Climbing Redwoods - Potential Impact

Illegal, Recreational and Research Climbing

This page is an off-shoot of Largest and Tallest Coast Redwoods

by Mario D. Vaden - Copyright 2009

Some people have expressed interest about climbers in redwood canopy, and the effect they may have on redwoods and upper canopy ecosystem. Maybe even more so after Preston's book was released in 2007, on the coattails of redwood canopy research. If you don't have a copy yet, click here for redwood book suggestions and ordering info.

Note: do you have an itch to climb tall evergreens in the Pacific NW? Here are two places to contact for details. If the addresses ever change, let me know:

Pacific Climbing Institute of Eugene, Oregon ~ 208 miles NE of Jedediah Smith redwoods and New Tribe & Climbing Northwest of Grants Pass, OR ~ 72 miles NE of Jedediah Smith redwoods

This essay is about climbing in protected old growth redwood forest. Not so much to provide a yes or no answer, but just to stir up thoughts. Basically, legitimate scientific climbing should be near inconsequential, but its included too. Maybe we should start with sharing one thing learned about climbing for research. I was shown a bit of data about wood growth in old redwoods, based on measurements of the trunks and leaders. It showed that some ancient redwoods are putting on more growth in recent decades than in the previous century or two. That is a valuable set of information that required climbing to acquire. It is noteworthy to give credit for the information and data the canopy scientists are gaining from their research work up above in the redwoods.

There is no way that climbing can compare to logging. The difference is even greater than comparing peas to watermelons. But the basic habits of people are worth reviewing.

At least 3 kinds of climbers climb tall redwoods of northern California: recreational, tree sitters, and research . . . . . and redwood tree sitters won't fit the mold for this page.

Recreational climbers are generally prohibited from climbing into canopy of national and state redwood parks. But a few illegally sneak into redwoods without permission. Photos and videos have appeared on a few climbing forums. Including one Seattle tree worker who apparently was a Certified Arborist.

Most recreational climbers climb legally. Check TCI Climbers International. The information and forum show a glimpse of recreation climbing. Any real concern for redwood parks would be a selfish minority who illegally climb redwoods. One potential consequence would be damage to scientific experiment, and another would be disruption to rare or endangered species.

The illegal climbers are disadvantaged. One, because their thinking and decisons are below par. But even more importantly, they will be entering virtually blind to the knowledge of which redwoods may have scientific study equipment up in the crown.

Then there are research climbers who study redwoods, birds, wildlife and epiphytes. These folks have a window of time to climb during the cool season and are granted required climbing permits. The scientists and research climbers are advantaged. They are in a position to know which redwoods have sensitive gear, and have more study statistics at their disposal.

Whether redwoods are climbed by recreational climbers or research scientists, that canopy is going to experience some degree of wear and tear. Ranging from minor and inconsequential, to what I refer to as canopy trails.

I've completed 1000s of pruning projects myself, and one thing was essential to accomplish those: access and movement. Arborists have to move their body or tools through the canopy. That requires extracting limbs and debris, accompanied by inadvertent removal of moss and lichens due to standing and squeezing through gaps. Often, canopy trails were required. If none existed, some had to be made.

After years of hiking, I compared trails in the forests to canopy trails. In parks, frequent use of trails keeps paths clear. People stomp emerging plants, pulverize leaves and toss fallen branches. The more a trail is used, the more smooth it becomes. But when trails are abandoned, plants, debris and creatures eventually cover the paths.

Maintaining open trails is desireable as long as environmental problems like erosion don't become significant. But what about redwood forest canopy? Even if it's a research climber, how much of a canopy trail would you say is reasonable?

As with urban trunks and branches, redwood crown access for scientific research study requires a person to move through the canopy. Certainly caution will be employed. But however delicately a climber moves, they must grab branches, wrap ropes over limbs, stand on bark and slide clothing against buds and lichens. It's not possible to move through a redwood without changing it. Again, the forest researchers have an advantage with this. As a group, they have more experience, gear and training at their disposal. And they are educated to recognize common and rare species. In a way, just as Astronauts are trained to successfully enter space, forest scientists who climb, are trained to successfully enter old growth forests

(Note: seen Grog's Animated Knots? Click the image to the right and choose The Knot List in the menu. Pick a knot, all animated. Use you pointer to replay frame by frame again and again)

Since most legitimate redwood climbing operations by botanists have been closed-door events, research climbing may be more secretive than the Ninja climbing.

Researchers may mount straps, cables, solar panels, miniature probes - you name it. For all this climbing, the person is not floating on air the whole time, although it sometimes seems that way when they are suspended on ropes or limb walking. These redwoods can be climbed to study lichens, birds, salamanders - with specialists climbing at intervals, repetitively.

For all this activity, the wear and tear from research climbing seems to be almost nil. I've used binoculars, zoom lenses and spotting scopes, looking at many redwoods climbed by the botanists. And best I can see, the result is close to a no-trace-left-behind appearance.

I'm not supplying an answer of should or should not, or right or wrong on this page. I could easily support several levels of activity. It's not my forest. It's our forest.

Resuming again with a question: "If climbers don't penetrate the crowns of redwoods for research, how will new information be gained"? The answer is simple.

But does it matter? If we choose to have trails across the ground, why not establish a few trails through ancient redwoods? And we must concede that access is neccessary to gather research data and images.

Pertaining to conopy ecosystem impact: wherever ropes are anchored, or there is rubbing or friction, reproduction of lichens or mosses can't develop the same. Any bud broken can't become a main stem in a following century. The ancient redwoods we see, are virtually the result of 100% hands-off. Does it matter?

It all depends on choice. If you maintain an attitude that people should keep their filthy little scummy hands off primeval redwoods, then shame on the climbers. If you prefer to advance forest management with an alloted rate of climbing, why can't that be successful too? Besides - even the wind is going to knock far more from the canopy. Should we be concerned over twenty pounds of branches, when a wind storm can easily remove fifty thousand pounds worth of main stems?

Human curiosity feels the need to measure the tallest redwoods every year. But why not measure those redwoods every 20 years? Yes, we realize that instruments are monitoring moisture, light and sap flow, and the data may be compared to increments of growth. But is climbing the tallest, the biggest and the oldest regularly, the wise thing to do? And honestly, I don't have the answer for this. I think we may have to trust the researchers to make that decision. They are gathering the data and interpretting it, and may be the best people to decide how frequently redwoods need to be climbed.

It wasn't until after several visits to groves, and reviewing a bunch of documents acquired about climbing research, that I began to consider frequency of climbing: whether it should occur less, the same, or more. Compared to other forests, the oldest redwood groves seem to have quite a few epiphytes. But what they have compared to ground vegetation is a drop in the bucket. A 2003 botanical publication, listed 454 kilograms of fern mat for Lost Monarch in the Grove of Titans, and 677 kilograms of fern mat for Atlas Redwood in Atlas Grove. Barely more weight than 5 landscape trees from a nursery in 40 gallon pots. On trees weighing what - millions of pounds? Proportionately, its like a few closets in the Empire State Building.

Imagine - after milleniums, that's all there is for fern mat epiphytes. It takes a long time for plants and lichen to reproduce on redwoods and for wads of organic matter to accumulate and decompose.

(Tangent on redwood climbing history: the image shows Gerald Beranek, who reached old growth redwood canopy prior to the 1980s. Beranek is also included in my The Wild Trees book review. This contrasts historical adventure with more recent scientific approach. Mr. Beranek was definitely bottled and brewed in California. I enjoyed A Tree Story, told by Beranek.

One thing that surpised me, was the size of samples - suprised me at first that is. 40 cm x 35 cm samples were removed with a handsaw - a 1 foot cube. It seemed a bit big for samples to remove from these redwoods. But compared to the rest of the soil mats in the tree - maybe 1%. Nothing radical. And this kind of sample is more of a one-time occurance.

So maybe that is fine - no indigestion over that one. What do you think?

I'm okay with it - totally okay. But I like to toss this into the arena of ideas, because the feedback from other people is worth listening to.

It does make sense that larger samples might provide better chances of finding some rare organism. And more material for experiments. This is where the removal of material from these ancient redwoods boils down to decisions, and whether the decisions are emotional wants, or genuine needs.

Be mindful that some species may exclusively thrive in redwood canopy, and others may not. On the other hand, some critters like the wandering salamander may simply exist. Consider that European white birch is common growing on the ground, but occassionally found in rain gutters filled with moist leaves. Some plants and animals in the ancient redwoods are like this - they merely grow up high because conditions exist that can support them. Buckthorn, huckleberry - salamanders too. Modern forest management should not involve getting over-excited over a few species up in the redwoods, when those exist with abundance at lower canopy levels and the forest floor. That can lead to climbing and spending money for nothing but zealous pleasure.

I question the squad who would spend countless hours and dollars scrutinizing a species merely because it resides in an expansion of it's habitat - an uncommon extension of it's range. If they have a reason, it better be a very good reason.

One last aspect to consider: to what degree can researchers constrain themselves from uneccessary projects and climbing? Do their affections or desires for large redwoods initiate projects that sound beneficial, yet merely provide an emotional experience or recreational opportunity? There may not be an answer. This is basically just to bring out into the open an aspect of redwoods and research that is rarely written about.

Again, certainly researchers don't climb and throw caution to the wind. Care will be employed. I'd expect the average researcher to be impacting redwoods much less than many of the best recreational climbers. As you compare their climbing, motives and research against the innevitable minor wear and tear in the redwoods, see what conclusions you reach.

I think that the careful example and habits of the scientists legitimately climbing the redwoods, eliminates the need for two dozen paragraphs about illegal or ninja climbers.

By realizing how much experience and how many operations the botanists have been involved with, we can understand almost immediately how disadvantaged the illegal climbers are: what a potential risk they can pose.

If recreational climbers violate laws to climb redwoods, odds are they will not respect the equipment and experiments taking place either.

Ideas about permits for recreational climbers & redwoods:

It's evident that some recreational climbers sneak into redwood parks to climb tall redwoods. And certainly, more would like to climb the redwoods of the west coast. Do you suppose that providing recreational climbers with permits could have it's good side? I'm not talking about unlimited seasonal permits. But a dated one-time permit for a single climb, with the condition that the climber could not re-apply for at least 2, 3 or 8 years. One reason this came to mind was that Ninja climbers may not know if they picked a redwood which may be a bad choice in regards to ecosystem or bird nesting. A permit system could divert impact away from redwoods and areas of concern.

On a different note - could research and documentation advance faster in some forests, by utilizing volunteer recreational climbers who are well-trained?

That could sound like a paradox, compared to the first half of this page, except that I don't mean Ninja climbers - but coordinated, supervised, and recommended volunteers.

Suppose 20 recreational climbers went into the depths of Jedediah Smith park redwoods, climbed them, and took digital photos of bark, lichens, branch structure and surrounding views. That would provide an archive for future use, possible research documentation, and provide recreational climbers an outlet to ascend redwoods. If large areas were photographed, like at 50 year intervals, then general public, park staff and researchers would know what the forest depths look like now, and changes that occur at century-long intervals.

Thank you for reading,

Mario D. Vaden

 

A few reading suggestions:

Coast Redwood: A Natural and Cultural History by Michael G. Barbour	The Wild Trees A Story of Passion and Daring by Richard Preston	Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast by Robert Van Pelt	From the Redwood Forest Ancient Trees and the Bottom Line: A Headwaters Journey by Joan Dunning
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss Children's Book	The Legacy of Luna: The Story of a Tree, a Woman and the Struggle to Save the Redwoods	Redwoods by Jason Chin Children's Book	Best Short Hikes In Redwood National & State Parks: Including Humboldt Redwoods State Park