San Francisco
Aug 15th, 2004, 09:13 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
San Francisco
Am planning some day trips from San Francisco and in looking at Muir Woods - am wondering if we have seen the Redwoods in Yosmite - would we be missing anything more if we did not go to Muir Woods? Just wondering if anyone had been to both - how does each one compare? Thanks
Aug 16th, 2004, 12:32 PM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The redwoods in the sierras are sequoias whereas the redwoods in the coastal mountains are coastal redwoods. The trees themselves are different as well as the forests in which they grow. Coastal redwood forests are more lush than those in the sierras due to the increased moisture and lower elevation.
Coastal redwood forests are amoung my favorite, and I really like trees, so I think you would be missing out if you didn't see some while you were on the coast. Like everything else though, vacations are about priorities and if time is tight, there may be other things which take priority.
There are also other places besides Muir Woods to see redwoods, so you might be going through some on your trip. There are redwoods in the Santa Cruz mountains and Big Sur, so if part of your trip takes you through there, you could see the trees and not go to Muir Woods.
Coastal redwood forests are amoung my favorite, and I really like trees, so I think you would be missing out if you didn't see some while you were on the coast. Like everything else though, vacations are about priorities and if time is tight, there may be other things which take priority.
There are also other places besides Muir Woods to see redwoods, so you might be going through some on your trip. There are redwoods in the Santa Cruz mountains and Big Sur, so if part of your trip takes you through there, you could see the trees and not go to Muir Woods.
Aug 17th, 2004, 08:08 AM
#4
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are trying to distinguish between the redwoods, think Laurel and Hardy.
The "shorter", fat ones are inland along the Sierra Mountains (Yosemite, Sequoia, etc.)
The taller, thin ones are along the coast (Muir Woods, Big Sur, etc.)
The "shorter", fat ones are inland along the Sierra Mountains (Yosemite, Sequoia, etc.)
The taller, thin ones are along the coast (Muir Woods, Big Sur, etc.)
Aug 17th, 2004, 10:14 AM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh man easytraveler, I must disagree. If you haven't been to the Big Trees state park you are in for a treat. The Mariposa Grove in Yosemite is also quite nice. These trees are immense. Did you know that the largest living thing on earth is the Giant Sequoia all located in the Sierra Nevada? The coastal redwood is no slouch though they are very big as well.
Aug 17th, 2004, 10:26 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the things I love about coastal redwood forests, in addition to the trees themselves, is the surrounding vegetation. Esspecially in the canyons you will find ferns and other plants which make it look like a prehistoric forest. It's not very hard to imagine dinosaurs tromping through. And if you are lucky, you will see the infamous banana slug.
Aug 17th, 2004, 11:11 AM
#7
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just north of the Muir Woods is the Pt. Reyes National Seashore, which is also worth a trip. It's about 30 minutes north of Muir Woods. We were there for a couple days last week- the lighthouse was interesting; saw Tule Elk, did a lot of hiking; seashore was beautiful. You might want to add this to your trip!
Aug 18th, 2004, 02:18 PM
#9
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going up north to Redwood Nat'l Park, then no, it isn't an especially urgent thing to go to Muir Woods. Muir Woods is priceless for its proximity to the city - an opportunity to take a short drive just over the bridge and be in a real redwood forest. But the area around Jedediah Smith, the Eel River, etc. is very much more true wilderness - although I've seen, in Muir Woods, bobcats and owls, in addition to the beloved banana slug!
Aug 18th, 2004, 02:57 PM
#10
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J_Correa, it wasn't dinosaurs a la Jurassic Park, but do you remember that one of the Star Wars movies (I forget whether it was The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi) had a long sequence filmed in a redwood forest, including a thrilling chase through it? The forest was inhabited by those cute little bearlike creatures, I think, but I've forgotten their names. I wonder how many people were motivated to go see a redwood forest after being introduced to the beauty of one by that movie.
I agree with dovima that Muir Woods would be a redundancy on a short visit after Redwood National Park and/or the Avenue of the Giants, while on the other hand, Mariposa Grove, Giant Forest in Sequoia Natinal Park, or the Big Trees State Park would not. Two very different types of tree, forest and experience, both beautiful and thrilling.
Although in many ways I am even more impressed with Giant Sequoias than Coast Redwoods, I like easytraveler's Laurel and Hardy metaphor. Suzie, I don't think she was knocking the Giant Sequoias by saying they are short (they are short only, of course, in comparison to the Coast Redwoods) and fat. Despite our cultural trend to regard fat as always bad, the immense girth, width and thickness of these trees makes them awesome wonders of nature and a uniquely humbling experience. Size matters in more than one dimension. (Sorry. I think I said that just so easytraveler, a very nice lady, won't say "johncharles, always the gentleman" like she usually does in response to my posts.)
I agree with dovima that Muir Woods would be a redundancy on a short visit after Redwood National Park and/or the Avenue of the Giants, while on the other hand, Mariposa Grove, Giant Forest in Sequoia Natinal Park, or the Big Trees State Park would not. Two very different types of tree, forest and experience, both beautiful and thrilling.
Although in many ways I am even more impressed with Giant Sequoias than Coast Redwoods, I like easytraveler's Laurel and Hardy metaphor. Suzie, I don't think she was knocking the Giant Sequoias by saying they are short (they are short only, of course, in comparison to the Coast Redwoods) and fat. Despite our cultural trend to regard fat as always bad, the immense girth, width and thickness of these trees makes them awesome wonders of nature and a uniquely humbling experience. Size matters in more than one dimension. (Sorry. I think I said that just so easytraveler, a very nice lady, won't say "johncharles, always the gentleman" like she usually does in response to my posts.)
Aug 18th, 2004, 03:06 PM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
johncharles - I do remember those scenes filmed in the redwood forests, I believe it was in Return of the Jedi. There are parts of Hwy 152 between Gilroy and Watsonville that remind me of the chase in that movie. The trees aren't really so big in that part of the mountains (all 2nd growth, not much old growth through there due to logging), but there are some good ferns and dark canyons.
Aug 18th, 2004, 03:07 PM
#12
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suzie:
Frankly, I don't know what you are disagreeing with.
I wrote my short piece based on the one sheet brochure put out by the National Park Service titled "Sequoia and Kings Canyon". To illustrate the facts given on the brochure, there are two trees, one a Coast Redwood and the other a Giant Sequoia, placed next to each other. I was just there last week and my recollection of these two illustrative trees was of "Laurel and Hardy". I didn't say "midget".
Digging out the brochure, here are some other facts given on the same brochure:
Coast Redwood Giant Sequoia
Height: to 367.8 feet To 311 feet
Bases: to 22' diameter To 40' diameter
Seems like the facts given by the Park Service indicate that the Giant Sequoias are shorter and fatter than the Coast Redwoods.
They are both gigantic trees, but there are some differences between them.
Frankly, I don't know what you are disagreeing with.
I wrote my short piece based on the one sheet brochure put out by the National Park Service titled "Sequoia and Kings Canyon". To illustrate the facts given on the brochure, there are two trees, one a Coast Redwood and the other a Giant Sequoia, placed next to each other. I was just there last week and my recollection of these two illustrative trees was of "Laurel and Hardy". I didn't say "midget".
Digging out the brochure, here are some other facts given on the same brochure:
Coast Redwood Giant Sequoia
Height: to 367.8 feet To 311 feet
Bases: to 22' diameter To 40' diameter
Seems like the facts given by the Park Service indicate that the Giant Sequoias are shorter and fatter than the Coast Redwoods.
They are both gigantic trees, but there are some differences between them.
Aug 19th, 2004, 10:22 AM
#13
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reason I love this board is how many of you bring out some neat illustrations and descriptions of what's out there. The references to Laurel and Hardy, dinosaurs, banana slugs - these are great. Thanks guys and gals. Can't wait to check it out in October.
Aug 19th, 2004, 01:03 PM
#14
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, johncharles!
Ever the gentleman! Thanks for the assist in explaining my thoughts!
Missed your earlier post - don't know how, but did! Actually, miss YOU on the Northern California threads, ever since YouKnowWho disappeared. When I came back from vacation - poof! he/she/it was gone! Whatta blessing! Nevertheless, I miss the Borg members!
applejack: Suzie's right. The Mariposa Grove in Yosemite is a great place to see the Giant Sequoias. The other marvellous place is Sequoia National Park.
Ever the gentleman!
Thanks for the assist in explaining my thoughts!Missed your earlier post - don't know how, but did! Actually, miss YOU on the Northern California threads, ever since YouKnowWho disappeared. When I came back from vacation - poof! he/she/it was gone! Whatta blessing! Nevertheless, I miss the Borg members!
applejack: Suzie's right. The Mariposa Grove in Yosemite is a great place to see the Giant Sequoias. The other marvellous place is Sequoia National Park.
Aug 19th, 2004, 03:21 PM
#15
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aw, shucks, Easy, you said "always a gentleman" anyway despite my attempt to be rakishly salacious. What can I do to shake this too-genteel reputation? Is it too late for me to take on an aura of of risk and mystery? Sometimes I would like to be a little more dangerous.
Not that I would like you to start calling me the things I get called on some threads, and more recently than He None of Whose Names Should Be Spoken was active too. So it's good to get some kind words sometimes.
By the way, I hope I was a little dangerous too our Northern Cal "Valdemort". As well as joining the Borg in dogging him online, I sent a number of messages to the Fodor's editors asking them how they could justify letting him flout their rule against impersonation, that it was as bad or worse to deceive by impersonating fabricated individuals as real ones.
He disappeared soon after I repeated that argument with a request that they shut down access from the IP addresses which were the source of the posts from eight names of his I listed for them. I pointed out to them that they had clearly just done so in the case of a kid from the UK who had suddenly started posting multiple obscenity-laced and threatening threads here one afternoon, and this belied their earlier response, reported by Patrick, that this was not a feasible thing for them to do.
It's quite probable that the silence from San Jose following that was coincidental, but I'd like to think not.
What I did observe was that after silence for a while, his names started to appear again, but the pattern was unfamiliar. His opinions were the same, as you once so eloquently described them, "urine-soaked" ones they always have been. But over a series of threads he never used more than one name in the same thread. Then there came one thread, only, in which he seemed to lose his cool in a major way again, and reverted to his old habits, using several of his names. I have never seen any of his names appear since that thread.
My speculation was that he might have been on some sort of warning or probation from Fodor's, but finally blew it for good. Very likely the explanation of it all is something different and less satisfying. And then, possibly he is confined somewhere getting the care he needs.
All of the above happened while you were in China.
I suppose there could hardly be a more unlikely reunion place for the Northern California Borg than Atlantic City, but it has amused me to notice that the hot new hotel there is the Borgata.
Not that I would like you to start calling me the things I get called on some threads, and more recently than He None of Whose Names Should Be Spoken was active too. So it's good to get some kind words sometimes.
By the way, I hope I was a little dangerous too our Northern Cal "Valdemort". As well as joining the Borg in dogging him online, I sent a number of messages to the Fodor's editors asking them how they could justify letting him flout their rule against impersonation, that it was as bad or worse to deceive by impersonating fabricated individuals as real ones.
He disappeared soon after I repeated that argument with a request that they shut down access from the IP addresses which were the source of the posts from eight names of his I listed for them. I pointed out to them that they had clearly just done so in the case of a kid from the UK who had suddenly started posting multiple obscenity-laced and threatening threads here one afternoon, and this belied their earlier response, reported by Patrick, that this was not a feasible thing for them to do.
It's quite probable that the silence from San Jose following that was coincidental, but I'd like to think not.
What I did observe was that after silence for a while, his names started to appear again, but the pattern was unfamiliar. His opinions were the same, as you once so eloquently described them, "urine-soaked" ones they always have been. But over a series of threads he never used more than one name in the same thread. Then there came one thread, only, in which he seemed to lose his cool in a major way again, and reverted to his old habits, using several of his names. I have never seen any of his names appear since that thread.
My speculation was that he might have been on some sort of warning or probation from Fodor's, but finally blew it for good. Very likely the explanation of it all is something different and less satisfying. And then, possibly he is confined somewhere getting the care he needs.
All of the above happened while you were in China.
I suppose there could hardly be a more unlikely reunion place for the Northern California Borg than Atlantic City, but it has amused me to notice that the hot new hotel there is the Borgata.
