Well, I missed it. I wish I could have been at Tunnel View today to photograph the historic moment, but I wasn’t. They cut three large ponderosa pines down that have been blocking the view for many years.
All that is left are the stumps, and for now, the lingering scent of pine sap.
Those old behemoths were handsome in their own way, yes, but my gods, the view now is stunning. I made a point of taking a picture from each block along the low wall.
According to one bystander there tonight, an “environmentalist was p*ssed off* about the felling of the trees.
There is now much more elbow room at the wall.
—
For some reason comments aren’t working and I’m getting a ton of them emailed to me on this article so I’ll post a few here until they’re back up and running. If you have a comment please send it to me: loyd@yosemiteblog.com and I’ll get it up as soon as possible.
Bodieangels wrote in: “Well, I am happy that you think this is progress
I personally side with John Muir and think that the (old behemoth) trees should have been Regally left to live and grow!
Photographically, the branches of the tree were wonderful to frame an image and give perspective.
But, let’s not stop the powers that be destroy that which they are charged with preserving….
a “very sad day” indeed….
Stay tuned, more of your forest to be destroyed soon….
on purpose by man……
God knows……Yosemite was made a National Parkfor it’s Elbow Room….and Stumps!!!”
Loyd comments: “Personally I think if you’re a photographer and you cut down a tree just so you can take a photo then you need to put the camera down and do something else. There are plenty of other places that can and do yield much more interesting (and less copied) photographs within 1/2 mile. It just take a little more effort than walking 10 feet from your car.”
John Kirby: “Cathedral Rocks are blocking my view of Half Dome. Please remove them.”
Edie replied: “I tried to present a balanced view of the tree removal at Tunnel View. I’m not keen that they were removed without any public discourse on them. With the exception of one, they were healthy trees, handsome in their own right.
Tunnel view is very accessible, a perfect place for a stunning view for those who aren’t able to climb the 1.3 miles up to Artist’s Point. But there are no curb-cuts for wheelchair access. That REALLY bothers me. Yes, there are the busloads of power-tourist, folks who drive hundreds of miles, get out and take pictures, and then get back on the bus to head to the next vista, several hours away. That really bothers me. However, I can’t regulate other’s behavior, any more that I want to be told to get out of the way because I’ve had my allotted amount of time at the wall.
This was done by fiat. I would love to know who decided it needed to be done, and who authorized it. Historic, my ass. Yosemite changes on a daily basis. Are they going to try to put the recent rockfall back up on the wall because it historically belongs up there?
With the arrival of the white folks, things changed dramatically. The valley became overgrown with brush, marshes were drained to make way for cattle and to reduce mosquitos. Trees sprung up in ancient meadows.
The Miwok people used to burn the valley floor every few years to reduce brush in order to hunt deer better. They too changed the valley. This isn’t a white vs. native debate. This is a human vs. nature debate. We’ve all changed the valley.
I do know this: When trees grow too close, disease risk increases. Fires are much worse when the brush is thick beneath canopy. They’ve let this forest go too long, and when they set fires the damage is much greater than they can control. The likelihood of a conflagration is higher now because of the partially burned woods along southside drive.
Culling trees by hand may be the only way to restore the forest health. I’m not sure about that, though; wood cutting has an enormous impact on the soil.
As for putting the wood to good use, the best use for the fallen trees is to let them return to the earth that nurtured them. Removing them from the valley for commercial use robs this ecosystem of the nutrients that went into the growth of the tree. I’d rather that the log be chipped and spread on the floor.”
Comments
6 responses to “Big changes at Tunnel View today.”
Edie – Thanks for the photos (both here and on FM) and for opening the dialogue.
Here is a link to the park service site that details what projects are in the works.
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/planning.htm
I have some really wonderful pictures from tunnel view that I took before they removed the ancient trees. I have to agree with the prevailing sentiment: this is exploitation, not conservation.
Photo I took from tunnel view a few years ago:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_ATB13-I2sOU/R52mukjguAI/AAAAAAAAAAU/Tc2gEBTcd9s/s1600-h/Print+room+Profile.jpg
Ben,
Are you aware that the trees they cut down were about 70 years old? In tree years, they were basically teenagers. I’ve known human beings who were in their 70’s who’d object to being called ancient.
I think the adjective you’re looking for is related to size rather than age. Massive, gi-normous, ponderous, stately, impressive; take your pick.
I can’t say I’m in favor or against the cutting of the trees. One of them was diseased, and that one I think should have been removed for the health of the forest. However, the other two were healthy and afforded good framing opportunities for the more creative photographer.
I can say this from the bottom of my heart; the view is radically different now that the trees are gone, and afford a very profound vista of just how magnificent the scope of the valley is. I remarked to my friend Connie that it’s like seeing it for the first time again.
Three trees vs. the impact that the view has now? Tough call. Really tough call for me.
Edie
I love all this stuff that’s done as “historic”.
You mean the historic view that was created by dumping millions of tons of debris from constructing the tunnel 60 years ago after undisturbed forestation goig back to the last ice age?
You mean historic meadows created by people burning them for a few thousand years despite unfettered growth, again since the last ice age (and this one is funny b/c of the double standard that says that white exploitation of the land is terrible while Miwok exploitation of the land is somehow natural and historic).
You mean the historic meadows destroyed by blowing up the glacial moraine in the valley to rid it of mosquitos? If so, why not truck in 100 million tons of rubble to fill that back in?
I always get a laugh out of the “let natural processes work” line that seems to pick and choose which processes are natural and which ones should be allowed to work.
Tom wrote “…the double standard that says that white exploitation of the land is terrible while Miwok exploitation of the land is somehow natural and historic”.
It’s all “natural and historic”, IMO. Human beings change their environment on purpose, it’s part of the nature of being human. When you turn up your thermostat in winter, it’s because you *can”.
I’d say that the Miwok management/exploitation of the land was a matter of less detrimental impact because they were a small population of low technology. How big was the Miwok group? I’d bet LOTS of money that their numbers never approached the number of guests in ONE DAY here in the park.
On the flip side, I’d also wager that life wasn’t all dancing and feasting on acorns and venison. I’d bet that children died young, and those that lived to adulthood had hard work for much of the year just to survive.
What changes do we see that were left by the Miwok? Grinding holes. I’ve heard rumors of cave paintings, but have never seen them. For me as a modern white woman, I’d say those were indications of a gentler human inhabitation; signs of two things that indicate humanity was here before me; Food preparation with tools (a woman’s work, mind you), and art, possibly religious art.
What changes have we made? Roads, smog, decaying buildings, crowding, trash that won’t go away for thousands of years. We’ve made massive changes to this valley, from the rubble that forms that incredible vista at the tunnel to the sewer lines that now run under the Merced River downstream of the new employee housing.
The Miwok can’t hold a candle to what we’ve done to this valley. By comparison, they were exemplars of ecological stewardship, IMO. What they did was based on simple, expedient survival as individuals and as a people. What we’ve done isn’t about survival, it’s about commercial exploitation of one of the most incredible places on the planet.
Edie
It is really unfortunate that they decided to remove the trees. They were an integral part of the view. How anyone could think the view is better I’ll never understand. There was ample room to see the valley view with the trees. Removal of the trees does nothing but create a scar upon the landscape. It would be nice if “land management” could focus on land management rather than “people management”. There are numerous locations to take in the beautiful view of the valley and gutting the landscape to make it easier for people to see the view is short sighted. The lookout is over visited and poorly maintained to begin with. It is now subject to increased erosion as a result of the tree removal. Money and effort could have been better spent leaving the trees and maintaining the lookout. The cement barricade and crumbling stone wall is an eye sore.
The beauty of Yosemite is epitomized by the beautiful wilderness that fills its valley. It’s unfortunate that now that beauty has been scarred for the sake of a temporarily improved view. It saddens me to know it will take another generation for anyone to see that view as it once once.