Hyperion: Tallest Redwood: Heard hide or hair? Scuttlebutt? (construction, university)

[OldManWinter]

totallyawesome loser for someone so distant from FR you sure come on here to defend it a lot. word has trickled out recently that a first name which starts with the letter "y" is involved with FR. why bother lying that you are part of FR too?

[MarkGraham]

Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer

I kind of wish it was me. I was planning to spend the next couple of summers identifying and publishing locations to spite the sickening elitism of redwood culture, but luckily someone did it before I had to.

The only "involvement" I have with Famous Redwoods is a promise to myself to mirror the website far and wide if something happens to it.

Why stop with suing FR? You could sue the RNSP to shut down all public access to the redwoods because it's one big slip and fall liability. Someone could get hurt! Maybe they'll be willing to compromise by putting nerf foam paths to every superlative tree, as well as putting metal scaffolding around the most tempting trees. Also, any climbing, recreational or scientific, must be banned because that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Maybe they could lay a metal grating over the entirety of Redwood creek. Otherwise little kids might drown in it.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone heading into a national park knows that twisted ankles are one of the risks and any judge would agree.

It is one thing to provide directions to a tree that is along a trail. However it is quite different to show a route that crosses unpredictable Redwood Creek then some more splashing and then a scramble up and over tons of potentially unstable wood. There is real danger, particularly now in the wet season.


Mark

[OldManWinter]

Yep and 'specially Lost Man Creek where peeps will likely be heading in droves after reading about the leaks in order to see some of the WORLD'S BIGGEST REDWOODS including Behemoth of Lost Man Creek and other more famous ones.

[totallyawesometruthsayer]

Originally Posted by markgraham

it is one thing to provide directions to a tree that is along a trail. However it is quite different to show a route that crosses unpredictable redwood creek then some more splashing and then a scramble up and over tons of potentially unstable wood. There is real danger, particularly now in the wet season.

FR has that covered.

Originally Posted by famousredwoods

creek warning: Hyperion is not accessible when redwood creek has high water levels. Though seasonal bridges are installed throughout summer and fall, the bridges do no cross redwood creek near tom mcdonald creek. You must wade across redwood creek and up tom mcdonald creek to get to hyperion. It is best to visit hyperion from july through october when redwood creek is low enough to wade across.

[MarkGraham]

Originally Posted by totallyawesometruthsayer

FR has that covered.

Yes they (FR) do have that warning as well as a mild log pile warning. Hopefuly folks will heed the warnings and not attempt that hike until July. They should also hike at least in pairs should trouble occur on slippery rocks in creeks, in deep water pooling areas, above and amongst log piles, or along steep slopes. If you hike alone, slip, and hit your head you could drown.

[OldManWinter]

Its so amusing how FR likes to refer to himself in the third person in his posts as totallyawesome loser.

[totallyawesometruthsayer]

Originally Posted by OldManWinter

word has trickled out recently that a first name which starts with the letter "y" is involved with FR.

Yuge news there, but Yakov Smirnoff only funded the server costs. He did none of the actual tree hunting, because in Soviet Russia tree hunts you.

I yeard that p, b, and j did the tree hunting while the web design proper was the work of b, l, and t.

[EShcherbakov]

Thank you everyone for the replies.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

What I don't understand is, if you love redwoods, why isn't it enough to be able to walk through the forests and parks, enjoying the trees? Why is it so important to be able to reach the exceptional ones?

Well, like cvolson40 mentioned, this question is similar to the question why people are seeking the great trees. If we take that I love redwoods as "data-in", then I can rationalize my answer in a few different ways. For instance, for the trees to become so big, the conditions in that particular grove must be nearly ideal. Since we are talking about an environment-forming species, it means that the whole ecosystem, or at least the species complex dependent on the coast redwood, will be in exceptional state. So, I will use the great trees as a beacon to find great ecosystems.

But this and other rationalizations are just that - rationalizations. In truth, like I said in my previous post, no two trees are identical. Some inevitably inspire more awe and rapture than others. Obviously, the great trees are the champions in this respect. So I will go to these trees primarily to experience these feelings. Different people may have different "strings" a tree might touch. Any 29' diameter tree surely will be much more awesome to me personally than Hyperion.

Many thanks for the information regarding Big Basin State Park, by the way!

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

As for "damage", from what I understand, with too many people climbing all over the roots, they can become damaged. Also, people are idiots. They don't all have respect for living treasures, and they'll do dumb things like carve their initials in the bark, or as someone already mentioned, saw off the burl wood, or whatever. You just never know what people might do; human nature doesn't always show its best.

Do many people do that in the parks to the "regular" trees? I guess no.
Now, I perfectly understand that in case of superlatives the temptation for some idiots to leave their "mark in history" might be too strong. However, like I said, most of these trees grow in quite remote, difficult or even dangerous locations, so even an idiot will likely think "No, it's not worth it" (I mean, people who will spend several days and put their lives at risk just to carve their initials, such people don't live long).
It is probably also my strongest general argument. Just like you said, "Most people are very happy to enjoy the total environment of the redwood forest, without seeking out specific trees.". So, with this in mind, it can be argued that the farther a tree from trails or flat ground, the less a flow of people will be to that tree, even if it is a record holder and its location is known.

Now I'm thinking that this argumentation could be used to set up for people an open quest of searching the great trees. Just like it was before FRs, people would search for Hyperion and others without their exact coordinates known. However a number of clues could be put in the open for the people to find the tree. In the open means in the open, without requiring a multi-month real detective investigation just to maybe get such clues and then fail after many, many hikes. The closer the tree to the beaten trails, the less could be the number of hints. Each hint could be educational and used to tell the people some knowledge about the whole ecosystem. On the other hand, paid guides could exist to lead those who don't have the time or ability to decipher the clues; such clients would not be allowed GPS or other equipment, and maybe would spent some safe part of the way blindfold. And again, during the tour - education, education, education! The money could be spent for protection of redwoods from loggers and illegal climbers.
Actually, such a plan might still work for the undisclosed great trees... Who am I kidding. Not in this situation, it seems.

Why do I care about other people seeing these trees at all? Well, two reasons: one of them might be me or my future son, or my grandson etc., the other is, like I said, I feel that these trees can effectively lead many different people to the appreciation of redwood forests and nature in general. Because I think national parks are not only about protection, but also about education and invoking appreciation in people. More on that below.

Originally Posted by mdvaden

Give me a ring some night after 6 pm. The number is on my site which is easy to find.
Easier explained talking probably.

Sorry, mdvaden. As much as it is a pleasure to talk with such a person, it is somewhat important for me for this information to be online. I have a feeling that I am not the only one who is confused about the damage that can be done to the great trees. Also, a multi-hour call from Russia to US is still expensive for me
If only you could make a neat page on your site with such information collected in one place and in bright sight for everyone to see, and leave a link to it on the main page (with big font), it would be a wonderful thing!!!

I've read your pages "Soil Care is Essential. About Compaction" and "The Forest Weeps". I will go by point then:

Originally Posted by mdvaden

1. Soil compaction and increased erosion

While I got a bunch of new knowledge from your page on soil compaction, I still don't know how exactly does it apply to the redwood trees. I saw only one paragraph relevant to our discussion:

Originally Posted by Soil Care is Essential. About Compaction

Air space (pore) preservation goes hand-in-hand with soil preservation. A soil without pores is like the “kiss of death” to a plant; a tree. A soil without pore space may as well be a rock.

So, tourists compact upper soil, the number of pores goes down, and air and nutrients cease to permeate through this compacted >1 mm layer. In theory, this can be bad for the trees. But is it? Are there scientific studies on the influence of soil compaction caused by visitors on the health and growth of redwood trees? I found a newspaper article: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...g=6834,1822801
In it, it is stated by Steve Sillett that Tall Tree's top three meters died and fell off after "so many people have stood on the base of the tree that the ground is hard-packed".
Several things to note:
1. Apparently, there were really many people, like a pilgrimage. What about lesser amounts? How many people visit the Grove of Titans every year?
2. Though I am sure Steve Sillett likely knows what he was talking about, it is still a newspaper article. Are there scientific papers on this case, which prove that the death of the top is the result of the soil compaction and not other factors?
3. Were there other cases like that? What about more accessible trees? Giant sequoias?

Originally Posted by mdvaden

2. Loss of vegetation

Indeed, it is very sad to see the process you've depicted in case of the Grove of Titans. Here, I think, we need to discern a damage to a tree, damage to other vegetation and damage to aesthetics.
The statement about a damage to a tree through damage of its near-ground epiphytes and closely adjacent vegetation needs verification.
Damage to the plant that happens to grow on the great tree does not equal to damage to the species and, therefore, science regarding that species, because the conspecifics grow on or near other redwoods trees in the nearest vicinity.
On the other hand, if because of the damage to those particular individual plants or because of preserving the aesthetic looking of this tree you want to leave this whole complex completely intact, it becomes a tough case.
I should say that on most photos that I saw of tree seekers together with some superlative they have found, the tree seeker was right near the tree or even touching it. You can't make such shot without standing directly on roots and, in the process, stepping on ferns and other plants. The extensive damage, like in the Grove of Titans, is primarily the result of the lack of knowledge and awareness. One thing one can do is to put conspicuous plates near all "exposed" trees explaining to people how to not stand on epiphytes and damage vegetation around the tree.
So, overall, from the rational viewpoint I find this argument very weak to justify the complete secrecy around the record holders.

Originally Posted by mdvaden

3. Compromising research gear, sensors, etc., to illegal climbing in the canopy

4. Compromising research sensors on the ground level due to foot traffic.

This is probably the easiest problem to solve. People don't see the sensors and they don't know that they are there! Put large plates in the immediate vicinity of the tree explaining that the tree is a part of ongoing research and no approach and climbing are allowed, under the threat of fines. Mention hidden cameras even if they aren't there. Mark the sensors with tags telling what it is, with those tags to be noticeable by humans and unattractive to animals. I know because it is rather standart practice in some Russian national parks and even outside the parks, and people will never touch anything if it is related to research.

Originally Posted by cvolson40

Here is my question - what is the reason these giant marvels are kept secret? Is it for science? Is it for their inherent "right" as a beautiful organism?
...
Maybe science isn't at the core of the secrecy argument

Thank you, cvolson40, I think it is very important question for the discussion. Basically, if we are on the rational side of things, it boils down to the science, potential damage to it and balancing more specific scientific needs tied to particular trees, more general questions that can be asked in the future and the right of non-science folk to see those trees. Regarding the latter, everyone knows that now we have only remnants of former greatness, and redwoods are continuing to be cut outside the national parks. Logging is much bigger than any damage tourists do to the Forest in the national parks! Moreover, that the Forest is preserved inside the parks now doesn't guarantee that this situation will continue in 30, 50, 100 years. I firmly believe that just seeing these great trees can significantly raise the awareness in many people, to further protect the forest they grow in, as well as maybe other, non-protected redwood forests. Especially when they will see many super-giant trees, not just several ones (General Sherman and others), which the public has become overly accustomed to.

On the other hand, if the desire to hide these trees is irrational... well, not much point in this discussion then. Looking at the last pages of this theme, I haven't seen any suggestions or plans to mitigate the damage to the trees, the locations of which have been exposed. Only "catch the criminal" game. Like Ruth4Truth said, this does create an impression of a cult, to which it is the secrecy that is important rather than the trees per se. But I like to think it isn't like that.

Another consideration, I am not trying to "win" this discussion, only to clear up some points and educate myself. I am on the side of clarity here. While I am indeed glad that the site has appeared, I don't think that they reveal the information with enough responsibility. They could have at least put a simple warning to the potential visitors to not disturb vegetation and sensors on and around the trees. Instead, they treat the great trees just like a touristic brochure treats a man-made sight, like it is not a living thing. And FRs provide no ecological and educational context for the trees or groves.

~Evgeny

[MarkGraham]

Evgeny

Your last paragraph regarding some of the shortcomings of that web site is well stated. No advisories or advice on limiting the impact of visits, not good. Then also no forest appreciation in the written content.

You more or less concede soil compaction may have an impact. I think it has a substantial impact. Think of any forest you have walked through. The natural state in the forest is an accumulation of duff and decomposing material and the ground is not compacted in any way other than the ground on the trail. Soil compaction is an unnatural state for a forest tree. Absorption of moisture is inhibited and roots have to grow closer to the surface and spread out more as a result. I know if I plant two tomato plants and stomp all around the base of one of them that plant will not grow as well as the other plant and indeed may not bear any ripe tomatoes. Why would it be any different for redwood trees.

I do think the Redwood Parks could do a few things to allow easy visits for anyone to a couple of the top ten tallest and a couple of the top ten largest redwood trees. This would involve short side trails, limited fencing, advisory signs, and cameras for enforcement. I don't know if this would satisfy the appetite for everyone that wants to see the most exemplary redwoods but it may go a long way.

I don't think it is practical for the redwood parks to promote or facilitate visits to exemplary redwood trees that are well off trail, such as Hyperion. To do so would require trail building over difficult terrain and installation of any type of fencing would be complex due to steep slopes and shifting ground. As for tree searchers taking photos standing up on or next to trunks of exemplary redwoods I agree this appears to be some of the behavior people advise against. However in many of the cases they are standing on a log lying next to the trunk or on a single small spot reserved for photography.

Finally, if the creator of creators of the web site believe what they have done is beneficial they should have no reservations making themselves known and take credit for what they have done. The fact they haven't suggests they may have compromised some sort of trust but I have no way knowing that with certainty.

Mark

[OldManWinter]

Reading through Mr. Vaden's Hyperion page tonight and a number of intriguing updates there. Some great info about why Hyperion could be considered 386 feet tall. Also nice link to donate to the reward fund. Donate, donate, donate, peeps!

Also saw Mr. Hall finally got around to posting an update. He mocks the fact that FR can't find Helios. I mock him too. I'm going to be laughing my butt off for years to come since FR can't find Helios.

Been doing some soul searching and asking around. It is widely been realized that either -1- FR obtained their information by hacking or theft by hacking into Mr. Vaden, Mr. Sillett, Mr. Taylor, or the Humboldt State computers OR -2- someone on the inside is behind FR. Perhaps "y" is the person is what I'm being told.