They wouldn't compare.

One reason, is that on Everest, you can't just bail-out in a matter of minutes and decend. If you are on the mountain and weather changes, it's a whole different deal.

Hyperion, or trees like that, are far from a piece of cake, but it's the ease of removing a climber from the situation that seems to make the two incomparable.

One danger with big trees that could be as uncertain as climbing a mountain, are unknown variables like how strong or weak the limbs are, or if any deadwood is ready to fall down.

It seems to be the time on Everest, the lack of oxygen, and being so far from help, that makes the two different.

Each might be better thought of as being unique and challenging in their own way.

What would be more monumental than climbing Hyperion, would be decending 10 feet into the ground below it. That would notable. The soil beneath the living Redwoods is a more unexplored frontier, and likely impossible to get into while they are still alive.

A side note: if about 1 in 10 die climbing Everest, it seems that we would need to see near 1 person die per 10 ascents into a giant redwood, for comparable danger.

M. D. Vaden - Redwood Hiker & Oregon Tree Guy

michaeljspraggon wrote:
Nice photo! Being from England I've never even seen a Sequoia of that size (yet)!

I appreciate your points, having climbed both trees and mountains myself and as I said, it would be ridiculous to compare the physical challenge of climbing a tree with Everest. However, could the historical significance be compared?

Michael

For tree climbers it is the theoretical Everest but then again the Hyperion story is about much more than tree climbing. The biggest challenge was finding the tree and knowing that it was a very tall one. It could be said that the Hyperion ascent was the result of 10+ years of dedicated bushwhacking and tree measuring in redwood forests. It is historically and scientifically significant to a small group of people. To the general population it's probably just an interesting bit of trivia.
-moss

michaeljspraggon wrote:
Nice photo! Being from England I've never even seen a Sequoia of that size (yet)!

I appreciate your points, having climbed both trees and mountains myself and as I said, it would be ridiculous to compare the physical challenge of climbing a tree with Everest. However, could the historical significance be compared?

Michael

Sure, I'd say that the historical significance would be a good way to look at it.

The tree in the image, is what we call a "redwood" here, although it's genus name is "Sequoia". We call the Sequioadendron genus "sequoia".

I only live about 1.45 to 2 hours east of the largest coastal redwoods. The tallest, are a bit farther south. But the actual largest ones, are way up north in California, almost to the Oregon border, in Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park.

The one in the image is not one of the largest, but it is in that park, at the Simpson Reed Discovery trail.

A few days ago, I went on a hunt for the "Del Norte Titan" and "Grove of Titans" discovered in 1998. I spotted them from a short distance, but didn't take photos because it was getting dark, and I expect to go back. After over a dozen hikes there last year, I was fairly certain I could find them. Not for climbing of course

Personally, I enjoy a lot of the smaller forest elements just as much. Most of my images are at this album...

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

It may be years until tree climbers can have fun in the redwoods, due to the climbing permits required, and restrictions due to certain birds.

Private owned lands may be the best option for redwood climbing, although the trees won't be giants. But even some that are only 100 years old are very big trees.