mdvaden

Never been a problem with trekkers, Not the ones who didn't thrash the area around the world's superlative trees. The language was not sensationalist. The situation was actually understated. The leak size is almost down-played on the page. And its not a personal issue. The parks, Save the Redwood League, businessmen, and researchers tried to find out who did it, but can't tell, because every leak was sterilized of personal data, dates, etc. And it hasn't been announced because its a really sore issue with a lot of them. Due to the nature of how it was done, their platforms are not able to go anywhere with it at the moment. Due to the footprint my redwood pages have and the nature of my networking, I'm one of few to approach it from this angle.

But the one the reply above you is not talking about trees in decline. Two different species. But virtually everyone posting in this thread shows how little they know about even a single species in that forest. Maybe they should study it some, go check the forest out a few times, then let it sink in.

And there lies the difference. In my site's 200 redwood pages, one or two about these groves, explains and educates how to move through them. And some time ago, that was effective. There was no talk of restriction, people would look. And suggestions were offered. Wear and tear was next to nothing. Presently, the leaks omit education, and don't steer people to sites or brochures that would help. The omission of any cautionary statements or encouragement has been striking to a few people aware. Even some who don't work with professional tree care are surprised. In the past, it was often careful thoughtful people taking someone one-on-one. And that was hard to beat educationally.

There's an article online. Try and find it. But it explains why the redwood species is being hindered by animals from recovering in some regions. Anything else you are curious to learn?

I don't recall every restricting access to others. I have many statements online to the effect that the parks are open to everyone. Where's the quote about restricted access?

Probably nothing, it will remain standing. The wind does not dislodge the soil. And the ground plants buffer the rain. If the small plants and shrubs are not disturbed, the soil should not loosen or erode. But none of us go back near the trunk area or within the drip line to measure again. We put a tag on another tree about 200 feet away. And we are able to use that tag's height in relation to the top to know how much the height changes from year to year.

No, you probably didn't fully inform yourself. I did not get "up close" to that redwood. I did get up close, without damaging native plants, and exited in same fashion. And that would be fine. I showed others how to go to the same spot, without doing damage to vegetation. It would be ideal if everybody learned how to go in and out from redwoods without ruining plants.

Prevent damage. Either reverse, or prevent. Let me explain this another way for others too. Lets take one tree for example in the parks that has not been leaked. Its the tallest of the species known. The ground was so unstable around it, that I don't go back at all to remeasure or get photos. At that tree, I could make the area unstable with just one visit per year (solo). Its not whether I think others have a right to see a tree like that or not. Its purely that the location can't even handle 2 visitors a year without compromising the habitat. That's why I don't go back. That one has nothing to do with being sacred or something like that. If the anonymous person leaking some stuff now, were to access the file or location for that tree, they could immediately drive dozens, maybe hundreds, of people there. And the tree can barely handle one person.

One of the links already answered part of your question about "completely"? The goal is to identify the source of leaks. The $1000 donation was from an "outsider" to the tree community, who lives a couple thousand miles east of here. A man who visited the redwoods several times, witnessed some of the destruction to the habitats. They also uncovered enough information on their own to realize that there's a problem that needs to be resolved.

If you do not understand what burl poaching is, this is what it is ... News Link > Burl Poaching in the Coast Redwood Forest I reread your reply. And wondered how you could comment on something you did not fully know.

The fund can also be used for burl poaching. Unless we quoted you wrong, it sounded like you questioned whether there is any merit in that, or if anything like that can be accomplished. Burl poaching is part of the thread topic. And you wrote: Maybe you can clarify that more to fit why you think the fund has no merit.

No. Based off my response I stated they are open, and asked a question. You avoided answering some things about damage. The entire thread and links already denote that the redwoods are completely 100% open to the public. Its worth noting that the people who triggered the damage are not hiding for no reason. One, already known ... their own family members oppose what was done and want no part in it.

Let me condense your reply. It sounds like you believe the destruction of pristine coast redwood forest native plants is okay. That's the most basic way to express your opinion. It also sounds like you support illegal burl poaching, because that's related to the reward fund. A reward was used last time burl poaching escalated.

Nothing hinders anybody from seeing any of the trees. The question you should answer is why should things already being well taken care of, be destroyed? Should people be able to go in museums and cut and deface frames and artwork of masterpieces? Should people be able to etch their initials on any or every heiroglyph? Because those share a lot of similarity. Other than hours at a museum, many are available for people to view, or find. But not in a way that triggers damage. If you feel that any and every extraordinary or rare thing should be degraded, then you agree with the people causing the damage. Because your comment sounds the same.

They belong to both. In that regard, they are the public's trees. It's considered a "World Heritage Site"

The nature of fighting this problem is so unique to handle and explain. But I think I figured out another way to translate it a way arborists can understand. Suppose 50 of you guys just got your saws stolen or business damaged in some way. Suppose the person who caused it didn't do anything illegal. Suppose they simply acquired the combinations or codes or password for all 50 of you folks and let a bunch of people know the means of access. Wouldn't it be nice to reverse the damage? Sure. What if the person could not be caused to withdraw what they did? Would it be worth knowing who they are, if there's a strong chance they have access enabling them to do this to all 50 of you again, or anybody else? Because its about 99% chance knowing the identity would expose how all of you lost your stuff. Hope that helps explain to some degree.

Did you read the two pages and links? If its possible to stop them, that would be attempted. What they are doing is technically legal. But its so unethical, they have gone into hiding almost entirely. The best outcome would be to get them to stop. If that's not possible, it is completely worth knowing who they are, because that clarifies who they are not too. The fact that someone who knows a lot about this just committed $1000, should send a clear signal the goal is well worth finding out. The damage has been dramatic. Without an identity, it means resisting the final product of the problem which have no fingerprints. If we can get an identity, it means the problem can be dealt with at its source because they would need to reason and negotiate with a lot more people.

If they are found out, there are at least two courses of action. And both, or either, are worth the cost. We can know whether they work or network among parks staff. Or, have access to the research and discovery network. if they have access, like a "mole", they can be set apart, protecting almost all future discoveries, files, research projects and archaeological sites. Several feel someone hacked computers. And its known that several people were sent message phishing for their IP addresses. its unknown if they would be persuaded to stop their activity even if they are known. But even if what they did was not legal, the breach of ethics is so significant, their professional futures may hinge on whether or not they change. The goal is not punishment. But trying to ascertain who is trustworthy around sensitive information. And, letting someone take responsibility for escalated damage at some of the most amazing redwood locations. Due to the nature of the problem, the possible solution may have to go underground where the park's, Save the Redwoods League, ect., cannot fight the problem on their usual playing field. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with this.

Hmmm ... maybe I messed up the first link. Should be > https://www.gofundme.com/c5kgvbtw See if that works.

Hopefully a few others understand some importance of this. But some pristine coast redwood habitat is being ruined by an anonymous person using the internet. I set up a gofundme page at: Link > https://www.gofundme.com/c5kgvbtw Although one donation may come this way directly, someone committed to a $1000 donation earlier today. I know the person and that they are good for it. I link to a page explaining it in detail from gofundme. But here's the page link anyway to show how fast some redwood forest is degrading. Link > Cypber Herbicide Attack. Killing Native Plants in the Coast Redwood Forest There is a Part II goal for the fund. That's burl poaching etc.. The past couple years, a reward was used to help find the person doing so much damage poaching in several ancient redwood parks. I would like to channel contributions that way too. But finding out the ID of the Cyber problem is a top priority until 2017

The bar owner is "Little Jerry" or "Little Jer" ... and he used to work with "Big Ger" aka Gerald Beranek. I recall the Ravenwood being where the Beraneks overnight when they stay in Klamath.

November 1st, I met a man from South Africa, to explore a bit in Redwood National Park. He chose the new motel in Klamath. Its in the $150 per night range. Holiday Inn Express The place is new. Not sure if it was open for business when you passed through. Normally I don't like to stay in Klamath because the village is too quiet for me in regards to available stores and restaurants. But if I was going to stay there, that Holiday Inn would get me to reconsider. It has in-house dining too.

You are welcome. An older photo of Elk, taken from Hy. 101 where Redwood National Park touches the tiny village of Orick. Some people asked if there is snow, but its sunlight reflecting off the rock. Used an older camera for this one. ...

My sites is best viewed on a computer and designed that way anyhow. One you get a a computer and can do some real browsing and image viewing, login here for the sig link or google mdvaden + redwoods Met a few new friends last month in Humboldt Redwoods State Park.

A retired redwood guide once wrote that my site's redwood pages were "by far and away the best redwood" resource. You ever check my signature link? If I don't write about something, I link to the best sites. But I have one page that addresses your question partly. There are well over a hundred pages in the menu. The page I had in mind was not in the menu, but I just added it a moment ago. Go to > Essentials > Travel > Travel Cost Not sure what it costs to fly over over the ocean. But once that's done, its fairly inexpensive to experience a one week trip if someone doesn't need to live like royalty.