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.

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.

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.