|
|
Post by philliesfan on Nov 21, 2013 8:51:53 GMT -5
I have mixed emotions about the idea of returning the battlefield to it's former appearance as it was during the war. Periodically there have been photographs depicted in the G'burg Times that show a comparision of how it looked back then and how it looks today. The most recent comparison was in; I believe Monday's paper showing two areas of the battlefield from back then and now, and maybe I'm off base with this, but it appears as if there are way more trees back then as opposed to what is shown today? The Park Service would have you to believe that there weren't that many trees in the 1860's (on the battlefield) and that is the reason for removing them over the past few years? Just my opionion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Nov 21, 2013 9:33:04 GMT -5
I have mixed emotions about the idea of returning the battlefield to it's former appearance as it was during the war. Periodically there have been photographs depicted in the G'burg Times that show a comparision of how it looked back then and how it looks today. The most recent comparison was in; I believe Monday's paper showing two areas of the battlefield from back then and now, and maybe I'm off base with this, but it appears as if there are way more trees back then as opposed to what is shown today? The Park Service would have you to believe that there weren't that many trees in the 1860's (on the battlefield) and that is the reason for removing them over the past few years? Just my opionion. Yes, but they're ADDING Trees to areas that had them formerly  I think they should forgo the maintenance, and just have Disney Imagineering build them some realistic trees that will always remain the correct age! And can you imagine having bodies strewn about the Battlefield with animatronics? Rolling and writhing on the fields, screaming for help!? THAT would bring in the tourists. |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Nov 21, 2013 10:01:21 GMT -5
I have mixed emotions about the idea of returning the battlefield to it's former appearance as it was during the war. Periodically there have been photographs depicted in the G'burg Times that show a comparision of how it looked back then and how it looks today. The most recent comparison was in; I believe Monday's paper showing two areas of the battlefield from back then and now, and maybe I'm off base with this, but it appears as if there are way more trees back then as opposed to what is shown today? The Park Service would have you to believe that there weren't that many trees in the 1860's (on the battlefield) and that is the reason for removing them over the past few years? Just my opionion. Yes, but they're ADDING Trees to areas that had them formerly I think they should forgo the maintenance, and just have Disney Imagineering build them some realistic trees that will always remain the correct age! And can you imagine having bodies strewn about the Battlefield with animatronics? Rolling and writhing on the fields, screaming for help!? THAT would bring in the tourists. How about some moulage for the reenactors......nothing says 1863 like a blown up abdomen from a mortar round! |
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Nov 21, 2013 12:01:39 GMT -5
When are they going to start removing the monuments?
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Nov 21, 2013 14:23:32 GMT -5
When are they going to start removing the monuments? People have been trying to remove them for years  God even got involved in a few of them, but no one listened. Lightning Strikes, Wind-Toppling... |
|
|
|
Post by redlock on Nov 21, 2013 20:21:11 GMT -5
Yes, but they're ADDING Trees to areas that had them formerly I think they should forgo the maintenance, and just have Disney Imagineering build them some realistic trees that will always remain the correct age! And can you imagine having bodies strewn about the Battlefield with animatronics? Rolling and writhing on the fields, screaming for help!? THAT would bring in the tourists. How about some moulage for the reenactors......nothing says 1863 like a blown up abdomen from a mortar round! I hope they will be able to mist in the aroma of the black powder and gore like they do at their 4D attractions! |
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Nov 22, 2013 14:50:45 GMT -5
In 1868 the Army Corp of Engineers returned to Gettysburg and conducted surveys and interviews about the area. Their data was retrieved five years after the battle, but it's as close to the time of the battle as we have. From that information, the COE created maps that show properties, crops, fencelines, woodlots, etc., and those maps are the basis for the rehabilitation work that the park has performed. There actually were fewer trees, since wood was the only source for fuel, heat, cooking, and for the construction of many the buildings in the area. Farmers grew and managed wood as carefully as they managed other crops, and kept the woodlots free from undergrowth, the trees spaced apart, and not nearly as tall as they appear today. I am in favor of reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the landscape. This effort also includes restoring woodlots and orchards where they were at the time of the battle. Aong West Confederate Avenue near that nice house on the ridge, there was a large orchard and the park recently planted that orchard. This month, they planted additional orchard trees near the Bliss farm site, which is behind Long Lane and about halfway between the opposing armies on Seminary and Cemetery Ridges.
The monuments, placed by the soldiers who fought here, represent what the park call the commenoration phase, assist in the interpretation of the field. Some purists think we should remove the monuments, dig up the graves in the cemetery, and level Colt Park and the second block of Steinwehr, but there have to be limits and balances between the field and the people who live here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Nov 23, 2013 11:00:38 GMT -5
Anonymous, Hopefully you realize the sarcasm in many of our posts above. I appreciate your sharing those comments with us, because we don't always think about things like "The COE Survey" being done so long after the Battle. We all know that many things can change a Battlefield in just 5 years. That makes those early photographs so important in the Historical Archeology of the area. I think even the "Purists" would miss the Monuments on the Battlefield. If a Cemetery is missing its headstones, it makes it all the easier to forget what is there - and allow for its desecration and destruction. That's why I appreciate hearing others' perspectives about issues like the GNMP. The more educated we become, the more we can understand the importance of preserving this place. On BoroVENT, we sometimes have a very Irreverent means of showing our Reverence for this History. Through all of the Sarcasm, Bitching, Moaning, and Humor(?), I think you'll see that we are all for Protecting our Heritage by Reasonable Measures. I'd be the FIRST to push a fellow member in front of a front end loader, in an effort to preserve a witness tree! |
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Nov 23, 2013 17:03:38 GMT -5
In 1868 the Army Corp of Engineers returned to Gettysburg and conducted surveys and interviews about the area. Their data was retrieved five years after the battle, but it's as close to the time of the battle as we have. From that information, the COE created maps that show properties, crops, fencelines, woodlots, etc., and those maps are the basis for the rehabilitation work that the park has performed. There actually were fewer trees, since wood was the only source for fuel, heat, cooking, and for the construction of many the buildings in the area. Farmers grew and managed wood as carefully as they managed other crops, and kept the woodlots free from undergrowth, the trees spaced apart, and not nearly as tall as they appear today. I am in favor of reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the landscape. This effort also includes restoring woodlots and orchards where they were at the time of the battle. Aong West Confederate Avenue near that nice house on the ridge, there was a large orchard and the park recently planted that orchard. This month, they planted additional orchard trees near the Bliss farm site, which is behind Long Lane and about halfway between the opposing armies on Seminary and Cemetery Ridges. The monuments, placed by the soldiers who fought here, represent what the park call the commenoration phase, assist in the interpretation of the field. Some purists think we should remove the monuments, dig up the graves in the cemetery, and level Colt Park and the second block of Steinwehr, but there have to be limits and balances between the field and the people who live here. I find it interesting that you mentioned the management of the woodlots. In 1863, a fallen tree would have soon been cut up and found its way into the family stove for cooking or heat, and the farmer would have let his livestock graze in the woodlot to keep the undergrowth back. I am sure that there are a few farmers who would bring some cattle in to graze in the woodlots to keep the brush down, and using some electric fence most tourist would not notice. But as much as the undergrowth has gotten out of hand, I don’t know if the cattle would even go into the woods, or would do a lot to take care of the conditions. Why not sell permits to people to cut up the downed trees and haul them away. Sell me a permit for $100 that will allow me to go into the woods and cut up downed trees, or perhaps even cut down marked trees from December 1st to March 31st. If I am caught cutting down good trees the fine would be $10,000. I would imagine they would get many takers and it would get the trees thinned out, and the dead wood removed. I think the woodlots could be cleaned up at little if any expense to the government, and maybe even make a few dollars while they are at it. |
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Nov 25, 2013 8:14:44 GMT -5
I'm no purist, I just like to jab the whole battlefield management goofiness. It could've stopped after burying power lines, and that would've been fine. Cutting trees in an attempt to "make it look the same" is a complete waste, it's 150 years later. It shouldn't have a "blue and grey" casino erected right in the middle, but if natural change would like to occur, so be it.
If there weren't monuments on the battlefield, nobody would know what to do (most people just stop and read the monuments, right?). Maybe they'd stop in the middle of the road a little less, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Nov 26, 2013 0:01:29 GMT -5
The park actually came up with a justification for leaving the fallen tree material, and for cutting trees but not removing the fallen timber: it's called a "health cut". The theory is that the fallen material will be used by insects, small animals, etc., and then deteriorate into the soil. Their probable objection to allowing people to come in and retrieve the fallen timber is that it would be too dificult to regulate; if word gets out that people can remove falen timber from the park, it could turn into a free-for-all. It's also remotely possible that someone could "help" some trees fall. I would prefer that the material be removed, but the removal process would have to be somewhat regulated, such as in a certain area in a certain timeframe, and probably supervised by park Law Enforcement.
|
|
