Selfie destruction of the redwoods

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
179,520
Messages
2,471,741
Members
94,835
Latest member
philipandre
Recent bookmarks
0

TheRook

Member
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
414
Location
Philadelphia
Shooter
35mm
I think selfies are not so much the culprit as the title suggests. At the base of the tree, one would need an extraordinarily long selfie stick to bring in enough of the tree trunk into the frame to get a worthwhile shot out of it. More likely, the tree damage is caused by people posing for others to take a pictures. Trash is of course a different issue. Perhaps setting up more trash bins at key locations could alleviate that problem.
 

NedL

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
3,203
Location
Sonoma County, California
Shooter
Multi Format
It's the geotagging that goes with the selfies. For a long time this grove of giant redwoods was almost more like a rumor or a myth... and the location was a not well known... like the hyperion tree...
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
8,905
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Shooter
Medium Format
I went to the site and donated 25 bucks. The most amazing living things that I've ever seen were Redwood trees at Muir Woods near San Francisco. I would give a 100,000 bucks to spend a day with the folks that lived amongst these trees before the plague of "civilization"
It must have been paradise.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,626
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Shooter
35mm
In early 70s, when I worked in Adolph Gasser's industrial/commercial photo on Clement Street, four of us (two guys and two girlfriends) would get up at 6, cross Golden Gate Bridge, drive to Muir Woods, photograph if we wanted, and return to work by 9AM. Several New Years mornings we got up even earlier, went to Mount Tam, hiked up, and photographed dawn (didn't need to return to work on January 1).
 

CropDusterMan

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
712
Location
Southern Cal
Shooter
35mm RF
I saw people crossing the fence at the recently restored Mariposa Grove in CA to do the same. I lost it
on a few of them. Normally I wouldn't do that, but it just pissed me off so much. I'm not apologetic either.
 

jim10219

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
1,635
Location
Oklahoma
Shooter
4x5 Format
Of all of the atrocities mankind has done to this planet, this ranks pretty low on the list. The only reason this is getting any attention is because it is so photogenic and visited by photographers. If it were and equally important ecosystem, but less desirable location for photographers, it would likely be sold off or destroyed.

So you see, the very fact that photographers are destroying it is probably what's going to save it in the long run.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
4,787
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Shooter
Multi Format
I went through the Southwest last April and visited all the main National Parks, Bryce, Zion, Canyonlands, Grand Canyon, etc. They're visited by millions each year who can be awed by their beauty and majesty. But they are not any the worse off for the use and we get to see and use God's beauty and natural resources. They require our tax money to be spent to care for them just like I need to spend my money to hire gardeners to care for my property.

Should you be the only one to photograph these trees? Would you fence off these parks for your use only? Don't other people pay taxes too?
 

Wallendo

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,382
Location
North Carolina
Shooter
35mm
I don't have the photographic talent to make useful photographs of these trees, although if I ever make this trip I will try. I find it interesting that all these Instagram "photographers" go to great lengths to take the same photographs as others have done, although I will admit that my snapshots of the Eiffel tower, the Tower Bridge, and the Statue of Liberty look just like every other tourist's photographs.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
4,787
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Shooter
Multi Format
I don't have the photographic talent to make useful photographs of these trees, although if I ever make this trip I will try. I find it interesting that all these Instagram "photographers" go to great lengths to take the same photographs as others have done, although I will admit that my snapshots of the Eiffel tower, the Tower Bridge, and the Statue of Liberty look just like every other tourist's photographs.
It can;t be the same photo if it's a selfie because they're in it and no one else has that picture.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,626
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Shooter
35mm
I went through the Southwest last April and visited all the main National Parks, Bryce, Zion, Canyonlands, Grand Canyon, etc. They're visited by millions each year who can be awed by their beauty and majesty. But they are not any the worse off for the use and we get to see and use God's beauty and natural resources. They require our tax money to be spent to care for them just like I need to spend my money to hire gardeners to care for my property.

Should you be the only one to photograph these trees? Would you fence off these parks for your use only? Don't other people pay taxes too?


Awe, magesty, and God are fine, but it's critically important to be aware of the damage the current administration is starting to do to many of these wonderful places...butchering Bears Ears National Monument, positioning to auction important parts for fracking (around Chaco Canyon) and uranium mining (around Grand Canyon). Even though we have vast excess of antiquated, destructive fuels, not to mention zero ability to safely store nuclear fuels. Those realities are well known to outdoors people, educators, and of course Native Americans...but not nearly enough to many tourists.
 
Last edited:

mark

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
5,686
Its a worthy cause. Living in an area with 1000s of visitors a day the damage is immense and most don't mean to do it. The hard part is keeping people on the trails because they feel entitled to go where they want because they paid the entrance.
 

faberryman

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
4,382
Location
Wherever
Shooter
Multi Format
I spent several days in September visiting perhaps a dozen redwood groves in state and national parks in northern California.. The venues weren't crowded, none charged admission, people stayed on the trails, and I didn't see any litter. It was a wonderful experience.
 

bsdunek

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
1,614
Location
Michigan
Shooter
Multi Format
What's not talked about so much, is how photographing is making our earth dark. Every time you take a photo, your camera, film or digital, absorbs some light, which is never returned. As photographing increases, especially with all the use of cell phones, we will be losing light at increasing rates. How long before we darken our earth? This will cause less plant growth, which will be detrimental to endangered species of plants, and in turn, animals. It will also reduce the output of solar panels, reducing the amount of renewal energy available. Of course, it should reduce 'Global Warming', which may be a good thing.
So the question I see is, should we ban or tax photography?
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,853
Shooter
Hybrid
What's not talked about so much, is how photographing is making our earth dark. Every time you take a photo, your camera, film or digital, absorbs some light, which is never returned. As photographing increases, especially with all the use of cell phones, we will be losing light at increasing rates. How long before we darken our earth? This will cause less plant growth, which will be detrimental to endangered species of plants, and in turn, animals. It will also reduce the output of solar panels, reducing the amount of renewal energy available. Of course, it should reduce 'Global Warming', which may be a good thing.
So the question I see is, should we ban or tax photography?

i know what you mean !
there is another problem too that is only talked about by some ...
that whenever you photograph someone some of their soul is stolen ..
so there is the loss of light, but the selfies ..
well they are just leaving a generation of zombies and souless beings.
it used to take a long time for someone to lose their soul, they had to do
all sorts of ill deeds .. but now ... thousands and thousands of selfies
its a mess ..
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
4,787
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Shooter
Multi Format
What's not talked about so much, is how photographing is making our earth dark. Every time you take a photo, your camera, film or digital, absorbs some light, which is never returned. As photographing increases, especially with all the use of cell phones, we will be losing light at increasing rates. How long before we darken our earth? This will cause less plant growth, which will be detrimental to endangered species of plants, and in turn, animals. It will also reduce the output of solar panels, reducing the amount of renewal energy available. Of course, it should reduce 'Global Warming', which may be a good thing.
So the question I see is, should we ban or tax photography?
Switch your flash on and add light to the universe.
 

Berkeley Mike

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
651
Location
SF Bay Area
Shooter
Digital
The Merc says photographers but I doubt their authority. Local territorial geezers might blame mountain bikers. :wink: Having managed many fieldtrips with kids their facility with climbing around on anything is huge. They probably outnumber shooters by quite a margin. All that said, guests who visit California don't tend to have a many of the environmental considerations integrated into their awareness and behavior.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,853
Shooter
Hybrid
We've become so wrapped up in ourselves and so cut off from nature..

Switch your flash on and add light to the universe

maybe but how is it gonna save us from the freaking screenzombies ...
they are all around us driving, wandering, shopping watching TV
at the movies at the library, outdoors, indoors .. souless zombies..

where's donald sutherland when you need him
 

naeroscatu

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
1,028
Location
Newmarket On
Shooter
Multi Format
What's not talked about so much, is how photographing is making our earth dark. Every time you take a photo, your camera, film or digital, absorbs some light, which is never returned. As photographing increases, especially with all the use of cell phones, we will be losing light at increasing rates. How long before we darken our earth? This will cause less plant growth, which will be detrimental to endangered species of plants, and in turn, animals. It will also reduce the output of solar panels, reducing the amount of renewal energy available. Of course, it should reduce 'Global Warming', which may be a good thing.
So the question I see is, should we ban or tax photography?
If you repeat this often enough some people will actually believe. Some schools started to introduce the hipster book of physics with brand new discoveries and upgrades to the old ones. The point is that majority rules, so whatever majority of people believes is true will override the laws of physics or other obsolete laws like that.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom