"Momentous day!" David wrote on November 7. "I broke the 5000 mile barrier and entered California! I am SO excited to be this far in the trip. Even though the last few days have been pretty short I am happy with my progress.

"The landscape out here is gorgeous and the hills prevent a cyclist from just flying through. It is giving me more time to take in the scenery. I can't wait until tomorrow's ride through the redwoods!"

He has joined forces with a couple other riders which makes the trip social.

David is a social kind of guy. Certainly he is happier traveling in a group!

According to the Standish-Hickey SRA website, "At the gateway to the tall trees country, the area offers camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and swimming on the South Fork of the Eel River which winds through the park for almost two miles. One of the few virgin redwood stands remaining in this area can be seen on the Grove Trail."

The tall trees referred to are commonly called California Redwood, though they do bear a more sophisticated name wikipedia defines in this way:

Sequoia sempervirens (pronounced /sɨˈkwɔɪ.ə ˌsɛmpərˈvaɪrənz/, latin pronuntiation /sɛkwɔɪ.ə ˌsɛmpərˈvɪrənz/)^[1]is the sole living species of the genus Sequoia in the cypress family Cupressaceae (formerly treated in Taxodiaceae). Common names include Coast Redwood and California Redwood (it is one of three species of trees known as redwoods, but "redwood" per se normally refers to this species). It is an evergreen, long-lived, monoecious tree living for up to 2,200 years, and this species includes the tallest trees on Earth, reaching up to 115.5 m (379.1 ft) in height and 8 m (26 ft) diameter at breast height. It is native to coastal California and the southwestern corner of Oregon within the United States.

Facts from Sequoia Redwood:

A typical Redwood tree forest contains more biomass per square foot than any other area on earth including the rain forests of the Amazon!

One tree produces nearly 260 pounds of oxygen each year.

Trees improve water quality by slowing and filtering rain water, as well as protecting aquifers and watersheds.

With a huge deficit looming in California, Governor Schwarzenegger cut the budget for state parks which means over 100 parks face closure due to lack of funding. (I guess David is lucky he is traveling the state now?!)

Save the Redwoods reacted immediately, "The state park system is home to 61 redwoods parks, which create irreplaceable opportunities for people of all ages to visit forests that are found nowhere else on the planet. With only 5 percent of the world`s ancient redwoods left standing, we must ensure that today`s visitors and future generations can experience these majestic forests."

I don't get this.  savetheredwoods.org states the following objective:

Since 1918, Save the Redwoods League has saved ancient redwood forests and redwood ecosystems to ensure that current and future generations can feel the awe and peace that these precious natural wonders inspire. We also save redwoods because they are rare — their natural range is only in central and northern California and southern Oregon — and because they are Earth’s tallest and some of the oldest and most massive living things.

I'm sorry but I don't get exactly what the problem is with closing the parks for a time. What am I missing? Wouldn't closing the parks give the trees a chance to breathe without constantly being admired by tourists? :)  Perhaps these wise old ones would enjoy a reprieve. It's not as if the budget will be cut forever, right? And the Governor hasn't opened the forests to logging, taxing the proceeds to revitalize the budget, has he? Do these trees need visitors or do the visitors need the trees, that is the question.

In the past I might have said, whatever an environmentalist wants must be a worthy cause.  I can understand the whole save the trees movement. Tree huggers put their lives on the line in order to save ancient redwood trees.  Read this article at Culture Change. I admire such dedication; diehards surviving in ancient trees is no fantasy vacation.

But the environmental movement is made up of people; it is no fairy tale of compassionate selflessness.  Consider this feud in Santa Clara County, California as reported in the New York Times back in 2008, which brought out the worst in neighborly love.

I imagine it began so innocently...

On both sides of the Sunnyvale backyard fence, there is evidence of environmental virtue — one Prius (Ms. Bissett and Mr. Treanor), one electric car (the Vargases), one water-free xeriscaped front yard with recycled-plastic borders (Ms. Bissett and Mr. Treanor), 128 solar panels providing almost all the power for one home (the Vargases), and eight carbon-dioxide-sipping, bird-friendly redwood trees in various stages of growth (Ms. Bissett and Mr. Treanor).

However the Vargases added their solar panels-- it appears-- because their neighbor's redwood trees blocked all sun from their once cheerful, bright backyard. What was an environmentally friendly move was an act of vengeance intended to activate a protectionist solar panel law that fined the neighbors with the redwood trees, forcing them to cut back the growth of their lovely trees.

So here is the debate: who was the worse neighbor? The couple who planted the redwood trees without considering their neighbor's sunlite back yard? Or the couple who added solar panels, forcing the redwood tree owners to reduce their redwood tree imprint?

What the heck?