By saying you were photographing them as "smaller" redwoods, I think you mean because taller ones have been found? (They don't exactly look small to me!)mdvaden wrote: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.
Don't know if you saw my comment earlier in the thread about this Mario, but when I visited the GOT last summer, it was marked on Google Maps, but not marked as "Closed." I noticed that now it is. Do you know how this happened? (Just wondering if it was the state park or someone else who submitted this to Google.) I'm guessing no fence or anything has been put up around it—so wondering if Google Maps saying "Closed" will actually deter anyone from going there?
And yes—I'll share you're web page whenever I can!
@drm and texasbb: As I understand it, while you'd expect a 300+' tall tree to have a deep root system, redwoods don't. Their root systems are like huge, shallow pancakes (they don't have the big taproot—like an oak—that goes straight down dozens of feet). And often, giant redwoods in groves share a common (very shallow) root system (from all being entertwined). This is why those giants often fall in storms, because they aren't very well-anchored to the earth. Which is why they're more susceptible to damage when people tromp around them.
I think you hit the nail on the head texasbb—we really are talking about preserving the experience for humans. Because if we weren't, then we'd all just agree never to go to these places and forget about them and move on. And yes, I think in many cases we're trying to keep humans away to preserve the experience for humans.texasbb wrote: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.
I've been torn over this idea for a long time.
EXAMPLE: I'm a whitewater kayaker, and spent years mastering the technique of paddling a kayak and learning to roll. As a result, I can't stand rafts on whitewater rivers. Why? Because rafts are incredibly forgiving. Any out-of-shape, talentless moron can float down class 4 whitewater in a raft and be perfectly safe. And that pi$$es me off. (But...if more people rafting a river can help preserve its wild and scenic status, then I guess it's a net positive.)
Ditto with ATV's: Yeah, I get that they're fun to ride, but aside from the CO2-belching aspect, any out-of-shape, talentless moron can penetrate the deepest wilderness on an ATV. And because of this, I hate 'em. HATE 'em. But again...if said wilderness is more likely to be protected because a bunch of yahoos like to ride their ATV's there...then it may be a net positive.
Scott