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

A couple of sentences from it finally grew into a full page about potential canopy impact by research climbers:

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

First one provides photos of Atlas Grove, Grove of Titans, Iluvatar, Atlas Tree, Adventure Tree, Del Norte Titan and more. While visiting those groves, beat down ferns in the area, got me thinking of the top too.

That intitiated comparison of what I know from the arborist trade about tree climbing. I have yet to meet a climber who can avoid making a trail through a tree. Twigs break. Bark sluffs off at times. Spores are wiped clean. Etc..

It's just not possible to go up in a redwood and not affect the tree. Some trees like Stratosphere Giant or Hyperion are climbed yearly.

Right now, it's not the general public impacting the ancient redwood canopies, but appears to be the scientists and their trainees.

The second page _link_ also includes a recreational climber idea at the end now.

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.