Jump to content

Talk:El Grande (tree)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonsense!

[edit]
  • El Grande was a massive Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus regnans) in Tasmania and Australia's largest tree. It was located on a ridge in the upper Derwent valley, adjacent to the World Heritage Area of the Florentine Valley, approximately 100 kilometres (62 mi) from Hobart. The tree stood 79 metres (259 ft) in height, had a girth of 19 metres (62 ft), and a volume of 439 cubic metres. While it was not the tallest tree in Australia, it was considered to be the largest in terms of volume,[1] and the world's biggest flowering plant.[2]
Forestry Tasmania requires a tree to be 85 metres tall, or beyond a certain volume. This tree met the volume requirement, but not the height. Very very few trees in the world are over 85 metres tall. (278.8 feet). Forestry Tasmania agrees that if a tree reaches this benchmark, it will not be logged, even if it means that every single tree around it is cleared, because they are only 80 metres (260 feet ) high!
  • Approximately 350 years old,[3] it was discovered in June 2002 by Wally Hermann,[4] Tasmanian geologist[5] and Tall Trees Specialist.
This is total nonsense. It may indeed have been discovered by Wally Herman at some date, but long before 2002.
The tree was identified as significant by the Wilderness Society at least as early as 2000, and my impression is that it was a couple of years before that.
By January 2001, this and several other trees such as the "Chapel Tree", and "Gandalf's Staff" were named by the Wilderness Society who had prepared maps, and directions for finding these trees, and had marked out the routes along the logging roads by tying red tape in various places.
The photograph that is on this website, along with nearly all the pictures of the Styx Valley and surrounding area were taken by me in January 2001.
  • It was burned in April 2003, and died in December 2003 by accident in a regeneration burn after clear-felling of old growth forest.[6]
The words "regeneration burn" are extraordinarily offensive. The term "regeneration" may be used by Forestry Tasmania, but the burning process has nothing whatsoever to do with "regeneration". The reason is that fire is known to be extremely destructive to the Eucalyptus regnans species, unlike many other types of Eucalyptus. The burning is not to "regenerate" because the land is being cleared primarily to plant pinus radiata, not to regenerate Eucalyptus.
The purpose of the burning is to get rid of all the branches, stumps and roots, which you might imagine are woodchipped and shipped, but they are not. It is the long straight trunks that are carried out and chipped.
The burning also clears the land of "vermin"; read: wallabies, potoroos, wombats, frogs, snakes, lyrebirds, sugar gliders, etc etc etc.
  • Australian forestry officials admitted killing the tree by mistake,[1] its hollow trunk acting like a furnace so that it was cooked from the inside.[7]
Well, they could hardly deny killing it, but "mistake" is not the right word. The tree had been identified as one that should be preserved. They didn't kill it by "mistake". No-one could possibly kill something 82 metres tall "by mistake'.
  • While its discovery was used as a symbol for cooperation between Forestry Tasmania and the Wilderness Society
What total and absolute nonsense is this? The tree was not used as a "symbol for cooperation" between Forestry Tasmania and the Wilderness Society.
Not unless you call forcing Forestry Tasmania to make Gunns (the sole logging company) leave a handful of isolated trees standing, as lightning-targets, co-operation.
  • the tree's death brought national and international media attention, El Grande becoming a symbol for the destruction of Tasmanian forests.[8]
Well, this is true at least, but the Good WeekendMagazine had already done a major article in February 2001.
  • Scrutiny intensified over the burning of Tasmania's forests for wood chip exportation.[9]
This sentence doesn't make sense. The forests are not burnt "for wood chip exportation". The debris left after clear-felling is burnt to facilitate replanting with pinus radiata or eucalyptus matchstickus
  • In the later half of 2003, Forestry Tasmania decided to remove individual names from the state's giant trees.[10]
This is nonsense. Forestry Tasmania may have named some of the trees, but most of them were named by the Wilderness Society. People who love these trees will go on calling the by name, regardless of what Forestry Tasmania does.
  • However, other giant trees in the area of El Grande which are also protected by Forestry Tasmania’s Giant Trees Policy, and have retained their names, include Centurion, which was discovered in 2008, and Triarius.[11]
So can anyone tell us how Centurion and Triarius are protected? Are they in reserves, or are they to have all the other trees logged from around them and left standing isolated, as El Grande was, so that they really have about as much hope of survival as El Grande.
  • One of the article cited here has a little rave by Derwent District Forest Manager Steve Whiteley about how El Grande was "a survivor", and how they had taken every care.
I'm sure that Steve Whiteley knows that Eucalyptus regnans is among those species which do not survive fire very well.
All I can say is that in 2001, I saw the debris in a pile, bulldozed in front of this tree, which was right at the edge of the cleared area, and I photographed the debris piled around another tree (I think it was Gandalf's Staff). Basically, I could not get really close to El Grande, because of the piles of stuff in the way. The debris had already been bulldozed, in January 2001. Forestry Tasmania are asking us to believe that having carelessly heaped debris around the bases of these trees, some nice careful bull-dozer driver came back and moved the whole pile, before setting alight to it?

This article needs some revision!

Amandajm (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on El Grande (tree). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:El_Grande_(tree)&oldid=1196614734"