I’d cut and remove all the tree and leave a forty foot block of the trunk on each side of the trail. So people could see the rings and get an idea of the enormous breadth of the tree.
The sequoias are very impressive. It is a shame this one fell.
I can’t believe I bothered clicking on the video of the tree falling. It was a 15-second advertisement followed by a 4-second snippet of tree movement which did not in any way inform me as to what happened. headdesk
It’s not a dead tree, it’s habitat, and a learning opportunity, and a chance at publicity for the park. Clearing downed trees reduces the diversity of the park’s ecosystem. Clearing this particular tree would remove an opportunity for visitors to touch and see up close the whole tree from top to bottom. You get a slightly different perspective on a tree that’s laying down. And seeing one than crashed down on the path, crushing a bridge, is a little more exciting that seeing one just growing there.
And by soliciting comments from the public, it gets the park publicity and public involvement that they wouldn’t have if they just cleared the thing away quickly. Plus they probably don’t have funds immediately available to either cut it up or produce the documents needed to bid out and oversee the removal. Whatever they finally decide to do, it’s in the public interest for them to do it slowly.
I’d favor a path bridge over the tree. Now if it had to be wheelchair friendly it would need to be somewhat long on the approaches, but the “gubment” can afford anything.
I can say without question that walking the Trail of 100 Giants is awesome experience. From a visitor’s perspective, I’d be really upset if I drove all the way up there only to discover that the trail was closed. I think the best bet would be to cut a section out wide enough to free up use of the pathway.
Well, ideally…you leave it to decay naturally. But as I have seen many times before, you cut out a four foot section where the path is and leave the rest. Why not take the four foot section and cut that into one foot sections and sell them to museums/exhibitions/scientists/etc. to pay for the material and labor to repair the trail?
The rest (97 or 98%) of it should be left to promote the habitat.
Like others have said, dead trees are a vital part of the ecosystem whether standing or fallen. It is not environmental correctness gone amok - whatever that means?
Indeed, and this being such a large fallen tree only confirms Darwin’s assertion that God is inordinately fond of beetles.
Leave it be. Cut through it to keep the path in situ if necessary. There is hardly even a problem here, let alone ‘Environmental Correctness Gone Amok’
By environmental correctness I was referring to the Parks Service’s inability to handle a routine maintenance issue. They should have handled this the very next day. Cut a section out of the dead tree and clear the trail. Then decide later if the tree stays or goes. This is an internal decision.
Instead we have paralysis. We have statements about it being a big decision with major consequences. It gets in the paper. The public is asked for suggestions. See the OP for specific quote.
We pay these people to manage this wildlife resource. Not pee their pants because a tree falls in the forest. The tree huggers have them scared to even handle a simple maintenance issue in a park.
Actually it does require immediate action. That National Park gets thousands of visitors a day from all over the world. Right now that trail is closed because one tree fell.
I visited that park and saw those giant trees in 1990. Fantastic experience.
A lot of disappointed tourists? For some of these people a trip to California is a once in a lifetime thing. I’ve only been to the state twice and I’m almost fifty. That visit to the park in 1990 will probably be my only time.
A lot of head & ass scratching, and no ideas.