Scientists wear & tear canopy trails: Atlas Grove

My last post refers to Mario's original post, if anyone's wondering why it doesn't seem to follow on!

Regarding the Stout Grove example, as far as the trees are concerned, it doesn't really matter who discovered them first. It's like fleas arguing over who first discovered the dog on which they're sitting! So what if someone discovered Atlas Grove before Taylor and thought \"these are some of the biggest trees on Earth\". What matters is that when Taylor discovered it he acted on his discovery and it led to a lot of knowledge being gained.

If someone contacts the people doing the research in a particular grove, saying that they've discovered the same grove beforehand, then how do the researchers know that it isn't just some ambitious tree climber trying to get confirmation that they have found the famous one. Of course they are going to want to deny that it's the same grove to protect it's location.

Michael

michaeljspraggon wrote:

Regarding the Stout Grove example, as far as the trees are concerned, it doesn't really matter who discovered them first. It's like fleas arguing over who first discovered the dog on which they're sitting! So what if someone discovered Atlas Grove before Taylor and thought \"these are some of the biggest trees on Earth\". What matters is that when Taylor discovered it he acted on his discovery and it led to a lot of knowledge being gained.

I think this is a key concept. It's widely accepted that Columbus \"discovered\" America, except that Nordic explorers got there first and what about thousands of years of occupation by native Americans? Taylor and Sillett brought new eyes to the trees they found, they'd never been accurately measured and certainly never been climbed and studied so extensively.

I've always been a huge fan of backyard nature discovery, it's what my tree climbing and nature experience is all about. 90% of my woods explorations and climbs are within 20 minutes walk, bicycle ride or drive from my house, and I live in a large city. I'm confident that I've made first ascent on many of the large conifers and hardwoods that I've climbed. It doesn't matter to me that I made the first ascent as far as notches in the belt go but it is exciting to view the canopy and woods from a very unique perspective.

Is the rediscovery, canopy exploration and naming of the Atlas Grove your main issue with Sillett and Prestons's account? I was hoping to get to the bottom of what was really bothering you (Mario). By the way I charge by the hour for this type of deep motivational discovery work
-moss

michaeljspraggon wrote:

My last post refers to Mario's original post, if anyone's wondering why it doesn't seem to follow on!

Regarding the Stout Grove example, as far as the trees are concerned, it doesn't really matter who discovered them first. It's like fleas arguing over who first discovered the dog on which they're sitting!

Actually, probably does, depending on whether or not you have a respect for protocol or not.

Memorial Groves are paid for, as \"an everlasting memorial\" to....

As a matter of ethics and manners, it is never right to give another name to a grove, if even anonymously.

I think more of this wuuld be crystal clear if I could lay out line by line what was written about two of the groves.

It would not really be possible to even list what appears incorrect in Preston's book about the Grove of Titsns, without the equivilent of basically pointing to a spot on a map. But if it was written, folks could see a day and night difference between what was written, and where the trees are.

Again, this book is promoted as \"non-fiction\".

So part of this does not involves fleas claiming dogs or Christopher Columbus. It's more geared to laying out the facts for people in a non-fiction book in a factual way.

Back to the original topic ...

Climbing ancient redwoods may not alter much of the species development. But then that's unknown.

There are species up there that are not down below. Where they develop in a tree, could just as easily be where climbers are moving, as any other spot.

In short, it really boils down to what people want from the trees. Do they want them left untouched so that whatever develops, develops? Or, would they like to just enjoy looking at them, and study them at the same time. It seems to be more a matter of choice, than a matter of fate.

Mario, I agree with what you said about memorial groves. If someone is the first to pay to dedicate the grove to the life of some respected person who had passed on then it would seem respectful to use that name. However, does this ever happen with groves, whose locations are secret? I mean, would canopy researchers ever accidently 'discover' and rename a grove that was already dedicated to someone else's memory? And if they did but kept it's location a secret then who would know anyway?

Is there anyone in particular who has been offended or put out by the apparent incorrect locations/names you mentioned? Do they stand to lose income or respect because of it?

Michael

mdvaden wrote:

Back to the original topic ...

Climbing ancient redwoods may not alter much of the species development. But then that's unknown.

There are species up there that are not down below. Where they develop in a tree, could just as easily be where climbers are moving, as any other spot.

I thought the purpose of Sillett's and others old-growth canopy research was in fact to discover and study what's going on up there. Similarly I expect they are being very careful not to damage the host tree and canopy ecology they are working in. Certainly a small branch is going to be broken here and there and a bit of canopy duff is going to knocked down. I don't expect they are going to ID a previously unknown worm species and then squash it in their \"ambitious\" pursuit of scientific fame and fortune.

In my continuing explorations of underlying and related issues I have to mention Sillett's position on climbing old-growth which many of you are familiar with and which has caused considerable resentment in the pro arborist and forestry communities. Basically Sillett is saying no one should rec climb PNW old-growth for the very reasons Mario mentioned. My understanding of his position is that a small number of researchers climbing PNW old-growth with permits is going to help us gain quite a bit of knowledge about canopy ecology vs. the relatively small amount of damage they will do climbing. On the arborist side many pro climbers think that Sillett's stance is arbitrarily excluding them from access to big redwoods or the \"why does he get to climb and we don't?\" way of thinking. Of course the only thing excluding them are no rec climbing rules in redwood national forests. And the reason why he get's to climb and they don't? He's devoted his career to canopy ecology and has done the work to become a relevant and credible scientist. If anyone wants to initiate a canopy research project or assist in an existing one they should contact the researchers and volunteer to help in whatever way they can. As I mentioned earlier the PNW forest is extensive with many avenues of research, there are opportunities to get involved for those who take the initiative in good faith.
-moss

michaeljspraggon wrote:

Mario, I agree with what you said about memorial groves. If someone is the first to pay to dedicate the grove to the life of some respected person who had passed on then it would seem respectful to use that name. However, does this ever happen with groves, whose locations are secret? I mean, would canopy researchers ever accidently 'discover' and rename a grove that was already dedicated to someone else's memory? And if they did but kept it's location a secret then who would know anyway?

Is there anyone in particular who has been offended or put out by the apparent incorrect locations/names you mentioned? Do they stand to lose income or respect because of it?

Michael

It was on the internet. Took work to find it, but it was there. But the pages were removed or expired, so most clues just vaporized so to speak.

For the rest of your question, I don't know if "offended" is the aspect I'd look at. I'd say that several people have lost some respect for Preston because they think that he is either stretching the truth, or supplying false information.

But the writing is so good, that's a bit inconsequential.

Some folks feel that the research climbers are trying to lock people out from the trees, to preserve an exclusive climbing recreation. Which for the more part I don't believe.

moss wrote:
In my continuing explorations of underlying and related issues I have to mention Sillett's position on climbing old-growth which many of you are familiar with and which has caused considerable resentment in the pro arborist and forestry communities. Basically Sillett is saying no one should rec climb PNW old-growth for the very reasons Mario mentioned. My understanding of his position is that a small number of researchers climbing PNW old-growth with permits is going to help us gain quite a bit of knowledge about canopy ecology vs. the relatively small amount of damage they will do climbing. On the arborist side many pro climbers think that Sillett's stance is arbitrarily excluding them from access to big redwoods or the \"why does he get to climb and we don't?\" way of thinking. O
-moss[/quote]

Hey, Moss ...

Before I reply to this, wanted to clear something up. I'm not going to argue with you about the \"adversarial\" stance thing, because I don't think that's the intent at my end. But I had reviewed my page, looking for ways to reword it, to try and reduce the potential for it to be percieved that way. Besides, it grew really long anyway, and I had to carve it's size down about 30% anyway. So I had tinkered on that like 5 days ago or so.

Anyhow, I tried to attempt to read it as if looking from the outside in. May even add more changes down the line.

As for Sillett, I think a lot of his projects may be useful. I think where things get into the grey zone, is where some knowledge is gained, but it won't change any practices.

For example, Hyperion is probably climbed yearly, like Statosphere Giant. Good chance they have atmospheric sensors up there too, and sap flow meters.

10 years from now, we may be still on square one, realizing we knew the answers already. Meaning, if weather gets really really dry, Hyperion dies back or grows slower, and if the weather is moist, it grows taller. Because no matter what, no amount of research will make those trees grow taller.

I think that what they are learning about lichens from old trees adding nitrogen to the forest is probably the nature of research that may yield more gain for practical application.

One thing I'd enjoy reading, is about liquefaction of soil as the trees rock in rain storms. And if not \"liquefaction\" then whatever the term is where the soil looses structure and nearly liquefies. Because I suspect that may be one of the main limits for redwood tree lifespan. One the weight becomes so immense, it's own pressure almost becomes self-destructive to the soil zone.

But I'm not aware of the researchers doing soil samples in the pits where giants fall after storms, and doing compaction analysis on the soil beneath to see if the redwoods damage their own habitat.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Preston and Sillett had agreed to put some 'dis-information' in the book to throw wannabe titan-baggers off the scent. However for me the real point of the book was the human stories behind the tree discoveries.

As for the exclusion of other climbers from pnw old growth, it seems more like the researchers were included as opposed to everyone else being excluded, and I bet they do enjoy being allowed to climb them! Given that these trees are their life's work I don't begrudge them that. It's not like there aren't other big trees elsewhere to climb - the only difference is that they're not famous or the biggest, but as a climbing experience they are much the same. So what is the real motivation behind wanting to climb trees in these specific locations?

About 5 years ago I looked into the possibility of climbing some big redwoods myself. With very little effort, I obtained offers from 3 seperate people to accompany them on climbs of redwoods, which in some cases were around 100m tall. This was all above board and climbing of these trees in these locations by these people and their parties had been permitted. Can assume the situation would be the same now?

Michael

michaeljspraggon wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Preston and Sillett had agreed to put some 'dis-information' in the book to throw wannabe titan-baggers off the scent. However for me the real point of the book was the human stories behind the tree discoveries.

It's still unclear to me that there is deliberate misinformation but I do believe that Preston was required not to reveal specific tree locations as a condition of getting Sillett's cooperation. It doesn't bother me that some of the locations may have been well known to some people. Sillett knew that if specific locations were stated in the book that there would be a huge influx to visit the trees that were currently being visited by small numbers of people. I feel the same way about some of my favorite woods trees, there's no way I'm going to reveal their exact locations to the general public and I'm sure many other climbers feel the same way. I don't want to show up at a tree one day and find the understory and ground cover flattened and broken branches and detritus kicked out of the tree covering the ground around the tree.

I'm glad to see we are evolving towards dialog here instead of the other way which is more common on many forums.
-moss

Hey,

Speaking of debris falling.

We know it can get wet under a tree when a researcher is hidden above.

I'm sure there is dead silence above when \"joe hiker\" stops to gawk, due to their code of secrecy.

What a chance for a game. Play ignorant, and hang out taking pictures to see how long they can hold it.

Considering how little of the redwood forest is explored, if I were in research, I'd probably start a program to train recreational climbers to go into the redwood parks inner areas. Not just any climbers, but ones who had references, etc..

But they could go on missions to explore various trees that were not overly complex, but still rather tall.

Then their mission would be to take photographs of the trunk and limbs as they went up the tree, to form a catalogue of how much or how little was growing on various trees.

mdvaden wrote:

Hey,

Speaking of debris falling.

We know it can get wet under a tree when a researcher is hidden above.

I'm sure there is dead silence above when \"joe hiker\" stops to gawk, due to their code of secrecy.

What a chance for a game. Play ignorant, and hang out taking pictures to see how long they can hold it.

Here's what happens when you get over 100-150 ft. in a conifer (depending on the size of the tree) You can't see the ground and you pretty much can't hear anything on the ground unless it's fairly loud. So you can walk around a tall tree containing climbers and they'll likely not know you're there unless you start raising a rucous.
-moss

mdvaden wrote: Considering how little of the redwood forest is explored, if I were in research, I'd probably start a program to train recreational climbers to go into the redwood parks inner areas. Then their mission would be to take photographs of the trunk and limbs as they went up the tree, to form a catalogue of how much or how little was growing on various trees.

There must be great potential for these extra 'eyes' in the canopy. However, to obtain meaningful data, photographs must be taken in a consistent way each time and put into context with text describing position relative to the overall structure of the tree and photos/information about the surrounding environment and localized climate statistics. Also th climbers would need a reasonable knowledge of botany/entymology to be able to spot anything out of the ordinary. All of this would require training course(s) for all volunteers as well as someone to compile and sort out all of the data before anything can begin to be gained from this program. Nevertheless, I think it's an idea worth putting forward at least!

Michael

I think that the knowledge would be minimal. Maybe know how to ID a Douglas fir from a redwood.

The climber would not need to know much botanical stuff. All they would need to do is take images at intervals including close-ups. With good photos, the scientists could figure out what the plants were. Doubt they would want samples removed anyway.

It would be nice if the height of the photos could be known, or the estimated height. With a person on the ground, one person could read a tape and radio for each area a photo was taken, but good chance both people would enjoy climbing simultaneously. Unless a non-climbing volunteer went along.

Like, if you took this photo, you would not need to know the ID - just say what tree and and about how high (At tree top, a GPS would probably work well too):

Also, a laminated cheat-sheet could be supplied. There is only a limited number of species that are common. But I'd imagine that such a project would function well, simply by an abundance of images showing how much of what is at various levels.

One other idea came to mind about recreational climbers helping research.

Suppose each expedition was accompanied by someone like Robert Van Pelt. Suppose he takes 30 climbers into Jed Smith redwoods. Then the whole group works in unison. Like climbing trees that are 200 feet apart in a rectangular grid.

This means that no \"undisclosed\" trees would need to be disclosed. It would merely be sampling the redwood canopy in multi-acre plots.