mdvaden

I thought the caption on the video meant that it was a tree business called Otter Tree. If I'm not mistaken, the humidity there, and in Georgia, can provide a real temptation to not wear stuff.

I may just have to try my hand at this sometime. Looks like a nice way to wind-down after a workshift.

I often cover the grass with mulch - no cardboard. Although cardboard decomposes quick, it may be impermeable to gas exchange for a matter of weeks. Whether months, I'm not sure. With a few inches of mulch over short mowed grass, I just let whatever grass gets smothered - smother. Any else that comes up - I dilute Roundup to 50% label rate and spot spray. Any residue is very minor and inconsequential. Fabric only finds it's way under gravel paths that I put in, as weeds always grow on top of it in mulch anyway and weeding still has to be done.

Anyone like the defects that some bugs do to trees? I was browsing some of my older photos tonight, and noticed a bladder mite pic for Norway maple. The red bumps look interesting to me, and if I had a tree with them, I'd probably prefer to have the mites just for the added color.

What's your wettest month on average for rainfall totals? Ours is December - yearly average about 37 inches or 94 centimeters. Basically one meter of rain per year. The north California coast, our coast and the Washington coast range from about 70 to 180 inches per year, depending. It must be amusing to be a coastal area arborist or power line trimmer.

Also ... More groundies could use the experience to their benefit. Or anybody in the tree profession - even a tree officer. What I'm referring to, is removing and taking home samples for learning from. I don't just take pictures of stuff I cut apart. I remove pieces for seminars or taking with me to teach people. The last one I cut was from an apple tree. One piece to show a channel of decay that merged between two pruning cuts at different levels. And another piece to show sunburn damage and what followed. Groundies have access to a myriad of damaged and healthy wood, and the saws to cut it. I'd never object to any employee spending 5 minutes of company time to dissect a few pieces to take home afterward.

It may depend on whether or not you will ever be involved with tree related decisions that are related to the cost of tree work, or any potential financial hardship to be endured by a tree owner. Do you plan to be involved with any decisions like that? If yes - then some ground work would be useful. I'd say at least 1 or 2 months minimum. Some trees have branches and debris that is easy to extract and move. Other trees are very hard and much more expensive. Pin oak limbs have a velcro-like quality. Young Himalayan birch limbs tend to fold and collapse and squeeze nicely through gaps. Some trees scratch paint and siding - others don't. Where the tree debris is to be dropped, and where it has to go to, can make a difference of hundreds or thousands of dollars. This would relate to species selection like urban tree selection. Too many of the wrong trees can raise a city's labor costs and increase fuel consumption. After experiencing a certain level of sinus irritation from London Plane Tree, you may understand design, tree preservation and maintenance differently. One of the best things you can learn from debris removal, is being able to see the interior of the dissected remains. In fact, as I've been exploring and reading about redwoods the past few years, this is one area where I think that Arborists are light-years ahead of canopy research scientists. The research climbers are often in trees to be preserved, and only see occassional tree damage. On the other hand, arborists (and groundies) daily dissect trees, whether it's pruning or removals. They can see the extent of damage and decay, wood layers, cavities, etc.. That experience literally engrains in their soul an understanding of how a tree might be on the inside, in relation to what they see on the outside.

Customers moving or dying of old age - seriously. When the high-tech industry started shakin around here (we have Intel) there seemed to be a lot more people moving in and out of the area. So I'd loose several cutomers who moved out of state, but the new owners might just do their own work, skip it for a while or change service. And my first years in business saw a lot of older people. Quite a few passed away. This affected my advertising and how full my schedule was. So in one way, properity for some trades did not mean properity for me. Some customers also upgraded to mini-mansions with cheap landscapes already included, needing no install work, nor pruning. Saw a lot of that happen. If I did something like this, I'd say it can help readers learn to think outside the box.

How Glorious ... You folks have your wonderful Environmental Protection Agency too - eh. And locally, we have DEQ or the Department of Environmental Quality. I have no beefs with the good stuff they accomplish, but don't appreciate where they go over the top - and they usually do. They were discussing a tax on wood chips at the recycling places here that make garden compost. That tax idea got crushed darn quick.

Just so we don't loose track of how to find Hawg Wild, it's right along Highway 101 like maybe just 1 mile down the road from where Bald Hills Road heads up to Lady Bird Johnson redwood grove. Here's 2 more photos. You can see the redwoods right across the highway from Hawg Wild. That's the bartender. Really friendly place obviously. The food is fairly spectacular too. The inside decor is actually very well done, with an antique car inside the door too. Plenty of skulls and death art to go around. It's far from my style. But the patrons were so friendly, I thought that it might be unfair to judge this book by it's cover for a while. The owner was slightly grumbling about the hidden status of Hyperion. Guess he's one mentioned in a previous Backpacker magazine article that some of you may have read once, when a reporter type dude tried to lead a bushwhacker team to find the tree. They went to this bar while it was still the Lumberjack, asking questions. Oh - yes ... it's got wireless internet. That was a great find in this town of like 400.

Seems like a waste of time. Nothing in the email that adds to the context. But I'll tell you what, I'll post a photo instead. There is this Biker Bar in Orick, California, down the road from the redwood park visitor center. It's called Hawg Wild - used to be called The Lumberjack, although the old sign is still there. See all the dollar bills in the image? That's just a percentage of them. They stretch all along the cieling over the bar around the corner. It's s game - goes like this ...... You put down a dollar bill, and the owner writes an "X" and "I'm a loser" on it. Then you have a beer guzzling contest with the owner. If you win, he lays down a $100 bill, which he signs as a loser and attaches it to the cieling. If you loose, then you sign the dollar bill and he attaches that to the cieling ...... A hint as to the difficulty. There are no $100 bills on the cieling right now But I'll add to the game. If you visit the redwoods, stop in there at Hawg Wild. If you can beat the owner at the guzzling game so he has to put $100 USA currency on the ceiling, I'll consider posting the full email text.

Interesting. Hard to share an opinion. All I know, is that I don't even operate a blower without being aware of the surrounding area. It's not just the machine, but what's around. I don't operate stuff like chippers unless I'm checking the street for pedestians, children or autos. So in doing so, certainly I'll be looking where the truck should be. I always watch the discharge shoot even with an empty box, to know where chute is aimed. But I know I've done a goof of a different kind, although I'm not sure how comparable it is. After a week of not doing my work, I drove to town with an empty trailer that's too narrow to see in my mirrors. About 20 minutes later, I took a wrong turn, and pulled into a driveway to turn around. Forgot the trailer was behind me, couldn't see it, and jackknifed it into my right quarterpanel after looking into my rearview windshield mirror.

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.

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.

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.

The fuss (or concern) would be about me posting a photo like this one of Del Norte Titan, and telling you it's Del Norte Titan. Likewise if I did that with Lost Monarch, Stratosphere Giant or Iluvatar. Cropped images of the trees, telling their names. My reply here would be the specific example about which Sillett emailed. I probably can't grasp his impression of my entire redwood album. In many respects, it would be odd to post a photo like this and not tell the name. Because then several folks naturally post or email with a question "what tree is that?" Then what - say I can't tell you. That would seem a bit abrasive. So I figure as long as Sillett, Preston, Van Pelt, Gymnosperm Database and a bunch of others have etched the names of these trees in culture, why not let people see a simple photograph. I sure enjoy looking at them.

You understand if you noted the "champion" part I wrote. His request is not to withold redwood photos, but not show and name photos of trees like Stratosphere Giant, Lost Monarch, Del Norte Titan, etc.. The ones to which there are not maps - most of which were discovered by Taylor, Sillett, Atkins, Etc.. If Sillett didn't post albums with or without names, I wouldn't be scratching my head as much. I still would not agree with his request, but I wouldn't be going "hmmmm, I wonder what's up?".

Here's an interesting topic for discussion. I'm curious to see what people think about several angles of this scenerio. This week, I got an email from Dr. Sillett, the redwood and canopy researcher, basically questioning that I show photos of known champion size redwoods, along with a name, enabling a viewer to understand what they are looking at. Personally, I think what he expects or hopes for is unrealistic, and culturally abrasive. Let me repeat that last part - "Culturally Abrasive". Aspects of what he conveyed included: Note that further attention has nothing to do with maps or locations - just basic cropped images. Basically, my response to Steve Sillett, was that he should spend several weeks reconsidering how he views this scenerio. Because Preston's Wild Trees book already made the tree celebrities. In fact, The Stratosphere Giant and several others already have celebrity status as trees. Also, Robert Van Pelt has his Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast book with color photos of the largest trees of the species. And one more thing I pointed out to Sillett, was that he is displaying the trees and information about them on his own web pages and albums: http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/redwoods.html Unless the album changes, the top left image with his parents is Lost Monarch. And although the name is not in the caption, most redwood enthusiasts can easily figure out which tree is must be. The way I look at it, these largest and tallest trees have been written about in several publications, are discussed on hundreds of blogs, and are in photographs within books being sold in almost every visitor center in the redwoods national and state parks. As long as maps and directions are not provided, it makes no sense to withhold cropped photos from the general public. How would you interpret the motives and reasoning behind this request? Seeing that many of you may know about the largest or tallest redwoods already, do you think that you should not be able to see photographs of the trees? The reason I added "Exclusive Privilege" to the title, stems from the fact that Sillett maintains images online, as well as Preston on his website, and Van Pelt in book form - Sillett being the only one sending a message about the stoppage of named photos.

Best I know, this is a coral fungi. Thought these were Earth Tongue previously, but my book shows Earth Tongue to be more club like at the top. I don't find this one very often, but it's a favorite.

Sort of reminds me of beauty berry shrub berries. Nice color.

I don't even know if I've loaded IE 8 yet. If it's newer than a few months, then I've only got 7 for sure. Been a while since I upgraded. But I almost exclusively use Firefox. I only load IE on rare occassions to see how my webpage displays on it. It slightly thickens the border by like 1 pixel, and my menu is slightly higher in IE. With Google chrome, I forgot to check to see which it's closer to - IE or Firefox.

I've got a ton of tree pictures, but one of my favorites is the peacock and horses I saw on the way to Crater Lake National Park.

Who would use the final product? Seeing it might be mixed with leaves. Is this thing going to spin? Or will it be a blade that impacts like a giant axe?

I just saw a cluster of the one listed an an attachment in the quote, which was second to last in your post. The caps almost remind me of a fancy garment.

That's true. I think some companies need to be in one phone directory, but many companies may not. What bugged me locally, was when several companies started to distribute phone books - Yellow Page books here - increasing the likelihood that homeowners only have a 50 / 50 chance of going to a book. 33 percent if there are 3 different books. In our home, we keep one and toss away the other ones right away. On the other hand, whether a website ranks high in search results, or is merely in place because the URL is on the business brochures, it has a 100% chance of being found. And in our area where most homes have internet, the computer beats finding a company hands down, over looking in a phone directory. Computers are rarely misplaced. Phone books are often misplaced. You can change your phone number or information every single day on a website if you want to. But once a phone directory is printed, you are stuck with what's in print. If there is a mistake, it cannot be fixed for at least a year. A website does not to be listed in one of the pitiful phone directory supplements that includes all the mistakes or omissions.