A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known places...

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
SWriverstone
Posts: 96
Joined: January 26th, 2016, 8:28 am
Location: Eugene, Oregon

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by SWriverstone » March 14th, 2016, 8:55 pm

mdvaden wrote:
SWriverstone wrote:
And while the grove was by no means "trampled," it was obvious that plenty of people had been there, as evidenced by several faint footpaths beaten through the ferns around the grove.

Scott
Scott, I don't think you know exactly what you are talking about, or maybe lack insight into the changes in the grove.. I'm sure you appreciate natural beauty. But what you wrote sounds off the mark.
I'm shocked by those photos—and you were correct to suggest I lacked insight into the changes in the grove. When I visited the grove, I had never seen coastal redwoods before—much less any of that size. So I had no idea what to expect. When I said the grove didn't look trampled, I wasn't referring to the base of the trees themselves so much as the surrounding area generally. The paths leading to the grove weren't wide and dirt-bare. (I could have easily missed them had I not been looking for them.) It was also just after dawn when I was there, so there wasn't much light at the forest floor.

For what it's worth, when I was researching the location of the grove, I did read (possibly on one of your sites?) that stepping on the roots or bases of the redwoods harms them—so I went nowhere close to the trees themselves. I didn't need to do that to appreciate them. (But clearly plenty of others have.)

I'm saddened by this (and beyond shocked at anyone who would cut burls off a redwood—in my opinion, that should carry a mandatory life sentence). At the same time, while it certainly is worthwhile to try to prevent mobs from descending on special places like this...expecting the locations of these places to remain secret indefinitely is unrealistic. It also strikes me as a band-aid solution (which is admittedly better than nothing).

Because the real problem isn't someone leaking information onto the web. The real problem is our steadily growing population, our society that rewards sensationalism, our lack of appreciation and understanding of natural ecosystems that comes from an increasingly urbanized population, etc. These are the issues we should all be fighting.

But again, I realize those larger issues (which are the real problem) can seem insurmountable...hence the desire to "put a finger in the leaking dike" by trying to keep these places secret.

As long as the only protection for these places is the honor system (meaning as long as there are no widely-publicized criminal penalties for even going there), they are at great risk. The only solution I can see at the moment is for people like Steve Sillett to not publish their scientific work at all. I don't mean to deflect blame from the people who have trampled the Grove of Titans...but it's very likely that if Sillett had never published his work...and if Richard Preston had never written The Wild Trees, that grove would still be unknown today.

Scott

User avatar
mdvaden
Posts: 525
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Contact:

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by mdvaden » March 15th, 2016, 10:30 pm

Scott ... I visited the GOT today for the first time in almost 2 years. It was really weird, because I headed there realizing for the first time I was going to be photographing them as smaller redwoods. I had it slated for this visit and was headed down last night before I posted. I started today in Humboldt redwoods though. Went there late last night. And ended up at Jed Smith around 4pm.

The plus side, if there is one, was at least the paths in were not brutalized. Wear and tear is more confined to around the trees, more pronounced around Screaming Titans.

I think if people like yourself or others can help spread on the internet my The Forest Weeps page and Grove of Titans Page, it may actually help reduce wear and tear. I think a good amount of people who read are quite surprised and can help raise awareness so more future visitors are more careful to stay within the spots already "broken in" so to speak.

Man ... if only folks could know how Sillett and Taylor felt to know the groves were compromised. They know there is no turning back. But they felt somewhat violated since they discovered the spot.

They had no editorial control over Preston's book. And looking back, I think there are regrets to having opened the door entirely to him. Preston was a bit sloppy and too descriptive. Can't rewrite the book now though.

On personal level, I think they wish everybody could see these trees. But the wish goes hand in hand that everyone would go in so delicately that they would leave 100% behind for the next person. So they were never hoarders or some secret society. They just knew what human nature was likely to cause.

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3466
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by Koda » March 16th, 2016, 8:38 am

SWriverstone wrote:For what it's worth, when I was researching the location of the grove, I did read (possibly on one of your sites?) that stepping on the roots or bases of the redwoods harms them—so I went nowhere close to the trees themselves. I didn't need to do that to appreciate them. (But clearly plenty of others have.)
I’m curious, is there a way to easily describe how stepping on the base of trees, especially something as large as a redwood, damages the tree? In laymen’s terms of course…
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by Charley » March 16th, 2016, 9:26 am

This is a fascinating discussion of the ethics of visiting out-of-the-way places. I have a few feelings.

1. I've been to so many beautiful places in this state that bore little or no signs of recreational human use. Two things contribute to success:
A. A more "prosaic" or "humble" definition of scenery (i.e., no 400 foot waterfalls, no "tallest ever" trees, few mountaintops, even).
B. Arduous physical effort.

Note that I'm not even talking here about the degree of publicity that these places have received. In eastern Oregon, I'm usually following either Doug Lorain's route or William Sullivan's route! Published guidebook routes that seem untracked to my eye! It astounds me that more folks haven't wandered east more often. I'm well aware of the effects of cattle grazing on many of these lands, but they're under little danger from being "loved to death" by hiker, off trail whackers, mountain bikers, or even hunters. There are still many, many places like this in Oregon, at least. If you seek solitude, the reward can be found in sagebrush, not too far from Portland.
diablo.jpg
2. I'm a climber, and, though climbing is one of the several environmentalist-sanctioned activities (it does not draw the criticism leveled at cyclists, hunters, or even equestrians), I've been dismayed over the years to see the impact even a single climbing party can have.

Here's an image from a climb of Mt Washington:
IMG_1736.jpg
We do this all the time: scree skiing from the high alpine (with only lichens and a few tiny flowers) down to sub-alpine areas (with large areas of herbaceous perennials trying to colonize rocky, thin, soils during their short growing season). It upsets me, but it's also a relatively safe, fast way off these mountains. I'm complicit. To avoid this, I could either quit climbing entirely, climb solo and take LNT routes only, or try to change the mind of every other climber, most of whom who have been doing it longer than I.

Here's another image, of a climb in Mt Rainier NP:
IMG_1917.jpg
In the high country, summer trails shift position as snow banks melt away, revealing better or easier paths. Over time, the high ridges of many "untracked" wilderness areas become braided with this shifting path.

For years, I've been following Fred Becky's guidebooks to Cascade summits. He rarely mentions a path in the guidebooks, but they're all over the place. In fact, I've only climbed one rock summit (in other words, not a snow peak) in the Cascades that doesn't have a dirt path or multiple dirt paths to the top. These trails may be relatively new (Beckey doesn't mention them), so I believe that they reflect an increase in the population of Puget Sound and Willamette Valley, and an increase in the popularity of climbing.

So why isn't the Forest Service or Parks Service building trails that would be sustainable? Not only is cost a factor, but liability, too. While there may be a path on one section, it could entail a 3rd class climb to reach that path. Clearly, they don't want to encourage that.

So, in the case of the climbing guides, publicizing out-of-the-way locations has clearly increased use, and there's not any clear solution to the main resulting problem: erosion and trail widening. Don't seek solitude or exploration on a Cascade peak (the exception is Stevens Peak in MRNP, which had no approach trails and a circuitous, wild route).

My first climb was Mt St Helens, and when I arrived at the summit to find about 20 noisy climbers, I decided that climbing wasn't for me. Why spend five hours huffing up a mountain to share a viewpoint, when I could find an out of the way trail and have it to myself for a day? Well, summit fever won out. It's a popular way to get some exercise and feel accomplished. Unfortunately, since the focus is always this tiny stamp of land in the sky, where everyone wants to spend some time and soak in the sun and views, the summit will often be crowded.

So, there's my thoughts: go to the desert and don't get into climbing.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

hikingette
Posts: 19
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 10:44 am

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by hikingette » March 16th, 2016, 12:02 pm

Koda wrote:
SWriverstone wrote:For what it's worth, when I was researching the location of the grove, I did read (possibly on one of your sites?) that stepping on the roots or bases of the redwoods harms them—so I went nowhere close to the trees themselves. I didn't need to do that to appreciate them. (But clearly plenty of others have.)
I’m curious, is there a way to easily describe how stepping on the base of trees, especially something as large as a redwood, damages the tree? In laymen’s terms of course…
mdvaden's photos are rather hypocritical in this regard because they show his models walking around the base of the trees, which compacts the soil, destroying soil structure (technical phrase), reducing the pores that are conduits bringing _oxygen_ to the underground ecosystem of microbes and roots.

Unrelated, look at the possible decline in the ferns _on_ the tree at about head height in his pair of before and after photos.

Lurch
Posts: 1270
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Aurora
Contact:

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by Lurch » March 16th, 2016, 12:11 pm

Koda wrote:
SWriverstone wrote:For what it's worth, when I was researching the location of the grove, I did read (possibly on one of your sites?) that stepping on the roots or bases of the redwoods harms them—so I went nowhere close to the trees themselves. I didn't need to do that to appreciate them. (But clearly plenty of others have.)
I’m curious, is there a way to easily describe how stepping on the base of trees, especially something as large as a redwood, damages the tree? In laymen’s terms of course…

My understanding, (which may be wrong, so someone feel free to correct me) is that tree root systems are used for 1: anchoring the tree to the ground, 2: energy storage, and 3: absorption of water, oxygen and minerals.

Compaction of the soil around the base of the tree means there is less water and oxygen in the (no longer) loose soil, which then cuts down the number of fine feeder roots. Damage to roots can cause 'compartmentalization' where the tree recognizes an injury, and essentially cuts off the limb to keep rot and decay from spreading into the main body. If it were a few roots, that isn't a problem and it could compensate, but when it's all around the tree, it essentially girdles its self and can basically suffocate/starve to death. These gigantic sequoia have so much stored energy, it could be years before that's visibly apparent though.

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3466
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by Koda » March 16th, 2016, 2:04 pm

Lurch wrote:Compaction of the soil around the base of the tree means there is less water and oxygen in the (no longer) loose soil, which then cuts down the number of fine feeder roots. Damage to roots can cause 'compartmentalization' where the tree recognizes an injury, and essentially cuts off the limb to keep rot and decay from spreading into the main body. If it were a few roots, that isn't a problem and it could compensate, but when it's all around the tree, it essentially girdles its self and can basically suffocate/starve to death. These gigantic sequoia have so much stored energy, it could be years before that's visibly apparent though.
that makes sense but would be hard to sell to someone random admiring such a gigantic tree while standing on its base. Seems everyone wants that photo of them hugging these trees, or worse their group hugging the tree. I can imagine such an explanation being met with blank stares in hopes you go away...
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by drm » March 17th, 2016, 7:15 am

It seems to me that a lot of the impacts we are talking about here have to do with our common desire to get close. I would make the analogy with wildlife. Virtually any time you see something of interest or rarity, the goal is to get as close as you can to the animal till it runs off (I suppose bears might be an exception). But if you go to parks where wildlife is common, they will tell you that if you get close enough to affect the animal's behavior, you are too close. Animal's struggle to get the calories needed to survive the winter and if you make them both expend energy running from you and stop eating (if that's what they were doing), you are harming them. Let them expend that energy finding food and getting away from wild predators. This is true whether you are talking about deer, goats, or bald eagles perched in a tree.

If the damage to redwoods is from compacting soil at their base, then the analogy is apt. And for a redwood, you get a better view from a distance anyway, assuming it isn't hidden by other trees.

User avatar
texasbb
Posts: 1174
Joined: July 26th, 2008, 8:16 pm
Location: Tri-Cities, WA

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by texasbb » March 17th, 2016, 8:43 am

drm wrote:Virtually any time you see something of interest or rarity, the goal is to get as close as you can to the animal till it runs off (I suppose bears might be an exception)
Why? :D
drm wrote:If the damage to redwoods is from compacting soil at their base, then the analogy is apt.
Not sure I buy this. I'm no botanist, but people, animals, and all manner of equipment have been "walking" around trees for millennia, and it's hardly common that such nearby viewing kills said trees. The notion that hikers walking around something as massive as a redwood will harm its roots strains credulity, at least with the numbers we're talking about in hard-to-hike-to places. If trees are that sensitive to hardened dirt, someone should tell them to quit growing in and around rocks.
drm wrote:And for a redwood, you get a better view from a distance anyway, assuming it isn't hidden by other trees.
Let's say you get a different view, and most of us would like to see both.

I still think 99.999% of the damage this thread is talking about is damage to the experience for humans. The logic breaks down when we're keeping humans away to preserve the experience for humans. Unless, of course, I want to preserve the experience for myself by excluding others; then the logic holds, but a few other words come to mind.

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6411
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: A few thoughts on the broadcasting of little-known place

Post by kepPNW » March 17th, 2016, 9:29 am

texasbb wrote:
drm wrote:If the damage to redwoods is from compacting soil at their base, then the analogy is apt.
Not sure I buy this. I'm no botanist, but people, animals, and all manner of equipment have been "walking" around trees for millennia, and it's hardly common that such nearby viewing kills said trees. The notion that hikers walking around something as massive as a redwood will harm its roots strains credulity, at least with the numbers we're talking about in hard-to-hike-to places. If trees are that sensitive to hardened dirt, someone should tell them to quit growing in and around rocks.
There's no question the damage is real. Just google "national mall cherry tree root damage" for the most common example. But as you suggest, it's surely a matter of degree, where those trees in DC are literally trampled by humanity the ones in most redwood groves are unlikely to ever see a tiny fraction of that traffic even during their incredibly long life spans. Not to mention, the restorative "natural processes" are surely more in play in the wild than in the capitol. (I can't comment on how susceptible one species may be compared to another.)
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

Post Reply