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