Scientists wear & tear canopy trails: Atlas Grove

Maybe some fields of research could benefit from a larger collection of observations. It certainly can't hurt to put it to the researchers. Are you in a position to help with any aspect of such a program?

That reminds me, I came up with an innovation for a grapnel design a while back and sent it to New Tribe. I haven't heard from them yet... still the market for tree climbing grapnels isn't a huge one so I'm not too bothered!

Michael

michaeljspraggon wrote:

Maybe some fields of research could benefit from a larger collection of observations. It certainly can't hurt to put it to the researchers. Are you in a position to help with any aspect of such a program?

That reminds me, I came up with an innovation for a grapnel design a while back and sent it to New Tribe. I haven't heard from them yet... still the market for tree climbing grapnels isn't a huge one so I'm not too bothered!

Michael

If it does not risk your invention, maybe post a drawing here sometime.

As for helping with the research exploring, I'd be more than happy to help out, but I don't think they would think I'm on their \"wavelength\" - LOL.

Since I last posted, I received an email from Sophia Sparks. Apparently my new grapnel design is soon to enter production! I'm starting to wish I had got a patent on it now, but patents are a lot of hassle to get for something that may only sell a few hundred units. I posted a picture of my rough prototype under gear. You'll see it if you look at recent posts.

Michael

I can't help but comment on the fact that you start a thread about people overusing the groves - when you yourself promote them any chance you get. Wikipedia for instance has many entries that obviously were influenced by yourself. Your in every picture - and you link to your website(alot) and your name is mentioned many times for entries under specific Titans names. Your website that has google ads and links to your business.

In a way you could say that in your excitement you too have also overused the groves. If you were truely that concered it seems that you wouldn't post your link everywhere the words trees or redwoods are mentioned online. And what about your map and the password and all the hype on your site? You mention it's ranked high in google. That's because you spend alot of time building a site about the groves. Pictures of the groves are not rare - your just the only one distributing them.

You challenge the discovery of Atlas Grove, yet you are aware of the Grove of Titans location, and that it's obviously been known about for a long long time. But you make no challenge to that ones recent 'discovery'. I find that confusing - logger marks or not.

In a way I can't blame you - it's easy to get really excited about the trees and forget that maybe pooling so much information online and linking to it everywhere you can about them may be fun and promote your business, but might not be in the trees best interest. That's all I have to say about the issue, not here to argue etc. But I hope you truely do lay off the 'I found the groves' posts everywhere.

looselipsinkships wrote:

I can't help but comment on the fact that you start a thread about people overusing the groves - when you yourself promote them

I work on residential trees, and do no climbing in old redwoods - zero impact in the redwood canopy; the topic here.

The reason my photos are online at other sites, is because other editors site owners email to use a few. There are several websites using my photos. Even of southern Oregon - not just redwoods

The primary reason for the webpage at my end, is to provide decent photos to fill the gap for photos - just like I've done with other areas, say the Bigfoot trap.

It appears from your \"can't help\" statement, that it may be you who is getting excited. Your excitement promted you to ask about Grove of Titans, for which an answer would require identifying Atlas Grove - literally pin-pointing it. I'd be a step shy of just sticking a map online to try and fit the whim of your question.

Here is one of several recent finds. The Strat.

Wish I had dragged my spotting scope out for this one. Fairly early morning shot here - hence the darkness.

IMAGE OF THE STRAT THAT WAS POSTED HERE, NOW MOVED TO:

http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_climbing.shtml

After locating Hyperion last January, and Helios this April, one thing is evident. The taller the redwood, the more pristine they seem to look. And the more remote they are.

These really have a no-trace-left-behind look to them. The research climbing must be infintisimal.

I'm very late to this discussion, and if everyone has left the room, so be it.

But on the subject of the protected Redwoods. It kind of bothered me that Sherrill Tree's latest catalog cover is a (in my opinion) giant tease. It shows canopy researchers and I believe (I don't have a copy with me) someone from Sherrill Tree perched high in the canopy of a gorgeous redwood.

I've come to accept the fact (sort of) that as a recreational tree climber I will never get a chance to get into a Giant Redwood canopy. It's simply too late in my career to become a canopy researcher. But there's no question the allure to get up and into a giant redwood is always going to be there for people who love to climb.

It seems to me that those who belong to this select group should really just keep it to themselves how wonderful it is, or find ways to include others. And tree catalogs should know that prominently displaying forbidden fruit can only lead to frustration or rule breaking.

I don't mean to come down too hard on Sherrill, but I can understand the \"why do they get to do it?\" mentality. Hillary climbed Everest because it was there. Is that a less legitimate reason than a scientist climbing it to research high-altitude snowfall? Could 4 or 5 giant redwoods sustain managed, planned climbs (lottery each year?) so that we non-canopy-scientists could experience it?

Too long of a post and too many questions, sorry. Just had to get that off my chest.

Holden wrote:

But on the subject of the protected Redwoods. It kind of bothered me that Sherrill Tree's latest catalog cover is a (in my opinion) giant tease. It shows canopy researchers and I believe (I don't have a copy with me) someone from Sherrill Tree perched high in the canopy of a gorgeous redwood.

I've come to accept the fact (sort of) that as a recreational tree climber I will never get a chance to get into a Giant Redwood canopy. It's simply too late in my career to become a canopy researcher. But there's no question the allure to get up and into a giant redwood is always going to be there for people who love to climb.

It seems to me that those who belong to this select group should really just keep it to themselves how wonderful it is, or find ways to include others.

The Sherrill website does have a .pdf download of the cataloge you mentioned. The smaller trees in the background seem rather conical or spire-like. I'm guessing that may be giant sequoia forest. Maybe coast redwood.

Apparently Tobe Sherrill is involved with legitimate climbs in the giant sequoia forest. The catalogue cover may reflect his personal interest. Odds are that Sherrill supplies researchers around the globe with gear from time to time.

But your point is worth noting. It's not the same as showing astronauts on the moon, in an inaccessible area.

You ever thought about emailing Sherrill and asking if there is an open door to get in on a legitimate redwood climbing event without having to be a researcher?

George Mallory was asked why he climbed, specifically in the Himilayas. His often quoted reply was, 'Because it's there.' Over the years I've read two non-related stories about his reply. Both of them said the same thing and the the two people who were asked about the BIT reply were close friends of Mallory.

Over the decades 'there' has been taken to mean that Mallory climbed for no other reason than to get to the top of the world. The two friends dispute this...and...this does fit with the discussion about tree climbing too.

To Mallory 'there' was were 'it was happening' It was the cutting edge...the place to be for renewal and growth. Men more than woman, because of different brain chemistry and social issues are more driven to go 'there'.

Here is an article I found:

George Leigh Mallory - Why climbing?

\"The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest ?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is no use'. There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. We shall not find a single foot of earth that can be planted with crops to raise food. It's no use.

So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for.\"

-- George Leigh Mallory, 1922

Does climbing old-growth trees, redwoods, oaks, aspens or Pagoda dogwoods really make a difference to us? It's not the climbing...it's more what is learned along the way. We know precious little about the oceans, old growth forests and other wilderness areas. Just knowing how another part of our Earth-system works is important to me. If, along the way, there is a little damage then I'm OK with that. I trust Sillett, etal to do their work with as little unnecessary damage as possible. From what I know...they do respect the arena that they work in.

Tom Dunlap wrote:

...I trust Sillett, etal to do their work with as little unnecessary damage as possible. From what I know...they do respect the arena that they work in.

Well said.
-moss

Tom Dunlap wrote:

George Mallory was asked why he climbed, specifically in the Himilayas. His often quoted reply was, 'Because it's there.'...

... George Leigh Mallory - Why climbing?

\"The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest ?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is no use'. There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever ...... So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy.... \"

-- George Leigh Mallory, 1922

The mountain climbers are an interesting selection for comparison. Mallory may perceive joy differently from other folks.

Everest is like Russian Roulette. 1 out of every 10 climbers who attempted, died.

Climbing Everest was similar to putting a 10 chamber revolver with one round in it, to one's head, and pulling the trigger.

By not looking at just Mallory, but at all those who climbed, another potential lesson awaits. Had none of them climbed Everest or similar risky peaks, the entire bunch of them would probably have learned twice as much in extended lifetimes.

So people can benefit from refraining too.

And there is a difference between learning WHAT one can accomplish, and learning WHILE they accomplish.

Sillett and Van Pelt are probably quite different from the Mallorys, in that they seem to learn WHILE they accomplish the climb.

Still and interesting tidbit on Mallory though.

mdvaden wrote:

Sillett and Van Pelt are probably quite different from the Mallorys, in that they seem to learn WHILE they accomplish the climb.

I'm not sure Mallory was any different. I think that what makes any high angle activity exciting and stimulating is that you have to learn and adapt as you climb. This kind of rich dynamic learning in a situation where every decision must be well considered is the extreme opposite of boredom. Add in the direct nature connection (in tree climbing), the physical challenge and other intangibles, and you pretty much have the answer to \"why climb a tree?\"

This also leads to an answer to the old-growth climbing question: it's quite possible to have a very high-quality and fulfilling tree climbing experience in a tree next to a parking lot as well as a wild tree deep in the forest. Find your places to climb, it's all there for you, it doesn't have to be a particular grove of old-growth coast redwoods in a protected national park.
-moss

moss wrote:

mdvaden wrote:

Sillett and Van Pelt are probably quite different from the Mallorys, in that they seem to learn WHILE they accomplish the climb.

I'm not sure Mallory was any different. I think that what makes any high angle activity exciting and stimulating is that you have to learn and adapt as you climb. This kind of rich dynamic learning in a situation where every decision must be well considered is the extreme opposite of boredom. Add in the direct nature connection (in tree climbing), the physical challenge and other intangibles, and you pretty much have the answer to \"why climb a tree?\"

This also leads to an answer to the old-growth climbing question: it's quite possible to have a very high-quality and fulfilling tree climbing experience in a tree next to a parking lot as well as a wild tree deep in the forest. Find your places to climb, it's all there for you, it doesn't have to be a particular grove of old-growth coast redwoods in a protected national park.
-moss

Did you ever see the article in a Nat Geo mag about 10 or 15 years back, about these \"cowboy\" guys from like Wyoming, who climbed one of the Himalayan peaks?

I'm pretty sure is was K2 that they were going to climb.

Anyhow, the learning was all done locally. The bulk of their practice was done on short stuff 20' max. They figured that they could only climb K2 in increments - so they learned all the increments locally that they could. Including ledges on boulders not much thicker than a credit card.

The mag was in the pocket on a plane I flew on some years ago. The story comes to mind on occasion.

My 2 pence (cents) worth:

Steve Sillett loves climbing trees and loves the trees themselves. George Mallory loved climbing mountains and loved the mountains themselves. Both people were excited by the prospect of being the first to reach the top of the highest example on Earth. (Steve, for example told me that he couldn't wait to get back to the US and be the first person to climb to 300' in a Sequoiadendron). Whether Mallory cared for mountains and the beings that lived in them in the way that canopy researchers do for trees (and Ed Hillary did for mountains for that matter), I don't know.

However, unlike canopy researchers, Mallory wasn't driven by the desire to learn and understand more. He was a schoolteacher who just loved climbing on his time off!

Michael