Climbing Coast Redwoods in California

[alifeinthetrees]

A few more pics for those who asked -

 

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.356545924359604.100709.265467636800767&type=1

[Old Mill Tree Care]

You're a very lucky man.

[mcmoonter]

Have you seen these?

 

Richard Preston

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JoXKpHKgUg]James Taylor - Wichita Lineman - Grammy Nominated - YouTube[/ame]

[alifeinthetrees]

I hadn't seen the video - some great footage

 

Whilst in Arcata, I met up with Steve Sillett and Bob Van Pelt (they live practically next door to each other), it was interesting hearing Steve's comments on Wild Trees. He had no editorial control over the book, nor did he receive any money for it. He was pretty scathing about the 300' club - felt it was in there purely for 'sales'!?! There were some pretty heated conversations about climbing techniques as well - SRT vs DRT which is always interesting!

 

Bob was fascinating - it was great to chat about his [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Forest-Giants-Pacific-Coast-Robert/dp/tags-on-product/0295981407]book[/ame] , he's also got another one coming out on the Sierra Nevadas, but all he really want to talk about was ale & British pubs!!!

[mdvaden]

I had heard similar when I was down there in the forest with them, though I don't relay it in forums, other than maybe fragments to a PM box.

 

Seems that the less they do in private or share that gets loose, the better.

 

Figure it keeps the door open too, to network with them continually.

 

Since they have no editorial control over the internet either, they must surely pick and choose collaborators who keep a tight lid on what's shared during conversations.

 

Or a tight lid by not coupling tree names with noticeable landmark clues.

 

Edited January 14, 2012 by mdvaden

[tommer9]

I had heard similar when I was down there in the forest with them, though I don't relay it in forums, other than maybe fragments to a PM box.

 

Seems that the less they do in private or share that gets loose, the better.

 

Figure it keeps the door open too, to network with them continually.

 

Since they have no editorial control over the internet either, they must surely pick and choose collaborators who keep a tight lid on what's shared during conversations.

 

Or a tight lid by not coupling tree names with noticeable landmark clues.

 

 

Something i dont understand is why they feel that it is necessary to be so secretive. These trees have been around for thousands of years, surviving fires, floods and everything else. I wonder what gives them the right to maintain this aura of secrecy over trees, which lets face it are part of the planet. Do they honestly belive that people who are capable and desirous of seeing or even climbing these trees will cause harm? I have a copy of the original National Geographic article which virtually pinpoints some of these giants, yet they are still there and healthy. I find what comes across as some sort of superiority from these people rather condescending to say the least, from these self appointed guardians.

[mdvaden]

Something i dont understand is why they feel that it is necessary to be so secretive. These trees have been around for thousands of years, surviving fires, floods and everything else. I wonder ...

 

 

Thought it was appropriate to retain in the quote the "don't" understand and "wonder" part. Because it's a lack of understanding or information that typically leads to those kinds of comments.

 

If researchers spend a week and $5000 worth of resourches installing cables and sensors for research, do they really need the increased risk of some tree climber cowboy to ignorantly attempt an illegal climb and rip loose one of the connections?

 

Like the Seattle or California arborists I won't name, whom by their own admissions were close enough to one research tree to see the hardware. They could just as easily have shot a line in the other trees, screwing up the data.

 

That's just to name one reason you did not list, and one you probably do not understand. If some self-serving tree climber disrupted a data stream 2 months into a project, where a continuous data stream was needed, there would be financial loss and research loss.

 

Edited January 14, 2012 by mdvaden

[tommer9]

Thought it was appropriate to retain in the quote the "don't" understand and "wonder" part. Because it's a lack of understanding or information that typically leads to those kinds of comments.

 

If researchers spend a week and $5000 plus worth of labor installing cables and sensors for research, do they really need the increased risk of some tree climber cowboy to ignorantly attempt an illegal climb and rip loose one of the connections?

 

Like the Seattle or California arborists I won't name, whom by their own admissions were close enough to one research tree to see the hardware. They could just as easily have shot a line in the other trees, screwing up the data.

 

That's just to name one reason you did not list, and one you probably do not understand. If some self-serving tree climber disrupted a data stream 2 months into a project, where a continuous data stream was needed, there would be financial loss and research loss.

 

 

Thanks for your reply.

Obviously there are some out there that will climb these trees and disrupt scientific works, but I think it is a bit out of line to assume that everyone who would want to climb or even go and admire these trees would be causing the effects you describe. Perhaps with more information and less of the cloak of secrecy the scientists and other interested parties could be accommodated?

Surely in an environment that belongs to nature, and therefore every living creature on the planet, risks to disruption of research should be taken into account? I feel that to generalise that anyone other than the likes of sillet et al are the only ones who will not cause damage to these trees, or would not be perhaps even an asset to the science being carried out, is pretty out of line. I refuse to accept that anybody could have such a level of self conceit as to imagine that the handful of scientists involved in the research are the only people with care and respect.

[mdvaden]

Thanks for your reply.

Obviously there are some out there that will climb these trees and disrupt scientific works, but I think it is a bit out of line to assume that everyone who would want to climb or even go and admire these trees would be causing the effects you describe.

 

Since it's illegal to climb without a permit in public redwood parks anyway, itwould mean they are entering blindly for tree selection, and wouldn't know what parts of the trees have sensors, cables, computers, etc..

 

For accomodation, they could easily contact Gerald Beranek at atreestory.com and he could likely help get them up into redwoods of comparable height and size on private forest land.

 

If the trees Beranek can steer them to for legal climbing are not sufficient, then I'd question motives about wanting to know locations of the tallest 50 or so coast redwoods.

 

[mcmoonter]

I'm planning a bicycle trip down the Oregon and California coast for September. I'm loking forward to seeing some of these giants.