Talk:Redwood National and State Parks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Redwood National and State Parks is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 17, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
June 21, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
May 27, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

bring to featured article level[edit]

The tallest trees on earth need a better article. I hope others will assist me in my attempts to get this article to featured article level.--MONGO 09:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a look. Feel free to revert or remove any or all of my changes. I think it reads better now though, and without losing any information. Hope you agree. --Guinnog 09:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fine...I need all the help I can get.--MONGO 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. I think it is looking better all the time. Also check out Save-the-Redwoods League, which I'm sure you can add to. I started it to fix a redlink on this article. Fascinating stuff. --Guinnog 10:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that....I was going to do it...I kept telling myself...but just kept putting it off.--MONGO 10:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Know what you mean. Here's another one to check; I don't have much knowledge of the terminology of US politics, so may have made mistakes in my creation of John E. Raker which eliminates another redlink. Please check when you can. Thanks.
Looks fine to me..I've only done one bio stub I thank you for this one.--MONGO 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Final redlink eliminated with creation of Franciscan Assemblage. Now I am going to kick back and watch the World Cup with a beer! Best, --Guinnog 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot quicker than I work..I must be getting old. Thanks for all the help.--MONGO 14:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It really has been a pleasure to help on such an interesting and informative article on one of my favourite places. I would have uploaded some of my photos of the area, but the ones there are very good already. --Guinnog 14:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the goal was reached for Featured article on May 17, 2008. Something to ponder, there seems to be only one image available on the internet of Hyperion, the tallest redwood in these parks. That photo, plus an image of Stratosphere Giant the previous champion, and images of the 3 largesst by volume, are at Largest and Tallest Redwoods Documentary Page. No other .jpg of Hyperion seems to exist online.
It may be an appropriate External Link. No external links exist as of today in this article.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

From my talk page:the History section[edit]

Thanks - I was fixing it as you were, so we had a copyedit. I'm going to try a slightly different approach.Sam 16:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple tweaks made and a paragraph split out - see what you think. Sam 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the point of breaking out the gold rush into its own paragraph. It's too short, for one thing. More importantly, the logic of having the gold rush narrated in both the first and the second paragraphs was surely that it needed mentioning in the contexts of its impact on both the native peoples (=the first paragraph) and on the redwoods (=the second paragraph). If anything, I would rather integrate what are now all three first paragraphs, so as only to describe the gold rush once, than break it up like that, I'm afraid. Frutti di Mare 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
Yes, Gold Rush should be altogether, that would help it quite a bit! The two sentences now in the second paragraph do need to be fleshed out, but I found the "traditional Indian life" and "Decimation of Native Americans" to be two different concepts that did not read well together. I don't see the third paragraph as focused on impact on the Redwoods, since it includes fur trading, but I would see all of it improved by moving to a true chronology instead of jumping back and forth. Thanks. Sam 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It's chronological now. Check it out, please. Frutti di Mare 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
Well, not quite, but I suppose it's only from 1850 on that there is any research into the state of the native peoples, so it can't be helped that that gets some mention ahead of time. Perhaps there could be less of it, though. Frutti di Mare 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
I think that reads better. I don't think a perfect chronology is needed, and in historical articles I've argued against them, but I think the general chronology here helps lead the reader through a pretty packed section.
I would break out as a separate paragraph the thought the last two sentences, that start moving on to the deforestation/preservation discussion, but I think I like short paragraphs more than others. "Is known to have thoroughly investigated" has also been nagging at me, but I don't have a better suggestion right now. Sam 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

International Biosphere designation[edit]

Anybody have a source? This, linked from UNESCO Biosphere website seems to raise questions as to whether RNSP is actually in the biosphere. Niteowlneils 02:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking this over...the U.S. Government website states that the park is a biosphere reserve...bottom of their page:[1], but I believe that the biosphere reserve is for the northern California coast ranges...and area that includes the park.--MONGO 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The map[2] has two dots that both go to the coast ranges...the lower one appears more to be related to Redwoods...maybe their website is area specific rather than site specific...--MONGO 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been poking around more, and it seems like there must be at a minimum, overlap. Sure wish I could find a map showing the actual boundaries of the Biosphere--all I can find are ones with a dot at the middle/research station/hq/whatever. EG At least one of the Lat/Long combinations here lands pretty close to the parks (the seconds are guessed, so I wouldn't expect a perfect hit). Niteowlneils 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I trust the federal website. I think the biospheres are more like "zones", I don't know why both of those dots go to Coast Ranges...the one definitely looks like it intends to go to Redwoods...they have Corum, Montana seperately linked as a Biosphere reserve, so I find it no surprise that they would feel the tallest trees on Earth and the rare surrounding ecosystem would also be worthy. Thanks for asking as I want all the information in this article to be accurate.--MONGO 03:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
On the page for the Coast ranges[3], it states that the webpage hasn't been updated since 4/23/2002, and I saw another [4] that states that the page was last updated in 1992! I think they need a new webmaster.--MONGO 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Filmed" = director?[edit]

George Lucas "filmed" the Endor scenes for Return of the Jedi...

"Filming" the scenes implies that he was the director of the movie. He was not - Richard Marquand was. Lucas was the cowriter and executive producer of RotJ. If he did some uncredited second unit shooting then I guess the statement would be true, although there was obviously more than just second unit stuff filmed for the Endor scenes and that statement leaves out Marquand and the regular crew. Perhaps it needs to be changed to something along the lines of "Scenes from Return of the Jedi were filmed..." without giving a specific individual's name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LwsP729 (talkcontribs)

Will take care of it.--MONGO 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

TFA? How about Arbor Day next week?[edit]

I have nominated this FA to become TFA on MainPage on U.S. Arbor Day next Friday, April 25th. Please see User talk:Raul654#TFA ideas for April 21st, 25th & 29th. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned on your page about the option of "Sequoia" instead, the genus name of the coast redwood, since it's not USA specific.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you clean up Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2008, please? If whoever wants to does not have administrative rights, leave me a note on my talk page. –thedemonhog talkedits 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture complaints[edit]

Two points to make:

a) How come there are two pictures of the trees in the fog (sections 'flora' and 'fire management')? They both basically show the same thing and basically have the same caption except.... b) the second has the worst caption I've ever read: "Fog is persistent during the summer, as seen here, and the majority of fires are during the fall." A good picture of a controlled burn would add to the 'fire management' section and would fix the double-fog-picture-problem.

Any thoughts? I was surprised to find problems like this (especially the terrible caption) on a featured article...

P.S. also I think it'd be cool to have a picture like this to show the relative size of the trees. M.nelson (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean coast?[edit]

Hello, in the current revision (as of this writing), the first sentence says:

The Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP) are located in the United States, along the Pacific Ocean coast of northern California.

Isn't this redundant? California doesn't border any other bodies of water. Why not "[[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] coast" (which would still be a bit redundant but would help people who are unfamiliar with the state) or "[[Pacific Ocean|coast]]" (which is less redundant but also potentially more confusing)? Other ideas would be welcome. --Kyoko 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just get rid of it. Brutannica (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Avenue of the Giants[edit]

No mention of Avenue of the Giants, in the middle of the Redwoods of Humboldt County. Plus, please refrain from tree-hugging, which this article drips of tree resin. Happy highways, everyone, thanks for putting it up on the front page. Off to gold panning American River, kudos :) Kidshare (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Avenue of the Giants is located over 60 miles to the south of the southern boundary of this park in Southern Humboldt, while the park exists in Northern Humboldt County. There is an interesting comparison to be made in that the Newton B. Drury Parkway in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park is easily as magnificent as the fabled Avenue of the Giants, if shorter by some 14 miles.

Norcalal 05:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Working on updating this article...will add citation templates in a couple of days and check/add refs as I go.--MONGO 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can help with checking links but not right now. I'm having problems typing since spilling some coffee on my computer but should have it fixed soon. Then I can help out. --Aude (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure...that would be appreciated...I will have more time to spend on this in a couple of days.--MONGO 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary issue with Mr. Burnham[edit]

The third paragraph of the history section used to begin as follows: Frederick Russell Burnham was living on his 5,000-acre (20 km2) La Cuesta cattle ranch near the entrance to Sequoia Park when the completion of U.S. Route 101 brought fellow conservationists...

There is absolutely no use in listing all this about Mr. Burnham. This is neither an article about him nor is it about the Save the Redwoods league directly. His home near the INLAND REDWOODS (thus Sequoia Park) has absolutely no relationship to U.S. Route 101, nor does it have anything AT ALL to do with the Coast Redwood or RNSP. Also, since a previous editor was obviously working over time to place Mr. Burnham in this article, I looked at the Save the Redwoods Founders section of the eponymous website and after digging (see found no discussion of Burnham. So he is removed. Norcalal 04:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue with Mr Burnham requires more digging. The following ( and lists the creation of the Save the Redwoods League as an accomplishment. I wonder why he is not listed in their website if this is the case. I will request the book cited before from the library and cross check the reference. Norcalal 05:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, the cited reference in the earlier version of this article comes from the book: American Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive Species, by Peter Coates (2006). Pg. 100 states: "Burnham became a close friend and mentor of Robert Baden-Powell and was pivotal in the American Boy Scout movement. An avid conservationist too, he supported the conservation program of his friends Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, was a founding member of the Save-the-Redwoods League, campaigned for state parks in California, and lobbied for big-horn sheep reserves in Arizona. You may be able to see this cite yourself using this link:,M1 . This cite is consistent with the cite you found and others I have seen in other sources. -- Ctatkinson (talk)
Here are some other sources: Burnham: King of Scouts, by Peter van Wyk (2003) - Page 523; Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine, by Bret Harte - (1931) - Page 132; California Highways and Public Works, by California Highway Commission, California Dept. of Public Works, California Division of Highways - Roads - 1924. The Peter van Wyk cite can be seen with this URL: -- Ctatkinson (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Report of State Park Survey of California (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1929), p. 3; and William E. Colby, "Borrego Desert Park," Sierra Club Bulletin, XVIII (April, 1933), 144. Members of the first State Park Commission included: William E. Colby, Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, Henry W. O'Melveny, Major Frederick R. Burnham, and Senator W. F. Chandler -- a partial summary of which is found here: . Burnham also wrote an essay, albeit not on Redwoods, in one of Madison Grant's books: The alien in our midst; or, "Selling our birthright for a mess of pottage". New York: Galton Pub. Co., pp. 44-48. (1930) -- Ctatkinson (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This points to his role in Save the Redwoods League but not in the initial trip to Humboldt with the other three. At most, he could be added in to the creation of the league in 1918, but for what reason? He is more of a contributor in the Save the Redwoods Article. Also, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in mentioning his home, which was nowhere near the Coast Redwoods or the focus of the Save the Redwoods League. Again the point is the initial trip by the big three. I am still curious why Burnham is not prominently listed in the Save the Redwoods official website. Norcalal 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point that Burnham's ranch near Sequoia park is not essential for this featured article and it can be removed. I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make about a big three, but Major Burnham is cited in many sources as a founding organizer of the 1918 Save-the-Redwoods-League, as I have pointed out, except for the one curious and also erroneous omission that you now cite in this article -- a more accurate cite is needed, such as the Peter Coates (2006) cite that was removed from this article and I already restored once. Further, it is important to note in the history section of this article that Burnham was also appointed as a founding commissioner of the California state park commission, the commission that established Prairie Creek Redwoods, Del Norte Coast Redwoods, and Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Parks, and an agency which itself owes its founding to the Save-the-Redwoods-League -- from the Journal of San Diego History, Fall 1973, Volume 19, Number 4:

As scenic areas throughout California and the nation became increasingly threatened with destruction or development, conservation organizations began to be established. In 1892 the Sierra Club was created and in 1918 the Save-the-Redwoods League was formed, both in California. The purpose of these early conservation groups was to protect and preserve scenic resources and to secure some of these areas for the state.
By 1923, almost 6,000 acres of land had been conveyed to the state by such organizations, however no provisions had been made for the administration and care of the land. John C. Merriam, president of the Save-the-Redwoods League, appointed a committee to study and recommend the agency they believed best qualified to receive custody of the land and assume the responsibility of managing the parks. In the fall of 1924 the committee reported that in its opinion the state was the best agency to provide administrative machinery. They further recommended that the California legislature create a state park commission to administer the parks and furnish funds to pay the cost of a comprehensive state-wide survey of scenic and recreational resources that would form the nucleus of a state park system.
In 1926 the Save-the-Redwoods League was enlarged to include representatives of all conservation organizations in the state and was given the title of California's State Parks Council. The following year the council submitted two recommendations to the State Legislature and called for a state park bond issue of $6,000,000. The funds would be used to obtain additional park lands upon receipt of matching private funds. The three proposals passed almost unanimously, and on May 25, 1927, Governor Clement C. Young signed the bills, establishing the first state park system in the nation. …Members of the first State Park Commission included: William E. Colby, Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, Henry W. O'Melveny, Major Frederick R. Burnham, and Senator W. F. Chandler.

Burnham's role in the formation of the state park commission and both his actions nd the actions of this commission are further documented in his later testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds:

  • Hearings Before the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, House of Representatives, Seventy-Third Congress, Second Session, United States Congress. House. Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Published by United States Govt. Prtg. Off., item notes: v. 1-19 (1934)
  • Hearings before the United States Congress. House. Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, pp.20 (1935)
  • Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the United States Congress, Published by Govt. Print. Off., pp. 9470 (1936)

-- Ctatkinson (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this information belongs in the CA State Parks Article and Save the Redwoods article. Since there is no contention that Burnham was not in the initial visit, then we can move on from that. A significant section on the Commission is needed in the CA State Parks article, but glancing reference would seem to be sufficient in this article, which is about the history of Redwood National Park. Let us not forget the article in question. I suppose, in a major article on the development of CA Redwood Parks much of the above would be great to have, but how is it that there is this need to add so much about the commission to an article that is neither about the commission or the CA State Parks in general. Nodding appreciation is given Burnham in the article as those parks are important to the overall efort at a National park. It seems to bring a depth that would be more likely suitable to a Main subarticle, if at all. Norcalal 04:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
One last thought on the "Big Three." They are so described because they took that fateful journey up through the Coast from SF to make the initial assessment that led to the movement of the Save-the-Redwoods League and that is central to the issue, while a major contributor to the League and a commissioner to the new State Parks has less of a direct association with this article. Norcalal 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox needed[edit]

I'm concerned about all of the substantive changes and continuous updates being made to this WP featured article. Making substantive changes directly to an article can lead to WP demotions and this can all be avoided by giving other contributors the opportunity for prior review. In some other WP featured articles I've working on, particularly in Scouting, contributors first create a sandbox for making significant changes and then add a pointer to the sandbox in the article's discussion page. Once the substantive changes have been reviewed and agreed upon, the article is updated. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about the presence of a lot of detail in an article about a conservationist in the 1920's when this portion of the article is clearly a brief summary of major points leading up to the creation of a National park created in and after the 1960's. I have been watching and working on major errors in this article for a long time. As a person who is from the area with roots back to the arrival of the Europeans to the North Coast, I am quite able to see errors that others do not notice. After being featured the first time, there were errors beginning with the introduction that were glaring, but overlooked for months and years. Every so often I read this article after a break and find more of these issues, which I attend to. I understand that you have an interest, but it is the first I have seen in a long time. I would like to work in consensus with people in North Coast articles, but for the most part people do not stay around long enough to participate in the process. I am interested in seeing where this goes. Norcalal 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Your expertise in and contributions to this subject matter is much appreciated. Unlike you, I have never been to any of these parks so my knowledge of this topic is more limited. But since none of us contributing to this article was there in the early 1900's when these parks were first organized, we all must rely on historical records to support our contributions. Unfortunately, it is also true that even published documents can disagree on facts, and while some ommissions or contradictions can be revealed and overturned, other facts are not so clear. As a researcher I have encountered this problem on many occassions. Sometimes the best we can hope to achieve is a consensus of opinion and WP can be a useful forum for generating such a consensus. A Sandbox can be helpful for facilitating collaboration without subjecting the casual WP readers of this article to the mechanics of this collaborative process, and this is an especially important consideration when the subject under review is already a WP featured article. I have created a new Sandbox at the following location:
While the History section of this article is under review, please limit your changes to this section the Sandbox article, but continue to comment on both the main article and the sandbox article here. Once conscensus is achieved, I will update the History section of the featured article and delete the Sandbox. Thanks. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
See my response in the section below....--MONGO 07:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perspective on the compact between the park systems[edit]

To get perspective of the historic compact between the National and State Park Systems, one may want to remain able to see them as 4 distinct entities, which over time are being managed more and more in partnership. For many, many years the parks were united in that their property lines touched, but the underdevelopment of the National Park areas at first left them as large punctuation to the much more mature CA State Parks. My thesis work on this historic compact was of great interest to me as a person who lived in the area. There was barely any signage until the 1980's and that was slow. As many may realize, there is little development outside the State Parks to this day. As a result it seems to be odd how many people want to consider the history of these initially very different entities as though they were always together. I am very interested in seeing that the early history reflect the parks as separate as they were until approximately 20-30 years ago. Also, I am delighted to work with others on this article. As I said there were several errors in the article even after it was a Featured Article (the first time) that I had to address. Norcalal 05:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys...too much detail about a few conservationists is without merit..this article is about the park, not about those that founded or fought to create it. As mentioned above, expansion regarding Burnham and others is not necessary. I was asked to update this article by adding proper citiations and a few to those issues that don't have citiations and to correct a few other changes. We don't need a sandbox to do thses minor things that will help retain it as a featured article. As the primary author behind bringing this article to FA level, all I ask is that people have some patience and let me do the standardization updates as were requested from I do on my usertalk page [5]. My time is limited, so I can only work on this in short spurts. Furthermore, if we can't reference things, then we cannot add them. I will delete any monologue material I see, such as the unnecessary mention about the early conservationists that goes beyond what is needed to follow summary style.--MONGO 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. I also think we could better spend our time updating some of the issues that are in arrears. Park business related to management and budget needs updating. Surely these matters can take precedence of another editor's zealous desire to place one conservationist prominently within the article. However, if that person would want to begin writing a main subarticle, I can see no reason to not include it there. But again, this is about the RNSP and primarily the National Park side of it, which comes primarily after the 1960s. Norcalal 09:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I should have the citations revamped and other issues done in a couple of days. More can be added, but I still am of the belief that the trees and the park itself are the priorities, though the struggle to create the park against a strong logging lobby is something that probably deserves more information, maybe even for someone interested in it, a subarticle.--MONGO 15:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Tree[edit]

This dab links here, but I found no mention in the article. It is conceivable that a single has this name, perhaps even gazetted, or mentioned like this one, but I also see how it may have been removed by accident. I left the link up. cygnis insignis 10:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Tree is located just of the Drury Parkway in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, which is part of RNSP. Norcalal 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In Films: potential fact error[edit]

At present, the "In Films" states that Redwood National Park was where Star Wars Return of the Jedi was filmed. I've read that elsewhere, and likewise Jedediah Smith redwoods. Knowing how touchy the parks service is about the groves, I thought that may be inaccurate. A reliable source said the movie was not filmed in those parks. I located more information, and my notes are are at: Redwood Information Page: Scroll for Star Wars notes

A north CA coast paper called the Triplicate ran a story some time ago with correct facts. From the Triplicate, and my source (who works in the redwood forests), is where I acquired the info. It was not state or national park land where the movie was made. Its possible a commercial was filmed in the parks, but not the movie.

Hopefully we can find and agree upon a reference source that substantiates the Triplicate artical. Mdvaden (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RNSP is only a designation for 3 State of CA Parks and one National Park[edit]

"Redwood National and State Parks" is a VERY specific name for only REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK and the three state parks (Prarie Creek, Del Norte Coast, and Jedediah Smith) that are located adjacent to (actually touching) Redwood National Park. Any CATEGORY that goes beyond these 4 parks will be in error and confuse readers. No other parks are included in the historic management compact that exists in between only the three listed state parks and Redwood National Park. Disagree? See Redwood National and State Parks Visitor Guide: National or State Park? section AND [6] or Call Redwood National Park Headquarters in Crescent City, CA... Norcalal (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography error![edit]

In the Recreation section it is stated that the park is 340 mi north of San Fransisco. 340 Mi north of San Fransisco is in Oregon; the park is supposed to be in California. I measured it and the real distance is about 240 mi. The person who stated the length of 340 Mi has also not left a citation for their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agaly (talkcontribs) 05:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Remember, anybody can edit Wikipedia! P.S. I used this website. –droll [chat] 07:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this driving along the major roads or as the crow flies? If it is major highways, it is 313 miles from San Francisco to Orick where the southern RNP visitor center is located. It is 333 miles from Portland to Crescent City where the northern RNP visitor center is located. I used Google Maps for the distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error[edit]


The following coordinate fixes are needed for Hyperion (Tallest Tree)

Change 124 E to be 124 W — (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, good catch, thanks. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

burl poaching[edit]

Redwood NP Burl Cut May 2013 (2).jpg

The park has a significant problem with poachers, who vandalize and destroy trees to steal burls for decorative wood carvings. The park had to close one park road for night time access due to this issue: - is that an issue for the article? --h-stt !? 17:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw this in the news too...but I loathe news sources for articles such as this. It is worth including though. This article needs a major update now anyway.--MONGO 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You can use the release by the park as source, if you don't want to base the edit on some local news website. Or you send an e-mail to Jeff at the park and ask him for any more reliable publication, maybe from law enforcement. He's very approachable and provided me with the picture --> within a few hours. --h-stt !? 10:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Redwood National and State Parks. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)