Talk:Mother of the Forest

Falling the tree
The USFS document implies the tree was still standing in 1900, a reference in The New York Times (just read teaser as I don't have an account) suggests that tree was on the ground but still in the forest in 1908 "FIRE REACHES GROVE OF MAMMOTH TREES; Dead "Mother of the Forest," 327 Feet Long and 78 Feet in Circumference" (notice long not tall). Need to clarify with references and update as appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They let the tree just sit in the forest after they cut it down. Gale stripped the bark, but let the tree to rot.Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * you will want to cite the references Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Tutorial. Jeepday (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: In my family archive I found a Stereo-photograph of "Mere de la Foret", taken around 1900. Could that be genuine? And do copyrights last that long: can I upload a picture/ e-mail it to another contributor? 86.94.5.49 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Twofold Reactions
I'm quite fascinated by the idea that there were only two reactions to the exhibition of this tree's bark. One might imagine that a substantial minority, even a majority, would be more indifferent, yet, much to the contrary, all onlookers were either incredulous or appalled. Still, it might behoove one to provide a reference for this anomalous phenomenon, if only to sway those more ignorant than we are. -- MLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.165.118 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, i pulled that from a book, if you have a problem with the wording you can change it, you don't must have to be acting like prick. K, thnx.Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Civility Jeepday (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jeepdad :( Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And that book conflated the "Discovery Tree" felling story with the "Mother of the Forest", which was NOT felled, but partially stripped of bark. Ryoung 122 02:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Factchecking & Confusion
I was just in Caleveras Big Trees park and spent time in the north grove. According to the park brochure, I believe this tree being discussed is the "Discovery Tree," now reduced to the "Big Stump" near the park HQ that was later used as a dance floor, etc. It was discovered 1852 by one August T. Dowd while hunting. This tree took five men 22 days to fell, this by boring rather than sawing (there were no saws large enough in those days). This was the tree whose bark was first removed to sent on tour but the tour was unsucessful.

There was another tree nearby, now named in the park literature as the "Mother of the Forest" (and so perhaps the confusion in this article). It also had its bark stripped to be sent on tour, which tour was sucessful. This tree was not felled. Rather, it simply died in place(haivng lost so much bark and cambium) and then burned substantially in a 1908 fire. But the massive snag remains.

I did not see any reference to the Discovery Tree/Big Stump ever being called the "Mother of the Forest."

You can read all this on the relevant CA State Park website for CBTSP.

Because of this confusion I believe the main article truthfully needs retitiling and substantial rewriting.

In any case, our human (and, especially, American) injuries to these great trees are of course regrettable; on the other hand, such regrets led to our human (and, especially, American) efforts to preserve--it was America that invented the national park system, the Sierra Club, etc. Meanwhile, now we've learned that Smokey the Bear has actually harmed many forests by preventing needful low intensity fires--this affects Sequoiadendrons specifically, reducing their reproduction rate. Russell Yee, Oakland CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Yee (talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The original article was based on this incorrect essay/book: https://environmentalhistory.org/about/events/mother-of-the-forest/
 * I can understand why the essay, whose focus was on environmentalism and not the tree itself, would have conflated two stories, as both of these trees were in the same grove and both affected close to the same time (1850s). However, since that essay was written, more and more evidence has pointed to that being a conflation of two stories: the Discovery Tree (felled 1852-1853) and the Mother of the Forest (bark stripped 1854). One solution, perhaps, make an article about the Discovery Tree, and/or make an article about the Calaveras (Sequoia) Grove. A third HUGE tree, legend has it possibly the largest ever, "Father of the Forest" (dead on the forest floor) from the same grove is evident also in the drawing/picture attached to this article, showing all three major sequoias as separate trees. Ryoung 122 02:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is the drawing showing the separate trees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_of_the_Forest#/media/File:The_mammoth_trees_(Sequoia_gigantea),_California_(Calaveras_County)_executed_in_oil_colors_by_Middleton,_Strobridge_&_Co.,_Cin._O._03140u.png Ryoung 122 02:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Biography category?
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography..."

This is an article about a tree. Does it really belong in the Biography category?-71.174.183.138 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

George Gale motivations
The current article is strangely vague, leaving the reader wondering what George Gale thought about this tree and what motivated his actions: why did he strip the bark? Was he expecting the tree to die? Did he care?

But perhaps, if we have no good sources of this key info, we will just be stuck with the bare factoids at hand...-71.174.183.138 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Sequo, Thank You for adding so much good history detail to the article on 11jan17!-71.174.182.64 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing those out. Some modern detail would be useful as well: Constance Gordon-Cumming visited in 1878, writing "Strange to say, though the poor tree was thus ruthlessly dealt with in the year 1854, she is still alive, though naked and miserable. I can see her from where I now sit—a ghastly object—her sides still transfixed with wooden implements of torture,—the St Sebastian of the forest", or John Muir around the same time: "This grand tree is of course dead, a ghastly disfigured ruin, but it still stands erect and holds forth its majestic arms as if alive and saying, 'Forgive them; they know not what they do.'". Still true to the word, a wide angle camera would be needed to truly capture the still remaining scale of the tree. --Sequo (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

 * Copied content portion of reference from Mother of the Forest to Pioneer Cabin Tree; see former page's history for attribution. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Old Source with Errors
Just wanted to point out that the following source conflates and mixes the stories of two trees, the Discovery Tree and the Mother of the Forest:

https://environmentalhistory.org/about/events/mother-of-the-forest/

Of course, the above report is from 1996 at a time when the internet was not as prevalent as now, and it's not a surprise to see a source make errors.

However, logic and evidence prove that the above source is incorrect, as the Mother of the Forest stag remains standing even to this day:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-mother-of-the-forest-a-dead-sequoia-tree-at-calaveras-big-trees-state-111411082.html

I agree with an earlier 2009 poster that some have confused the "Discovery Tree" story (the one that was cut down) with the "Mother of the Forest" story. Interestingly, one of the drawings associated with this article includes BOTH the "Discovery Tree/Big Stump" AND the Mother of the Forest as separate trees, as clearly they must have been. A tree could not have been felled and also still remain standing. Ryoung 122 02:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)