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

There is a reason why I have not written more about memorial groves, especially on my website, as it's in the top 4 or 5 pages in the search engines for Atlas Grove and Grove of Titans. If I fully post the answer one time, then Google will find it, and it will be hard to erase. And honestly, aside from Preston's book, that's how I found the groves. It was comments and text that was written, which has details about elevations, creek names, etc., etc.. It was on the internet. Took work to find it, but it was there. And once it was there, it's almost there indefinitely, because it will get quoted and reposted in several locations.

Actually, there are a bunch of documents on the internet that I'd love to _link_ to from my webpage, so people could learn even more cool knowledge about these trees, but the documents also include info that leads to the groves. I think that one .pdf even has the GPS coordinates of Atlas Grove. I understand from talking to Sillett on the phone last winter, that it was not really until maybe a year ago, that they realized how small fragments of information dispersed in documents and publications could be recompiled back into a mountain of clues.

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.

I've seen some reviews online, and even some people who really like Preston's book and recommend it, also express reservations and concerns that there are concealed motives.

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, but believe there may be a tad bit of truth to aspects of it.

So tying this together, if Preston intentionally puts anything in a non-fiction book that is not really true, it tends to fuel suspicions toward the researchers as well.

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

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.

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