Who Cuts Trees at UCSC?

i am glad that QUALITY ARBOR CARE is so good at caring for the trees.

But where were the tree sitters?
Perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time?

As a UCSC student in the mid-to-late 90's, those shots brought back some good memories. However, a few corrections, if I may:

ALL growth on the UCSC campus is second or third generation. The man who gave the land, Henry Cowell, had used all the existing growth before he gave the land to UC. Thus there is something darkly funny about tree-sitters at UCSC proclaiming that they are saving old-growth redwoods, when in fact the campus wouldn't exist if a "greedy corporate capitalist" hadn't given the land over once he cut down all the trees.

UCSC purposefully grew its buildings, including McHenry, within the tree stands. So it's only natural that, if they need to expand, that some trees come down. I'd prefer that to clearcutting (by the way, the photos you posted showed NO instance of clearcutting, but instead selective cutting), building some structures, and having wide spaces to construct future buildings. The trees served a magnificent purpose while they were there, but taking a few of them down for an expansion is required because of the smart planning earlier on. Unless you are suggesting that they build on to the great meadow?

" Thus there is something darkly funny about tree-sitters at UCSC proclaiming that they are saving old-growth redwoods..."

Maybe you haven't been around campus since you graduated 15 years ago, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when I tell you that the tree sitters have never claimed to be protecting old growth trees. They know very well that the 3rd growth trees in the parking lot on science hill are not original growth. They do know, however, that there are several endangered and endemic species that live on campus and are threatened by expansion. They also know that in that very parking lot, there are endangered bats living in some of the trees (as recorded by biologists Michael Brandman and Associates (MBA) in 2006). They know that there is more to the forest than just the trees, as an untrained observer like yourself might assume. They know that the cutting expansion into upper campus will also have a horrendous effect already significantly impacted campus watersheds; as the runoff and contamination increases with all of the newly created impermeable surfaces (asphalt, buildings, etc). They know the sensitive cave systems will no longer be able to support the endemic spiders and scorpions that currently reside there if they are flooded.

Had you actually bothered to read anything they've put out (like the LRDP resistance newsletter for example), you would know what arguments they are making and you wouldn't have to misrepresent them and make yourself look incredibly stupid. I won't hold it against you since you obviously have no idea what's going on around campus, and as you haven't actually looked into it at all, you have no idea what effects there would be if 120 (currently undeveloped) acres on campus were destroyed. So after you read some of what they are actually saying, I look forward to you're more informed response. You might try http://www.lrdpresistance.org for starters.

Clearcutting or clearfelling is a forestry/logging practice in which most or all trees in a forest sector are cut down. [Adams, D.L., J.D. Hodges, D.L. Loftis, J.N. Long, R.S. Seymour, J.A. Helms. (1994). Silvicultural Terminology. Silviculture Working Group (D2). Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD. pp 5.]

You may have seen the photos here of the incremental removal of trees from the McHenry addition site, but you aren't seeing the total devistation that was the final result. I can assure you looking out my co-worker's windows for the last 18 months that every tree within the site was cut. You only have to visit the new addition to see just what the forest pictured in the earlier photos is now: A large ugly modern office building, surrounded by acres of concrete, blacktop, and lawn.

For the record, there was an attempt to save one very old, very large redwood as a landscape "feature." But the landscape planners -- against the advice of arborists -- undermined the root system with retaining walls and killed the tree. Now the elegant "landscare feature" is a very large, very old stump right in the middle of the circular walkways to the library. If they have the good sense to just leave it the fuck alone, the redwood stump may sprout suckers and grow into a host of new clones, that is, it may live against the best efforts of the UCSC landscape planners.

Gary said:

"But where were the tree sitters?
Perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time?"

Where the fuck were YOU? Instead of criticizing others, why don't you look critically at your own inaction? Seems more like YOU were in the wrong place.

The question was asked because the library expansion was part of the LRPD. Big old trees were cut but no one occupied those trees. It goes to the root of the hypocrisy of the the tree sitters. Expansion of a non-science library is ok because it supports the liberal arts education of UCSC but try to put in a science building and now that is the wrong kind of expansion. Were was I and others like me? We do not oppose controlled thoughtful expansion, such as what UCSC has in mind.

BTW the timing of construction and the trees cut to support the construction has less to do with fewer people to protest and more to do with it is safer to do the work when there aren't as many bystanders and people trying to get to class.

What kind of argument is this? If you don't protest every injustice, you have no right to protest ANY injustice?

If you didn't protest the trees being cut at McHenry, if you didn't protest the massive hillside/meadow removal of the new digital arts facility, if you weren't around to protest elfland, if you didn't throw yourself in front of the bulldozers in 1964 as the university was being built, if you didn't chain yourself to a tree in 1911 when Henry Cowell was clearcutting old growth redwoods to throw them into the redhot limestone kilns... then you have no right to protest now that the forest is being destroyed to make room for more labs, athletic fields, and 5000 more students.

And what kind of argument is this one? Since this region was thoroughly raped, mined, stipped, and clearcut at the early part of the 20th century, protecting it now is pointless.

Whether the trees are old growth, second growth, or third growth has never been part of the argument about whether the forest should be protected. The fact that Henry Cowell -- who donated the land after it was a worthless, barren, tax-burden -- stripped this portion of the Santa Cruz mountains of anything valuable or salable, does not change the fact that the forest has become to some degree, after a hundred years, a diverse and healthy environment for thousands of species of critters and plants, some quite unique to this area.

Now come on, y'all got big brains even if you disagree with the tree-sit. How about we start using them instead of making fallacious arguments. Or do we just start rehash how some people -- oh my! -- mask up at the treesit again? Or spread more unsourced specious rumors about threatening behavior at the treesit?

The logic is that the library expansion was not that long ago. True none of us were around for the clear cutting and very few for the original construction. BUT! The LRPD resistance was in place when the library expansion started. BUT! The LRPD resistance chose not to protest the library but decided that the Biomed building was not to there liking. You either stop all of it or none of it or you look like hypocrits.

So...having watched Dragon Lover
on countless occasions nag and criticize
practically EVERYTHING from a seemingly
disconnected mountaintop...I've pretty much
concluded that whoever it is, is some agitator/
informant...

Either that, or it seems they feel some righteous
moral indignation to tell everyone else how to protest,
resist, and be a "movement".

Well buddy, show by example.

Side note: In a paradoxical twist...
if Dragon Lover really is either of the two...they'll probably
respond in a typical, unsurprising manner.

I am just far enough removed to see what those that are too close to the situation cannot. Are my opinions right? I don't know. They are just my opinion that I have gathered over many years and a broad range of experience. Do I think I can change a die hard persons mind? Not really. I just present a different point of view. BTW I find it either very paranoid or plain rude to label someone an agitator or informant because their view differs from yours. It is also a very weak argument in support of your position.

It's not just a case of one instance versus another. There is also the building of the Digital Arts facility as well. That happened rather recently. Dragon Lover does have a point. Stand by and let the McHenry expansion take place. Stand by and let the Digital Art facility take place. Protest the BioMed facility.
It does look like picking and chosing.

The tree sit and the long range resistance website went up MONTHS after the McHenry Library trees were cut, and after the construction was well under way. The resistance groups didn't even EXIST yet. You trolls really are grasping for straws now, aren't you?

"It's not just a case of one instance versus another. There is also the building of the Digital Arts facility as well. That happened rather recently. Dragon Lover does have a point. Stand by and let the McHenry expansion take place. Stand by and let the Digital Art facility take place. Protest the BioMed facility.
It does look like picking and chosing."

Why don't you ask the UCSC administrators if that is actually true (since people like you need an authority figure to tell you something before you believe it). They have told several people that there has been tens of thousands of dollars (or was it hundreds of thousands?) in sabotage done to the machinery in the other construction projects on campus. The resistance to the destruction of the beautiful ecosystems is not just LRDP resistance or the tree-sit, and in kind, those groups are not responsible for preventing EVERY environmentally destructive act on campus. They are working on what they can handle and have done a great job. They have raised awareness of the issues a thousand fold, and brought the issues of the LRDP to the fore-front. Before the tree-sit and website went up, nobody was talking about it, and afterwords, it became the MAIN campus issue. How is that for pulling back the curtain on what those overdevelopment obsessed creep administrators are up to?

Also, it is great that you are pointing out some of the other construction projects on campus to everyone will know what else the fucked up UCSC admin is up to. People should definitely target those as well.

On a side note, I think the trees at McHenry (in the photos above) were cut about a year before the tree-sit went up. The group simply wasn't around to prevent it. You are right though, those beautiful trees should have been protected. I wish people knew about it before-hand.

You sanctimonious newbies make me laugh and cry in tandem.

You arrived on scene a year or two ago, take a quick look, then decide you know what's best for everyone who has been here for decades.

The irony that you were able to arrive here because growth continued throughout the years prior to your arrival and hence made rooms is lost on your, because your so caught up in your newly found cause.

You piously preach about "saving" the campus while at the same time suckling off the teat of the recently denuded resources that you claim to want to protect.

"Save the trees" you squeal, while at the same time living at College 9-10; an area cleared of trees just a few years ago to make space for you.

You piously preach to educate us from a pulpit hewn from the trees you tell us we must save.

You chant "our campus!" after 2 years in residence to locals and staff who've been affiliated with the campus for 2 decades. It's not your campus. To me, you're a squatter who just arrived. A renter who will be gone in another year or so.

Piss off. Show real commitment, and leave town. I totally agree with you, the county and campus are over-impacted. Prove your commitment and move out first. Hopefully the other kids who arrived 3,5, or10 years ago will follow suite....and leave the town to be enjoyed for those of us who arrived 30 years ago. You're a recent immigrant that is now trying to "educate" with your sudden revelation of environmentalism.

You pompously inform us that the best course of action is to have others go to UC Merced or similarly less impacted areas...yet you are unwilling to lead by example and leave Santa Cruz.


....freakin poseurs.

Nice work. Ad Hominem. Attack the presenter of the argument instead of the argument itself. Well, I'll respond, though I think everyone already sees through your pathetic attempt to troll.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but I'm a long term Santa Cruz resident. Unlike you, I'm one who actually pays attention to local environmental destruction... and then does something about it. I'm not a student at UCSC and I hope to "show some real commitment" not by leaving town, but by resisting development and preventing the university from having an even larger impact than it has already created. You suggest that the best course of action would be to leave town and that would set some sort of example for others to leave town. The only flaw in that argument is that if everyone who opposed the university's plans for expansion left town, they would have nobody left to stop them.

You fail to recognize that the opposition to UCSCs plans are not just students. There are community members like myself (and you perhaps?), there are UC faculty, and UC staff; all in addition to the students. You assume that because someone opposes their plans they must be some christian-esque holier-than-thou student who knows that is best for Santa Cruz. Well if you, as a community member (if you really are), should know that what is best for Santa Cruz is not for UCSC to expand. In fact, I'd be more than happy if it got smaller. I think it would be a lot nicer up there with less buildings and parking lots.

So instead of sitting in the comfort of your home complaining about other people trying to reduce the impact of the university, why don't you get off your couch and do something? Go for a walk in the woods that are going to be developed if the university gets their way. Enjoy the beauty while it lasts. Its certainly going to be a much harder fight if to preserve that beauty if people like you cant find something better to do with your time than criticize other people who are actually resisting UCSC.

I am not a student. I do wish that redwoods were not removed. I do have to say that I have seen real Clear Cutting and it looks a million times worse than anything I see here. I was taken to a clear cut area near Mammoth lakes. It was hidden, near the hwy, but they left just enough trees to skew the clearing from view. It was one of the saddest things I have seen. A vast amount of space, larger than the entire campus was cleared. It looked as if a huge bomb had been dropped. Ironically I noticed a large 1/4 of a tree left on the ground in the middle of just dirt left with sign on it. It said it was left for animal habitat. This was a place where Eagles nested, and large amounts of wildlife were. I was then led to the place where they re-plant. 80% of the replants had already died. Most of the wood was sold off to Japan. My only point is, you have to pick your battles. And I am not saying that saving trees at UCSC is not a worthy battle. However, I think that there are larger areas here in SC being cleared that need saving that have not been already built upon. I see the trucks coming down from the mountains with very large redwoods on them.

Maybe if i was a student I would feel differently. But call it what it is. The removal of some older redwoods, not first growth trees. If you feel they need protecting great! i would like to see more action against the huge amount of redwoods being taken out of unpopulated forests in our county, where they are needed the most.

Barn Owl, knowingly or unknowingly you just tripped into the third of the most egregious logical fallacies brought out in almost every forest defense/tree-sit debate. As I mentioned above, the first is always, "If you don't fight every environmental incursion, your inconsistency and hypocrisy removes your moral right to fight for any environmental issue."

The second is usually, "You weren't here to save the original old growth forest, so it is foolish to try to save these second and third growth trees."

The third taht you offer up is, "There are greater injustices in the world, and your focus on what is happening in your backyard, smacks of NIMBYism."

But my answer to you is simple: I live here. This is a forest I walk in everyday. If I don't fight for it passionately, who will?

And if you don't, who will?