National Geo Redwoods

[stig]

Jerry, you have to remember that Steve Sillett has build his entire reputation plus his professorate at HSU on being the first to climb those trees.
For him to admit to you having been there first would be equal to Edmund Hillary saying that Tensing Norgay was first man on Everest.
I just reread "The wild trees" before going over to California, and even though Preston clearly worships Sillett, the picture he paints of him in the book, still makes him sound somewhat flaky to me.

 

[sotc]

Then theres a fellow thats trying to get permission to fall a tree "for scientific reasons". If he gets the permit (he expects he will) He wants me to fall a 6' diameter tree so he can cut a cookie off to take and examine leaving the rest of the tree:roll:

 

[gf beranek]

During construction of the Prairie Creek bypass a lot of old growth had to cut in order to manage it. The loggers doing the work were levied fines by the parks dept for disturbing any habitat, brush, trees, considered non-incidental to the falling of the trees.

Of course we all know it is impossible to fall a redwood the size of the Coombs Tree without breaking some other trees in the process, but that was the rules set down by the state that the loggers had to work by.

It's been getting worse since. And has actually come to the point that many areas within the timber lands have been excluded from logging operations because of the potential disturbance to incidental features within those areas. Rare and endangered plants, arc sites, slopes, view corridors, water courses and just plain wet spots in general. You take those out of the picture and you shut down logging.

Now Steve Sillett plans on topping a bunch of redwoods to study what happens to them after the fact. And it's ok for him to do so because it's in the name of science. I already pointed out in the forums that a study like that is un-necessary because the evidence of what happens after a redwood loses its top is all around us. Thousands of examples. In every stage of development. All he has to do is open his eyes. To go and cut out the tops of perfectly good trees to see what will happen is akin to setting the woods on fire to see what happens. That is not science. It is total ignoramus thinking.

Oops, on another rank. Another cup of STFU, please.

 

[Burnham]

Getting a little full of STFU tea, are you, Jer?


While of course you are preaching to the chior here, we don't mind.

 

[gf beranek]

Yeah, B, it's not like we haven't it all before, Huh?

 

[treesandsurf]

To go and cut out the tops of perfectly good trees to see what will happen is akin to setting the woods on fire to see what happens. That is not science. It is total ignoramus thinking.

Yup, I remember him preaching this new science to the ISA crowd in St. Louis and nobody seemed to blink when he mentioned walking into the forest and topping old growth to form 'reiterations'. I was wondering if the mad scientist had gone mad??

jp

 

[thattreeguy]

Now Steve Sillett plans on topping a bunch of redwoods to study what happens to them after the fact. And it's ok for him to do so because it's in the name of science. I already pointed out in the forums that a study like that is un-necessary because the evidence of what happens after a redwood loses its top is all around us. Thousands of examples. In every stage of development. All he has to do is open his eyes.
To go and cut out the tops of perfectly good trees to see what will happen is akin to setting the woods on fire to see what happens. That is not science. It is total ignoramus thinking.


thats funny jer, i met some photo journalist a while back at wildwood days last year, doing a nat geo on steve sillett
and i was showing him about topped/stripped redwoods
i deal with a lot of damaged trees weekly, i have al kinds of pics and also trees they could climb and see, its all over here, drive down any 2 blocks in eureka and you will see it, hell a couple minutes up diamond or california streets behind the university have som fine selections of screwed off trees,


maybe its for a cool photo op in the name of science

i dont know maybe i should call him up and see if hell talk to a lowly arborist like me, maybe he will

bullshit on nat geo for excluding you jer, ive grown up reading your fundamentals, seeing your posters 150 ft up and 7 ft accross
as well as some of the rec climb tree posters

ignorant for them to not grasp that you have a deeper understanding of how these trees are, silletts great and all, but he couldnt ever do the stuff that youve done, he will never see how you could turn it , or how the wood fiber would act while being cut, you are a wealth of practical usable info
thank you for publishing your work

he can talk about life functions and big word stuff, but he couldnt ever do what youve done for the logging and tree care industry

your posters have been up on shop walls world over
most guys i know have a deep respect for you, and when i tell some down in so cal that i met you, their reaction is almost like i met christ himself

you walk among the giants jer, so dont let some candy ass, nat geo photo crew and article slight you

now for my cup of stfu

Oops, on another rank. Another cup of STFU, please.[/QUOTE]

 

[gf beranek]

Gee whiz, Dave, that's one heck of a compliment. Thanks mucho, neighbor. And thank you all. I receive a lot of support from, as B says, "the choir/forum members" when I get on my rants. I'm a lucky man because I receive a lot of support from the majority of peers throughout the industry. Really, what more can a person ask for.

I've come to learn many things about the internet forums over the last few years. And too, the members who frequent the forums. Not everybody gets along in other forums as well as the members of the TH. Older and more mature crowd here I think. Also I've learned that what you say in your posts lives on long after you write it. And sometimes what you write comes back on you from someone that just wants to pick a bone or hurt you. The back door of any forum is not as secure as some people might think.

So I strive to keep what I write as positive as I can and to show appreciation to my peers, and friends through everyday life and on the internet.

And as we all know, sometimes I need a cup of tea.

Thanks all.

 

[woodworkingboy]

It seems that there will always be conflict between those that learn by experience, and develop their perceptions accordingly.....and those that achieve their position via academia. The best scenario is that one group can learn from the other with all due respect accorded, but that often seems problematical, for whatever reasons. Unfortunately, the general public's perception is that official credentials, i.e., lines written on a piece of paper, carry more weight than the years that have put lines on a face. It's a fallacy that is hard to remedy.

It isn't just who can better answer the questions written on a page and who has the latest, there are other elements that get overlooked, like intuition and range, and a sense of the peripherals around the topic, and last but not least, some sense of humor towards the subject. Experience is just something humanistic in it's own right, being valued, and that shouldn't necessarily need to qualify itself.

 

[gf beranek]

Your well chosen words express the topic at issue very eloquently, Jay. Certainly words worth quoting. If I may someday.

 

[stehansen]

During construction of the Prairie Creek bypass a lot of old growth had to cut in order to manage it. The loggers doing the work were levied fines by the parks dept for disturbing any habitat, brush, trees, considered non-incidental to the falling of the trees.

Of course we all know it is impossible to fall a redwood the size of the Coombs Tree without breaking some other trees in the process, but that was the rules set down by the state that the loggers had to work by.

It's been getting worse since. And has actually come to the point that many areas within the timber lands have been excluded from logging operations because of the potential disturbance to incidental features within those areas. Rare and endangered plants, arc sites, slopes, view corridors, water courses and just plain wet spots in general. You take those out of the picture and you shut down logging.

Now Steve Sillett plans on topping a bunch of redwoods to study what happens to them after the fact. And it's ok for him to do so because it's in the name of science. I already pointed out in the forums that a study like that is un-necessary because the evidence of what happens after a redwood loses its top is all around us. Thousands of examples. In every stage of development. All he has to do is open his eyes. To go and cut out the tops of perfectly good trees to see what will happen is akin to setting the woods on fire to see what happens. That is not science. It is total ignoramus thinking.

Oops, on another rank. Another cup of STFU, please.

Are you refering to lightening struck trees G?

 

[MasterBlaster]

I remember making him omelets.

 

[gf beranek]

Steve, which part of the post are you asking about "lightning"?? Lightning strikes has nothing to do with my post. Though it may be easy to assume so. Sorry to leave you dangling on this.

And Butch builds a wholesome and hearty omelet. The right balance of carbs and proteins. Not too fat, and not too lean.

 

[MasterBlaster]

 

[RIVERRAT]

And then I saw Preston in St. Louis and then talked with friends when I was going to school at UH that were grad students at HSU; didn't have the nicest things to say (off the record).

"did'nt have the nicest things to say".... Ive heard some call him a pompous prick & others simply "Idiot"

 

[treesandsurf]

That's the short of it.

jp

 

[OTGBOSTON]

I met Preston at a book signing he seemed like a decent guy. I took the opportunity to break his stones a little bit...and he responded well. He's an author and a geek who caught the tree bug.

 

[gf beranek]

I never read "The Wild Trees" by Preston because I know it would upset me.

I watched a video on the TED show where Preston gave a slide show and talk all about the redwoods and the people who climb them. Other than his brief experience with the climbers his knowledge of the trees is weak and assuming.

For one he talked of redwoods over 30 foot in diameter being common. I have spent most my life hiking through the groves and photographing the redwoods and have yet to find a 30 foot diameter redwood. I'll grant that some double and triple redwoods grow together will reach that size through the widest way. But not a single tree. He didn't make that distinction. As with so many other of assuming ideas he has about the trees.

But the audience ate it up and took his lecture as the gospel truth.

 

[Frans]

Is there any way we, the people here, can contact N.G. and let them know of the errors?
I for one would be willing to write a letter...

 

[thattreeguy]

go for it frans, maybe with your silver tounge theyll listen to a bunch of ol dogs

 

[gf beranek]

I was thinking of writing a rebuttal as to the accuracy of the claims in the redwood article. Of course I will have to read it first.

Then whether NG publishes it is another thing. They are a very liberal mag.

The problem with reporting nowadays is the writers don't do enough research and then the editors pick out just the parts they want. So the articles are often watered down facts and slighted propaganda on the side of the mags agenda. Which with NG is, "We're destroying the earth and we need these scientests to save it and us." Please subscribe and do your part to save the planet.

 

[fallguy]

Just got to the thread Jerry. It has been very educational. I live in the flat lands where 40" cotton wood is huge. One day I want to come to your neighborhood and see some true giants. Keep on ranting.

 

[woodworkingboy]

When NG was researching the article, it's odd that Jerry's name didn't come up, or that he wasn't contacted, if it did. Wonder what their avenues of research were, to what extent they relied on people in that area for information, or to act as guides?

 

[gf beranek]

That's a big part of reporting today, Jay. A lot of time and work went into the research and making of the redwood article. Whether it was the people supplying the information, the writer or the editors, somewhere lies the misinformation. I bet the people supplying the info were at fault on this.

 

[stehansen]

Steve, which part of the post are you asking about "lightning"?? Lightning strikes has nothing to do with my post. Though it may be easy to assume so. Sorry to leave you dangling on this.
QUOTE]

I was attempting to ask if the previously topped trees you said could be used to study the topping effects on redwoods lightening struck trees, or chainsaw topped trees?