Hyperion: Tallest Redwood: Heard hide or hair? Scuttlebutt? (contractor, live in)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Mark
Mark ... one difference between yourself and "Eshcherbakov" is the approach to learning. You simply look for the information online and find a lot. Some requires college education and books. But there is plenty online. You write too, but the amount of information you dig up shows that if you want to learn something you will seek it out regardless of where its at.
For a moment, I'm going to return and quote something from post #144. I will add one more thing to the list of traits. That would be "controlling". There are a couple reasons. One has to do with how many people (a preponderance) find some places and all reach the same consensus that its best kept low-key. And many are not scientists etc., but people with common sense. Then one person or very few come along who determine their will needs to change everything for a large majority. The other angle relates to conversations, emails, etc.. If anyone happened to talk, email or write with the person in question without knowing about what they may be involved in, there's a good chance that the other may have steered conversations, reasoning or attention.
Quote:
1. Two people.
2. One with good or advanced computer, code, internet or technical skill
3. One with with reasonably good photography or exposure skill
4. Close proximity. 0 to 300 miles from Humboldt (ish)
5. Been to the Giant Sequoias
6. Been to the Coast Redwoods at least monthly
7. IP addresses are recorded in forum logs in some fashion
8. Name, vehicle or plate may be on a public record gate access log
9. May know more than letting on
10. Emailed / contacted some other who explores in some fashion at some point in time
11. At least one doesn't like, or afraid to make mistakes
12. Has some fear of the tree community
13. Big on facts, numbers and info. Would stand out to many as a "data-digger"
That's all food for thought though. Could be someone none of us have met or corresponded with. I think the points are related, but the main conclusive point is that somebody opened a big can or worms for themselves.
It doesn't look like they kept themselves pure. And that's where some big organizations may end up wedging the pry bar into some gaping holes.
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!
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.
Fascinating responses. And I also get from your overall post that this is a hobby for you, which is ok. There are worse hobbies! So may I ask, where do you live? Are you in the Bay Area? Is your name really Shcherbakov? Why does that sound so familiar? Your hobby is interesting, because in a way, it's a very Russian hobby.
Fascinating responses. And I also get from your overall post that this is a hobby for you, which is ok. There are worse hobbies! So may I ask, where do you live? Are you in the Bay Area?
No, I live in Moscow (well, in the suburbs..). The original one (I was always fascinated by the fact, how many other Moscows are there, particularly in the US. Some even had not been named in honor of Russia's capital, just end up having the same name). Like I said, I have developed an interest in redwoods less than three weeks ago, and I've never even been to US (but intend to do it in the future), so you can't call this my "hobby". That's what I meant when in my original post I referred to myself as a "real outsider". I definitely love forest for my life, and I like to seek out large trees during my walks and hikes, but our oaks and pines are obviously no match for the redwoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Is your name really Shcherbakov?
Yes. This is actually the first time I registered on a forum with my real name, in line with the discussion about pseudonyms a ten or so of pages back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGraham
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 ear any ripe tomatoes. Why would it be any different for redwood trees.
It might be different in case of full-grown coastal redwood because of the very large area covered by its roots, and because each plant species has its own ecological needs and can respond differently to the same factor. See also below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGraham
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.
Your last sentence made think of yet another shortcoming of the "total secrecy" policy. Right now, the interest to the great trees, at least in some people, could be influenced not only by their natural attributes, but also by the secrecy surrounding them. As they say, forbidden fruit is sweet. I think this also plays a big part in the motivation of the people behing FRs or "Wikileaks" type of people, like those who appeared in the debate with the botanists. So when leaks happen, this former strict secrecy could actually increase the visitation, for wrong reasons. And leaks will happen again and again, it's only a matter of time. The more strict the secrecy is, the more is the desire of the "Wiikileaks" people to destroy it, even without any concerns for the trees I presume. From my perspective, this leads to nowhere, and does not appear to be beneficial for the trees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGraham
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.
I agree about the trails and fences. Then what about guided hikes, with a ranger? Officially, locations of the tallest/largest trees are still secret, regardless of whether anybody will find their coordinates via FRs. If the parks will satisfy public interest with such trips (with groups not larger than 1-2 persons), a ranger will be able to control a tourist, preventing safety risks and possible damage to the trees, while at the same time spreading much needed awareness for plants etc.
In any case, dificult terrain can not prevent setup of the plates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGraham
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.
If that's the case, no damage will be done if these spots will be marked and properly advertised, e.g., as the very best spots for photography.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvaden
Mark ... one difference between yourself and "Eshcherbakov" is the approach to learning. You simply look for the information online and find a lot.
Then probably Mark and I were looking for different things. I used Google Scholar, PubMed and Sciencedirect to find any relevant papers, using the combination of keywords ("Sequoia" OR "redwood" OR "Tall Tree") AND "soil compaction". The search yilded interesting results.
A 1992 report by David J. Parsons"Objects or Ecosystems? Giant Sequoia Management in National Parks" expressed some concerns: "little concern was shown for the potential long term effects of soil compaction or the eventual failure of underground water and sewer systems on the shallow rooted big trees." Again, no references have been provided.
"The ecology of Sequoia sempervirens" by James A. Snyder (1992) have a single mention of the soil compaction, on p. 40: "Fritz (1951) confirmed that some redwoods apparently never produce seed, a condition that might be determined by permanent features of the root environment where impairment of the root system by disturbances such as road-cuts, soil compaction or flooding is required to stimulate cone production (Becking, 1968; Muelder and Hansen, 1961b)." The same report by Becking (with a different year) is also cited with respect to Tall Tree's situation, pp. 31 and 90: "in the aftermath of the winter floods of 1964, siltation around the base of the Tall Tree had reduced its standing height to 366.6 feet (Becking, 1967)." No visitor impact is mentioned. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the work of Becking online (Becking, R.W. 1968.The ecology of the coastal redwood forest and the impact of the 1964 floods upon redwood vegetation. Final Report GB 4690 NSF Grant, Redwood Research Institute, Inc., Areata, California, September 1, 1968, 187 pp.).
A very informative review by Kozlowski (1986, "Soil aeration and growth of forest trees"), unfortunately, has only a single mention of Sequoia: "Among the conifers the very flood tolerant Taxodium distichum often grows in standing water (Krinard & Johnson, 1976) and Sequoia sempervirens thrives on flooded alluvial flats (Stone & Vanes, 1976)." Intrigued, I've read the cited paper which paints a quite complex picture of floods influence on the coast redwood. However, from my impressions, this has little connection to the soil compaction caused by visitors in the parks.
Some sources cited apparently influental papers by Richard Hartesveldt, which I also couldn't find online. For example, "Five California campgrounds ... conditions improve after 5 years' recreational use", a 1970 report by Arthur Magill states: "In California, Hartesveldt (1963) found that trampling, root cutting for roads, and root covering by roads have not seriously impeded the growth of giant sequoia (Sequoia gigantea)". This is also corroborated by the study itself (section "Tree Growth" on p. 7). Similar citation can be found on this page: "Hartesveldt did not find other results of development - covering of roots by asphalt, soil compaction, or soil erosion - to cause profound impacts to sequoia survival or growth".
Note how old all of these direct studies are. You would think that there will be a plenty of more recent reviews has the soil compaction been such a concern. The only recent related project I've found, if I understand correctly, is still a work in progress. I've also emailed a person the same question, still waiting for their reply.
So, I hope you forgive me for currently viewing the damage to the great trees caused by soil compaction (caused by visitors) as a plausible, but proofless hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvaden
One has to do with how many people (a preponderance) find some places and all reach the same consensus that its best kept low-key. And many are not scientists etc., but people with common sense.
The nature of the consensus is important. Of any consensus, actually. And so-called "common sense" is so different in different people or cultures...
Please, imagine a situation. I give you a call asking to take me to the recently found largest coastal redwood, promising that I will step only on those spots you will say, not take any GPS receiver or any similar equipment, just a camera and give you full permission to delete any photos on my camera you will find too "dangerous". We can even go with a certain second person to restrain me, if I try to, for instance, carve my initials despite my promises.
Mr. Vaden and Mr. Graham, I would not be so quickly to trust that "Evgeny" is a legitimate person with questions. It could just be yet another alias of FR and totallyawesome loser. He seems to want to emphasize that this is his real name and highlight the Moscow angle quite a bit. A little suspicious to say the least.
Mr. Vaden and Mr. Graham, I would not be so quickly to trust that "Evgeny" is a legitimate person with questions. It could just be yet another alias of FR and totallyawesome loser. He seems to want to emphasize that this is his real name and highlight the Moscow angle quite a bit. A little suspicious to say the least.
I don't trust that Evgeny or most any other here are "real" personalities. (other than 3 that were ascertained)
If someone really wants to know, they will find it here or elsewhere. He may not have gone below the tip of the ice berg yet. His posts plus the "proofless" comment seem argumentative more so than one seeking instruction. Because even the internet is flooded with recent information related to trees, soil and compaction. Maybe he just took the wrong direction and it comes across that way.
Basically, most evergreen trees and shrubs share the same nature when it comes to soils. Most Certified Arborists and Agronomists are aware of this. Roots are opposite of leaves, and do not provide oxygen. Instead, they use oxygen and release carbon dioxide. If someone goes to a park visitor center and rangers say "compaction is bad for roots" (or trees), they don't have to explain themselves. One, they may not understand it. But they would still be correct, and they acquire information from experts. When a dentist tells people to brush or floss their teeth, the dentist does not need to explain the life cycle of bacteria to make the encouragement true.
A few pages or pdf on soils / compaction. Urban soil was non-urban before cities, so soil is soil. The writings apply to forest, field or urban trees.
Someone can run in circles all day about this, but the accurate conclusion remains that every credible arborist and tree expert knows that soil compaction is detrimental to general tree health. The knowledge and science resides in the college and university degree programs. Its embedded into the teaching and professional practices of Certified Arborists.
Yes Old Man Winter, it has crossed my mind EShcherbakov has not disclosed his or her full biographical details. I am certain MD Vaden has the same doubts. EShcherbakov has certainly picked through all the nuances and sides of the redwood secrecy issue in a very quick fashion and has expressed all of this in flawless and idiom filled English.
Of course we know of a Colonel Shcherbakov who was a Russian defector involved in a fairly well known spy scandal about 2010. You can look it up, all public information.
So Shcherbakov could be genuine but maybe not. Instead this could be a person who "defected" from the group of redwoods researchers or explorers and views himself or herself as a people's right to know person.
Thus the pseudonym. If that is true, I thank Shcherbakov/FR for coming forward and providing some insight into the reasoning and motivation around the web site.
Basically FR is willing to have these exemplary redwoods, which have been left RELATIVELY undisturbed for up to 2,300 years, be trampled upon. I can't agree with that.
Last edited by MarkGraham; 02-03-2016 at 07:44 PM..
Reason: correction
Please, imagine a situation. I give you a call asking to take me to the recently found largest coastal redwood, promising that I will step only on those spots you will say, not take any GPS receiver or any similar equipment, just a camera and give you full permission to delete any photos on my camera you will find too "dangerous". We can even go with a certain second person to restrain me, if I try to, for instance, carve my initials despite my promises.
How will you reply?
~Evgeny
Four years ago, the answer could have been yes.
One or two people erased this option. Not just for one of the larger ones that was disclosed, but even for new discoveries like "Hail Storm" found last January, 2016. Now there's not even photos, stats or parks.
What's worth pointing out, is that some people griped about something that didn't even exist. They would talk about some secret elite tree society trying to keep redwoods to themselves. When in fact, various discoverers or finders looked for ways to help others enjoy notable redwoods if they could feel ensured that the habitat, soil and plants would not get thrashed.
But a handful actually caused what didn't exist, to come to pass.
In a way, from 2013 - 2015 forward, we could say there is a secret tree society now. Previously, the basic tools were provided. Now nobody but about a dozen people know the real unearthed potential of the redwood forest.
every credible arborist and tree expert knows that soil compaction is detrimental to general tree health.
If that's so, then it's odd that so many arborists and tree experts respond with jokes when you try to push that fact on forums. And you have to admit that it's odd that if soil compaction was literally the Zyklon B for redwoods that you would have us believe, that heavily traveled groves like Founder's Grove would be full of little more than matchsticks and dust instead of the reasonably healthy trees we see there today.
It's great that you finally admit that there is a group keeping tree secrets to itself and that you're a part of it. I mean, you can't call anyone who participates a scientist any longer because secrecy is anathema to science. You also can't use "scientific research" as a defense for hiding tree locations because, yeah, your anti-science position shows that those appeals are completely disingenuous.
I suspect that soil compaction is about as bad for redwoods as sitting for extended periods is for people. Not a healthy thing, but certainly something that won't be listed as the cause of death on the post-mortem report.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So may I ask, where do you live? Are you in the Bay Area? Is your name really Shcherbakov? Why does that sound so familiar? Your hobby is interesting, because in a way, it's a very Russian hobby. 
Shcherbakov
