Exclusive Privilege: Redwood Pics ?? Opinions Please

[Khriss]

Makes no sense at alll....... ( Cultural differences? Language barrier ? Drunk ? Or were you secretely selling them on Ebay ?)

[Lee Winger]

Makes no sense at alll....... ( Cultural differences? Language barrier ? Drunk ? Or were you secretely selling them on Ebay ?)

 

Hey lets keep it civil!

[Andy Collins]

My lowly opinion is that no tree "belongs" to anyone, if you photograph a beautiful specimen, and name it, we all benefit. I for one doubt I shall ever get to see these trees, so to see pics is as near as I'll get, and if naming the individuals helps separate them, all the better.

[mdvaden]

YOU got an email from Sillet, no-one else did, it shows a lack of judgement on your part sharing the details of his private email. I guess your into 'freedom of speech' and all that BS? well.....with freedom of speech comes responsibility. That fact you've disclosed his email to the world just makes you look amateurish at best. Sillet comes out of it looking like the professional.

 

Having said that, I do agree with you on the Redwood naming/location issue.

 

The email is not disclosed. And to extract a bare bones fragment of non-confidential information is totally inconsequential. It is a far better way to introduce the subject than just state my own paraphrase. I think the matter is well worth discussing, because it's related to free expression versus suppression of photography.

 

The email contained nothing of a confidential nature, therefore any fragmentary quote is equal with me writing "Sillett said I should do such and such". Realize, it's not "his" email. Once I get it, it's my email. Just like a letter sent to me is my mail. That's why when we send emails, we transfer to the other person ownership of the message.

Edited November 28, 2008 by mdvaden

[mdvaden]

Are the land/tree owners worried about compaction or just managing the 1000's of tree enthusiasts who are sure to descend if locations are given ??

 

I'm not sure if worry resides more heavily with the land owners or the researchers. The land is public parks managed by rangers and park staff. Also a hand in hand effort with the Save the Redwoods league may be related.

 

As far as a compaction issue, I've been to many of the trees, and here's what I think:

 

Some trees are harder to get to, and some less hard. The soils vary. The largest and tallest are not in Tall Trees Grove, but using that grove for an example, the roots are so thick and old on the surface, that compaction there would be virtually impossible.

 

I find Del Norte Titan to be surrounded by soil that could be compacted on the surface. But for now, it's not. I've received emails from near a half dozen folks who found Del Norte Titan, but none have disclosed the location either.

 

Presently, the ground compaction and wear and tear on vegetation appears to be nearly as great by the researchers working around the trees, as by the few other visitors. The researchers probably have the more extensive impact, as they are up in the canopy slightly wearing "canopy trails". It's rather minimal though.

 

The Strat is in a soil that would be more difficult to compact than near Del Norte Titan. The Strat is not in rocky like one tree I call "Fred & Barney", but definitely much more coarse.

 

Hyperion is so remote, that wear and tear and compaction could be minimal, but unknown. It's way the heck out there. If it were the second tallest tree, then it would be safe to say that that compaction would be a very minimal consideration. But since it's the tallest tree and tallest redwood, that poses the quesion about how many people would exert the effort to go and see it.

 

I have not seen any image or mention of Hyperion. It's doubtful that anyone outside National Geograpic, the researchers, the finders and a handful of others have been there. So having not seen it's soil, I can't guestimate this one.

 

It's next on my list to photograph, but I'm waiting for spring for warmer temps and longer daylength.

 

One reason I'm enjoying finding these trees, is that they are cool looking. But another aspect is that there is a certain level of BS or Gobbledygook surrounding these trees.

 

There is some information and comments stemming from books, articles, videos and interviews that is twisted and misleading. And at least I can get a lot of the facts right for my self. It appears that park visitor center staff have fabricated a few lines too.

 

I don't mind at all if they want to keep a secret. That's different from dispersing information that does not match reality.

Edited November 28, 2008 by mdvaden

[scotspine1]

Incredible, how can you say something like that and then say leave it at that...

I don't really want to see a slagging match here but your post is pretty rude.

 

Ok, maybe it was a bit strong, I just dont see why mdvaden has to spoonfeed the worldwide arb community snippets of a personal email in order to make his point.

[Mike Hill]

I understand giving names to remarkable Trees.Can't see the harm in it.

[mdvaden]

Ok, maybe it was a bit strong, I just dont see why mdvaden has to spoonfeed the worldwide arb community snippets of a personal email in order to make his point.

 

When you see something, feel free to start a thread if a category fits it. This one is about redwoods, photographs and names. And that's the direction I'm going to continue on.

 

For others ...

 

In relation to one reply about compaction, I forgot to mention Stout Grove. It's one that several folks have compared to voiced concerns about impact around other that are the tallest or largest.

 

At least in Stout Grove, no measures have been taken to steer folks from Stout Tree in the grove.

 

But no sign has been attached to it either. It's one thing to know that a tree is out there, and another to know which it is.

 

With the undisclosed trees, it's been apparent that the forest may take more wear and tear per indivual trying to find the tree, than had they known exactly how to get to the tree.

 

This reminds me of some Western Red Cedars than Robert Van Pelt has written about. I think one or two of these are referred to as sacrificial trees, as they draw the traffic, whereas if there are others hidden, hopefully those get minimal impact.

 

As far as the Titans go though, Robert Van Pelt has described and included drawing and photographs for virtually every titan conifer of the Pacific NW USA. Van Pelt is one of Sillett's associates and apparently they still climb and explore together.

Edited November 28, 2008 by mdvaden

[Khriss]

Hey lets keep it civil!

 

No seriously! Mi girlfriend is a language hons graduate and could not make sense of his use of english ( I cant follow the technical terminology-being from Yorkshire ) still seems strange -My vote is keep posting those lovely pics, wish I could climb them .....one day,maybe

[Gaynor]

Hmmm... Nah. Still lost. Seems like a lot of fuss about not much