Seeing the Forest with an Attitude    Robert Leverett    May 08, 2002 16:49 PDT  Ents: If some of us on the list seem obsessed with big tree and site lists and rankings, several good reasons have surfaced in our e-mail exchanges for having these trappings of interest. Here is a question to ponder. How do those with plenty of experience either working in or traipsing around in eastern woodlands come to the conclusion that the forests of the Great Smoky Mountains are not exemplary? Consider what grows in the Smokies, first via a recap of the response from Will Blozan to my question about 20-foot circumference trees in the Smokies. ================================================== 1. Cataloochee: one tulip, one red oak 2. Greenbrier/Cosby: at least 9 tulips (used to be ten), one red maple 3. Deep Creek (undoubtedly more Jess can provide info on): one tulip 4. West end: one tulip Will ================================================= By my count that's 14 trees plus whatever Jess Riddle knows about that's not included above. Let's say he knows of just one more. That would equal 15 trees that reach 20 feet in circumference in the Smokies. These are forest grown trees. If we drop down to an 18-foot circumference as the criteria, then the number soars. Suppose we set out to count all the Smoky Mountain trees that make 15 feet in circumference. Well, we'd be at our task for a long, long time. But, if the Smokies are outstanding for large-girth trees, they are absolutely unbeatable in the height department. We could list superlative after superlative to make the point, but suffice it to say that Congaree Swamp NM would be the Smoky Mountains only competitor. Well, if the Smokies have so many great trees, and they do, then why do some otherwise experienced people not see them as special? I think it stems from what I've started to call seeing the forest with an attitude. Here is an example. When the late Dr. Michael Perlman was collecting material for his book "The Power of Trees", he interviewed a logger from one of the Carolinas - I forget which. The logger spoke freely since he understood Mike to be a psychologist only. In the conversation Mike asked the logger what he thought of the Smokies. The logger frowned and stated that the Smokies wasn't a healthy forest and consisted of only one kind (species) of tree. Now Park naturalists have catalogued 131 species of trees in the GSMNP including some exotics. Our logger friend seems to have failed to have noticed a mere 130 different species. A woodsman making such a mistake? What is the explanation? The logger saw the Smokies through an attitude. Of course, he probably did recognize more than one species of tree in the Smokies, but symbolically he acknowledged only one. He blanked the incredible diversity of the Smokies out of his mind. He wanted to see the Smokies as a waste, so he conjured up an appropriate image and verbal description to match. Though not so blatant, others with varying backgrounds as timber specialists have made puzzling observations about the Smokies. Each has his/her reasons for diminishing those incredible woodlands. But all see the Smoky Mountain forests with an attitude. There is no shortage of examples applicable to other regions. Some of the timber managers of Pennsylvania see Cook Forest State Park with an attitude - meaning they don't recognize the exemplary stature of the trees relative to other PA sites. I'd be hypocritical if I didn't admit to having seen trees and forests with an attitude. I now find outstanding Sycamores, Silver Maples, and Cottonwoods in the Connecticut River Valley. Jani and I returned from Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary a short time ago. I found a Cottonwood right on the side of a road that proved to be 94.5 feet tall and 14.1 feet around. A 14-foot Cottonwood is no mean tree. The number of the three species just mentioned in the Valley that exceed 12 feet in circumference grows steadily. WEll, why hadn't I seen them before? My eyes had, but my brain repackaged the images to fit a perception - a negative one. I was seeing the trees with an attitude, which means I wasn't seeing them at all. I was seeing a mental reconstruction to fit a perception. So how does seeing with an attitude relate to tree measuring, i.e. the latter being a cure for the former. The collection of measurements and their presentation via a host of lists eventually penetrates the attitude and opens up the mind to more realistic assessements. Thus one is less likely to proclaim a mediocre woodland as exemplary and vice versa. As another possible example of seeing with an attitude, I turn to our friend Lou Sebesta. Here is a quote from recent Lou's e-mail. "Yesterday I and a couple of my fellow state foresters and the local forest ranger did a recon. of the state's newly acquired "Witch's Hole" lands (approx. 500 ac. or so in the ridge-strewn highlands south east of the Catskill Mtns.) which includes deep gorges w/ streams and waterfalls, rocky ridges, etc. Hiking at times was an ordeal and hot, but well worth it. We came upon a big old, battle worn yellow birch in the gorge just beneath a 50-60' waterfall that I'd conservatively estimate at ~ 500 to 600 years old. Such incredibly shaggy bark that the other foresters were baffled to ID the species. " So the other 3 foresters were unable to ID the species. New York state foresters unable to identify Yellow Birch, even if very old? I encountered the same from a past president of the Mass Forestry Association. Perhaps all had trained themselves over the years to tune out the oldest trees in a forest, seeing and valuing only youth. If so, they were seeing the forest with an attitude, though not necessarily an intentionally negative one toward old growth treated as a class of forest. That certainly was the case with the past president of MFA. he valued the old growth I was showing him. When we look at forest through the eyes of the artist, the scientist, the forester, the arborist, the mystic, we pick up different aspects of the multi-dimensional life forms that we call trees. To see trees as mere numbers is to dishonor them, but seeing them with the information that numbers can communicate can keep us from making ourselves look pretty silly at times. Viva la tree numbers. May the great Silver Maples, Cottonwoods, and Sycamores that I keep finding in the Connecticut River Valley, now that the blinders are off, live long and prosper. Bob Home