ninja climbs, coast redwoods, and social media. ecology vs culture

[evo]

Because you can have a very similar experience climbing a fast growing 225-240 ft second growth thats under 200 yrs old. No need to defile and disrespect a 300 ft tree that’s a thousand+ years old because it’s on your bucket list.

Good call, personally I’d have my ass in a legit oldgrowth half the height over a fast growing tree. But I’m not about conquering more about the nuances.
Maybe I’m just getting old?

 

[evo]

During my travels I have visited many areas, sites and specific things that are overloved. There is something very special about these places and things that draws humans in droves, creating an excess that endangers the very existence of the place or thing. How do I know this? Because I was there among the crowds helping to destroy the very place or thing I so desired to experience.

What is that old adage… if you love something enough you’ll set it free.
That’s how I feel about many places I’ve never been, so be it I just don’t want to be part of the problem. This sack of water isn’t any better than any other sack of water.

 

[Matias]

To play a bit of devils advocate here, where does one draw the line when it comes to what constitutes "defiling"? Why is it defiling when it's an older tree vs a younger? I too am more interested in an interesting, quirky old tree than some tall, straight shaft with fairly consistent branches too close together. To set foot in that pristine wilderness at all is to defile it, and yet, when given the opportunity, many of us have done it just the one time. Rape is rape. Doesn't matter if you only did it the once and won't do it again. That one time it was still rape. If there is a significant possibility that the next big wildfire will claim more of these old giants, as has happened, then it won't matter that none of us ever mounted them, even one time. They will still be burnt dead, and unsavable. As long as the earth remains habitable, the trees will grow, and the regrowth will become old growth again.

To say that it doesn't matter if you go climb some regrowth that's less than 200 years old, but ones older than that shouldn't be climbed doesn't 100% make sense to me. Like what about a 400 year old skinny one that's busted past 300' in a dope grove that wasn't clear cut, but did get logged some? This fetish with preserving single specimens is a little weird. Why not say all redwoods? And why? Is it about single trees or an ecosystem? Why should anyone even be allowed to live among them? Why should anyone be allowed to defile any space on earth, even once? It's a slippery slope, no? What about the stolen lands we all occupy? Defiled.

There are times when individual actions matter a lot, but is this really one of them? It seems most folks are hellbent on making this moment now the end-of-the-world party. The fact that we are ok with the fact that they took a plane halfway around the world with all this gear just for fun is troublesome. I know some folks still have their heads in the sand regarding human accelerated climate change, but doing almost anything for recreation is defiling the earth to some extent.

There's a part of me that feels like even if their production quality was mediocre, that making a film about the tree and drawing attention could bring more tourists, who get charged for access, right? Isn't that money supposed to pay for the parks to exist as preserves, protected from capitalists who would have cut them down for profit decades ago? The parks need people to go there to exist, but people going there destroys them, and the cycle continues

 

[evo]

To play a bit of devils advocate here, where does one draw the line when it comes to what constitutes "defiling"? Why is it defiling when it's an older tree vs a younger? I too am more interested in an interesting, quirky old tree than some tall, straight shaft with fairly consistent branches too close together. To set foot in that pristine wilderness at all is to defile it, and yet, when given the opportunity, many of us have done it just the one time. Rape is rape. Doesn't matter if you only did it the once and won't do it again. That one time it was still rape. If there is a significant possibility that the next big wildfire will claim more of these old giants, as has happened, then it won't matter that none of us ever mounted them, even one time. They will still be burnt dead, and unsavable. As long as the earth remains habitable, the trees will grow, and the regrowth will become old growth again.

To say that it doesn't matter if you go climb some regrowth that's less than 200 years old, but ones older than that shouldn't be climbed doesn't 100% make sense to me. Like what about a 400 year old skinny one that's busted past 300' in a dope grove that wasn't clear cut, but did get logged some? This fetish with preserving single specimens is a little weird. Why not say all redwoods? And why? Is it about single trees or an ecosystem? Why should anyone even be allowed to live among them? Why should anyone be allowed to defile any space on earth, even once? It's a slippery slope, no? What about the stolen lands we all occupy? Defiled.

There are times when individual actions matter a lot, but is this really one of them? It seems most folks are hellbent on making this moment now the end-of-the-world party. The fact that we are ok with the fact that they took a plane halfway around the world with all this gear just for fun is troublesome. I know some folks still have their heads in the sand regarding human accelerated climate change, but doing almost anything for recreation is defiling the earth to some extent.

There's a part of me that feels like even if their production quality was mediocre, that making a film about the tree and drawing attention could bring more tourists, who get charged for access, right? Isn't that money supposed to pay for the parks to exist as preserves, protected from capitalists who would have cut them down for profit decades ago? The parks need people to go there to exist, but people going there destroys them, and the cycle continues

This of course is a matter of perspective, philosophy and potentially spirituality.

For myself I believe humans are not outside nature, not the apex, etc.

It’s a numbers game for me. If we had ‘untouched oldgrowth’ Or more than a relic few if a species of that age, and now uniqueness it would matter less? Nothing can exist without making an impact, yet our impact has created this mass extinction event.
I’m not the ‘let’s try rolling the windows up’ type of experimental mechanic while speeding down the freeway. I’m much more conservative, and when it’s my car I pull over and methodically look it over..

 

[moss]

To play a bit of devils advocate here, where does one draw the line when it comes to what constitutes "defiling"? Why is it defiling when it's an older tree vs a younger? I too am more interested in an interesting, quirky old tree than some tall, straight shaft with fairly consistent branches too close together. To set foot in that pristine wilderness at all is to defile it, and yet, when given the opportunity, many of us have done it just the one time. Rape is rape. Doesn't matter if you only did it the once and won't do it again. That one time it was still rape. If there is a significant possibility that the next big wildfire will claim more of these old giants, as has happened, then it won't matter that none of us ever mounted them, even one time. They will still be burnt dead, and unsavable. As long as the earth remains habitable, the trees will grow, and the regrowth will become old growth again.

To say that it doesn't matter if you go climb some regrowth that's less than 200 years old, but ones older than that shouldn't be climbed doesn't 100% make sense to me. Like what about a 400 year old skinny one that's busted past 300' in a dope grove that wasn't clear cut, but did get logged some? This fetish with preserving single specimens is a little weird. Why not say all redwoods? And why? Is it about single trees or an ecosystem? Why should anyone even be allowed to live among them? Why should anyone be allowed to defile any space on earth, even once? It's a slippery slope, no? What about the stolen lands we all occupy? Defiled.

There are times when individual actions matter a lot, but is this really one of them? It seems most folks are hellbent on making this moment now the end-of-the-world party. The fact that we are ok with the fact that they took a plane halfway around the world with all this gear just for fun is troublesome. I know some folks still have their heads in the sand regarding human accelerated climate change, but doing almost anything for recreation is defiling the earth to some extent.

There's a part of me that feels like even if their production quality was mediocre, that making a film about the tree and drawing attention could bring more tourists, who get charged for access, right? Isn't that money supposed to pay for the parks to exist as preserves, protected from capitalists who would have cut them down for profit decades ago? The parks need people to go there to exist, but people going there destroys them, and the cycle continues

It's all about good judgement and getting rid of ideas about "I must climb this famous tree". Once again, it's the ground disturbance that is the most significant. Having "tourists" visit a tree on a regular basis is not good for a landmark redwood. It is worse than climbers in the same tree. Look at the ground around trees like the General Sherman sequoia, it's like a clay tennis court.

"Defiling" is subjective but you know it when you see it. I feel like this is a non-discussion, stay away from the well-known old growth redwoods, go find your trees, tread lightly, leave no trace.
-AJ

 

[Matias]

It's all about good judgement and getting rid of ideas about "I must climb this famous tree". Once again, it's the ground disturbance that is the most significant. Having "tourists" visit a tree on a regular basis is not good for a landmark redwood. It is worse than climbers in the same tree. Look at the ground around trees like the General Sherman sequoia, it's like a clay tennis court.

"Defiling" is subjective but you know it when you see it. I feel like this is a non-discussion, stay away from the well-known old growth redwoods, go find your trees, tread lightly, leave no trace.
-AJ

I wholly agree with everything but the non-discussion element. Perhaps you have said your piece, but earlier, Eric said

Because you can have a very similar experience climbing a fast growing 225-240 ft second growth thats under 200 yrs old. No need to defile and disrespect a 300 ft tree that’s a thousand+ years old because it’s on your bucket list.

From yours and Evo's comments, I gather you don't define defiling the same as he does. I bet the experience is similar in many ways, but I, like Evo, would much rather become intimate with an old tree that has some character.
From the rules I can find, only Redwood Nat'l Park, where Hyperion resides, actually prohibit tree climbing. I searched for hours and cannot find any other federal or state lands that expressly prohibit climbing any trees, or even touching/climbing OG trees. There are some who may try to argue that you are "disturbing" the tree, but I would not hesitate to challenge the definition of "disturb" in court.

And that definition seems to me to be the crux of this matter. I don't see climbing an OG tree as an insult to the tree. I don't climb to conquer, I climb to commune with the tree. I like to read the tree's story. That said, I think there are so many far more disgraceful things one may do than climb a tree. I am a big proponent of "leave no trace", but to a trained eye, all activity leaves a trace, so the question becomes one of long term impacts, right? Where you draw the line may seem draconian to some, and too loose for others. Leaving it to peoples best judgment is how we end up with the state of affairs we are discussing here. Clearly these climbers thought that the rules were too draconian, and believed they were on a righteous mission to protest these rules. I am coming to the conclusion that their message was just too narrow, and they would have been better justifed if they were protesting the wanton destruction of every other corner of the earth. Like if this one tree desrves such protection, why stop there? Why only the prohibition in the one park? Why not in the whole of every forest. For that matter, why not prohibit all further intrusion on any as yet undeveloped land? No construction, not even a park with walking access.

This is a tragedy of the commons, and all the pearl clutching in the world doesn't change the fact that for the most part, the presence of humans is disturbing to any ecosystem. I don't feel like the prohibition on visiting Hyperion solves any meaningful problems. In fact, if a new freakshow tree draws attention away from Gen. Sherman and other named trees, then doesn't it spread and diffuse the impact? Is that not more akin to the find a different tree attitude?

Humans never make big difficult changes until a bigger external factor forces the hand. Sadly, it feels like things need get a bit worse for enough people to get motivated to work on making and honoring agreements with one another about these things, but as things are, I see no reason why they should be charged with a crime. I don't agree with their actions, but I would defend their right to make their choices. People only change by agreement, not by force.

Hope nobody gets too ruffled. I'm not here to be right, I'm here to discuss and see more perspectives than just mine.

 

[rico]

It's all about good judgement and getting rid of ideas about "I must climb this famous tree". Once again, it's the ground disturbance that is the most significant. Having "tourists" visit a tree on a regular basis is not good for a landmark redwood. It is worse than climbers in the same tree. Look at the ground around trees like the General Sherman sequoia, it's like a clay tennis court.

You touched on something very important moss. The area around these trees looks as if a herd of goats is allowed graze it down to bear earth on the daily. Extremely detrimental to the health of the trees, the soil, and the forest in general...

 

[Matias]

They measured and mapped the whole tree along with architectural drawings. The end result is awe inspiring

And the net benefit to humanity there is what? How does that preserve the ecosystem that produced the tree? I am always in awe of these things too, like those planet earth docs with Mr. Attenbourough, but how many resources were spent producing them that could have had a bigger impact if spent quietly buying and saving those ecosystems? It feels as mastubatory as climbing it just for clicks.

 

[ghostice]

Wonder what the tree thinks . . .

 

[data farm 26]

It's all about good judgement and getting rid of ideas about "I must climb this famous tree". Once again, it's the ground disturbance that is the most significant. Having "tourists" visit a tree on a regular basis is not good for a landmark redwood. It is worse than climbers in the same tree. Look at the ground around trees like the General Sherman sequoia, it's like a clay tennis court.

"Defiling" is subjective but you know it when you see it. I feel like this is a non-discussion, stay away from the well-known old growth redwoods, go find your trees, tread lightly, leave no trace.
-AJ

Why not build boardwalks, elevated platforms, to protect root zones? I feel like I've seen that on some reds at least. But definitely lots of trampled roots in the reds too.

 

[evo]

And the net benefit to humanity there is what? How does that preserve the ecosystem that produced the tree? I am always in awe of these things too, like those planet earth docs with Mr. Attenbourough, but how many resources were spent producing them that could have had a bigger impact if spent quietly buying and saving those ecosystems? It feels as mastubatory as climbing it just for clicks.

I hear that but the net gain of the research has proven fruitful. Now it just needs to be proven in other species

 

[evo]

Why not build boardwalks, elevated platforms, to protect root zones? I feel like I've seen that on some reds at least. But definitely lots of trampled roots in the reds too.

That is a mixed bag and the logical conclusion to ‘trespass’… they are going to do it one way or the other mindset.
Yet inviting more people to visit the tree isn’t always the solution.
I don’t have the answers I just see both sides of the coin.

Edit: I think the naming and publicity of the tree has certainly spawned the vector that is our modern culture, and one way or the other will ultimately be the demise

 

[Bart_]

Having been up a big doug fir with a guide, I can comment that most all of the horizontal "climbable" surfaces are little eco systems, as was explained to me. Our climb was up a research tree, free air to the tree boats with one branch or two designated to stand on. Very delicate ecosystems.

Love the moss dialog

You can sign up and wait to ascend with Sillet I believe. Company I went up with shut down years ago.

I went up a redwood with my son along the road to lonely doug. Hot! Skitters!!!!


ps As i thought about it, you need a place to stand if you're going to have a wizz into the pee bottle at 200', can't remember if I executed this maneuver


edit - making a correction, it was a giant red cedar, both have red in the name and old guy memory. sorry

 

[data farm 26]

That is a mixed bag and the logical conclusion to ‘trespass’… they are going to do it one way or the other mindset.
Yet inviting more people to visit the tree isn’t always the solution.
I don’t have the answers I just see both sides of the coin.

Edit: I think the naming and publicity of the tree has certainly spawned the vector that is our modern culture, and one way or the other will ultimately be the demise

I was talking about trees already known and inviting to public. Like moss mentioned, general sherman.

 

[evo]

I was talking about trees already known and inviting to public. Like moss mentioned, general sherman.

Oh, yes totally support that like Yellowstone

 

[Matias]

I hear that but the net gain of the research has proven fruitful. Now it just needs to be proven in other species

So, I read some of his papers, and listened to a recorded lecture. The full body of his work as a whole has recently produced a paper wherein he has given us definitive proof that leaving the biggest and best trees, and periodically thinning the understory, will more rapidly restore the quality of the ecosystem as well as timber quality.

But, just as with basically every other industry, quality costs more. Selective logging was phased out in favor of clear-cutting for economic reasons, not ethical ones. If it will slow down their income stream, even for a single fiscal quarter, they are obligated to their shareholders to resist changing their operations.

We can add the data to continue to prove humanities link to climate change, and we can further quantify the horrors, but we have been doing that for over 100 years with deeply insufficient results. It seems that if those, by now I'm sure, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on these studies would have simply been spent bribing politicians, I wonder if it wouldn't have yielded better return on investment?

Even Sillett had to cut many large, live limbs off to develop his numbers, and took core samples from 235 specimen trees many times over the years. He and his team traipsed around over every single branch to measure every last twig. I'll bet they disturbed, dare I say defiled, those 235 trees quite a bit. But it was to satisfy some academically mastubatory purpose, rather than a purely mastubatory one, so, cool right?

At the end of the day, we didn't need decades worth of data, which I still find deeply fascinating BTW, to tell us that climate change is bad for the trees, and that better forest management would be good. But if you like the type of content that Silletts team has produced, that's cool- I sure do. Some people- more than a couple- like the content those Brits posted. It might not be your cup'o'tea- wasn't mine- but five grand and six months of them taking up space in a jail won't fix the damage.

I feel it would be most prudent, especially in light of the fact that of the 235 specimens, all anybody wants to climb is Hyperion, that they just fucking establish a single trail on the least intrusive path, install a boardwalk around the base and set and maintain ropes on a set route up, with a guard station to enforce the payment for access and monitor the ropes; people would pay to do it. It doesn't have to be cheap. Think of it like how they sell permits to hunters to shoot an animal that has been deemed ready to be culled. Rich people would pay handsomely for the experience I think, and us working class guys can just go find a different tree.



Even Sillett has that obsession with the tallest trees. If because he is smart and has a commitment to treading lightly as possible- but treading nonetheless- he gets a pass for defiling these trees, then why shouldn't other be allowed to tread upon these trees, especially if they are watched and guided by smart people who know how things work?

 

[DSMc]

"then why shouldn't other be allowed to tread upon these trees"

Something is either worth protecting or not. Making exceptions to appease perceived social injustices, or worse, in the name of science, is still missing the mark.

 

[Bart_]

There can sometimes be a problem with absolutes like all or nothing (?) On a philosophical level. Compromise or levels of grey are often used in practical situations successfully.

 

[evo]

And more
Eco/ego trespass

https://www.sfgate.com/california-parks/article/people-illegally-climbing-california-redwoods-19595183.php?fbclid=IwY2xjawEiRkpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWjGIMrVZL-ItoM4n-s0Pn05VjC9VGI35v3pzq7qodUJjhHIgbmbYvq5cw_aem_u8PqfDPBwAGMoHH78fBZbg

 

[evo]

Shit I just read the whole of the SF article. I know Oxman and his hubris showboating. Had no idea he was up to illegal redwood guided climbs.
Shame on you!