

As you said, though, there are plenty of trees to chose from and I'm sure many studies don't require one particular champion for their subject.

I guess the people actually doing this research are better qualified to answer this than I am!

Michael

Mario,

Some observations:

Do you actually climb? I checked your website and it seems like almost all of your work is on or near the ground - landscaping etc. The only mention or photo of climbing I saw was of a crew from Roots and Shoots, whom you \"enlisted\" help from as the caption says, to remove a Birch. I also see you list your tree climbing skill (in your profile here) as novice. I would hope that a novice would NOT be climbing important trees for the sake of research. As a mere novice myself, I would leave that work to experts.

I see you are a public speaker. Are your posts posts intended to gain public opinion for research for your speaking, or are you indeed looking to enlist help in protecting valuable, historic trees?

You seem argumentative at times - let me offer a bit of advice - Don't make it personal, because it's not. Facts are facts, no matter who posts them - even if you don't like the person, facts are facts. Opinions are like farts...Terrible at first, but later-on everyone forgets all about them. As a NOVICE climber, I read all the posts before I offer an opinion about something. Especially as a very first post on a new board. I've learned a lot of VERY important things by listening to the advice given by expert TCI climbers who have been around a lot longer than me (and you).

I haven't been around tree climbing for a very long time, but I HAVE been around rope rescue for over 25 years. And forums? Lots of them. Rescue (rope, wilderness, and otherwise), firefighting, wilderness survival, backpacking, and many others. If you are indeed looking to enlist help for the trees, try not to alienate the very people you are looking to for that help. It's great to be passionate about something - but if you argue with every detail of someone else's posts, you tend to get labeled as a troublemaker. I've seen people kicked off of other forums for behavior like that, and that doesn't help anyone. We need to learn all we can from experienced and passionate people like yourself.