Talk:Stanley Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vancouver Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. This article is primarily related to the city of Vancouver

	This article is part of WikiProject British Columbia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to British Columbia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents 1 Third-largest urban park 2 Trees 'hundreds of years old'? 3 Buffalo - What type? 4 Came looking for Pauline Johnson monument location, but... 5 Deadman's Island

[edit] Third-largest urban park

Just curious, does anyone know what the first and second-largest are? Central Park in NYC is 200 acres smaller according to its wiki article, and the urban park in Tacoma (the only other one under the urban park entry doesn't have a size listed. - Dharmabum420 09:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I researched this a bit and there seems to be conflicting measurements or definitions of "urban park". I've put my findings in the Urban park article and Talk:Urban park. --Ds13 17:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Forest Park (Portland) is listed as 5,000 acres.--Anchoress 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find a reference to that one. But I added that it's the 3rd largest city-owned in North America (which I'm guessing by the qualifier that Forest Park is not city-owned), and the third largest urban park in Canada after Markham and Regina.Bobanny 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trees 'hundreds of years old'?

My understanding of Stanley Park (vaguely supported by the statement in the article that the area was 'logged several times' is that it's all second growth +, which doesn't jibe with the info in the first paragraph that there are trees in the park that are 'hundreds of years old'.--Anchoress 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be "over a hundred years old" --Usgnus 03:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

citation, citation, citation. This question came up again, so I looked it up in the Greater Vancouver Book. According to Terri Clark, who works for the Park Board and wrote the article, the National Geographic Tree is approximately 1000 years old. According to Clark, "the magazine proclaimed it one of the world's largest (almost five metres in diameter) and most ancient trees, as cedars go, at approximately 1,000 years old."

I happen to have the article from where the tree gets its name: Mike Edwards, "Dream On, Vancouver," National Geographic 154, no. 4 (October 1978): 467-491. What the article actually says is this (page 468):

At the end of downtown's thumb, other towers -- western red cedars and Douglas firs -- rise from thousand-acre Stanley Park, largest in the city."

The caption for the photograph of the tree (which is on page 479, not on the cover as some books will tell you - a gorilla taking a photograph is on the cover of this issue) says:

"Verdant mast sailing skyward, a giant western red cedar 21 feet across its base (right) towers over lesser trees in Stanley Park."

So...a cynical reading is that Clark twists the statement that 'the trees in the thousand-acre park, the biggest in the city' into 'the thousand year-old tree is among the biggest and oldest in the world' (the article isn't clear whether it means that the trees or the park are the biggest in the city).

A more generous interpretation is that Clark relied on other sources for the actual size and age of the tree (which shouldn't be hard to come by working for the Park Board) and simply made a mistake in saying that the National Geographic proclaimed it so. Would've been nice if Clark cited those sources though, huh? Anyway, I'll add the GVB citation to the article because the 1000 year claim is plausible despite my nitpicking (the entire park was not logged in the 19th century). I'll see if I can find a more definitive source some other time.Bobanny 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I just called the Vancouver Parks Board and they're looking up a study done by MacBlo and will get back to me; they said all the loggable trees were denuded during the several (according to her) loggings Stanley Park experienced in the 19th century. I won't change anything until I get a citation, but she says pretty much no way, as far as the age of Stanley Park trees. And if it's not referring to actual trees in SP, AND I get a citation stating how old the trees are, I think the reference should go because it is misleading. The information about how old the trees can get can go into the articles about the trees themselves. IF it's true that there are no trees anywhere near that old NOW in the park, it doesn't matter how old the trees can get. Anchoress 23:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, I found said tree and took a picture, which can be found here. I'm still skeptical that there are any thousand year old trees left, judging by the size of them walking through the forest. Lots of stumps that are probably that old or older, but of the ones that are still alive, I'm skeptical. This one, although it's still standing, looks, well, dead to me. It reminds me of a telephone pole, and it's obviously been topped. Bobanny 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I got a call back from the parks board, and they didn't give me a citation (it was a phone message), but the woman (whose name and phone no I can give privately if anyone wants) said the arborists assert that it's extremely unlikely that any of the trees in Stanley Park are anywhere near 1000 years old. According to her, they said there may be a few old growth trees in the forest, but they are likely no older than 400 years, and they (the arborists) doubt any trees could get that old. But be that as it may, they almost certainly aren't. She communicated that the arborists thought it would be irresponsible to give the impression that there are millenium trees in the forest, they are nowhere near that old. I have had a horrible migraine for days so I haven't called her back, but I will ask if there's anything published that we can cite, but that's the 'hearsay' evidence. Anchoress 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked and your "hundreds of years old" conclusion seems to be the consensus. I changed that and added a citation from a recent book, so looks like we've come full circle on this question. Also changed the size, as the same book has trees much taller than what it said here (from the Vancouver Natural History Society). Bobanny 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo - What type?

What type of buffalo does the park have? I'm working on Disambiguation and want to get the right link up, or I might just put a general link for bison up... ~~ user:missvain 12:57, 5 June 2006

You mean "did the park have" The zoo closed in 1997. I don't know the answer, but I would just change it to bison from buffalo. -- Usgnus 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They were never part of the zoo; rather up in the miniature train enclosure, like the wolves, I think. I know the petting zoo is closed; haven't taken the train in years but I imagine if victims-in-captivity are now banned in the park the buffalo/bison are gone too. From what I remember they were Wood Buffalo - a common name in Canada for the Woodland Bison (once common in the Cariboo and Chilcotin, by the way, but long hunted out and otherwise squeezed out by cattle ranch range needs, as with the mustangs of the Chilcotin).Skookum1 07:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry there (man, and I lived in Vancouver for quite some time too! Doh!). Thanks for the tip. Missvain 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC) user:missvain 1:48, 5 June 2006

My understanding is that buffalo is not found in North America; rather only bison. I doubt it was buffalo in the zoo. --Kmsiever 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They aren't found in nature in North America, but neither are monkeys, penguins, or kangaroos which were also at the zoo. It was probably a bison, but I think we'd have a hard time knowing for sure. Why not just leave it at the disambig page? -- TheMightyQuill 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you're right, but don't tell all the people living a lie in Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump... --Ds13 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Came looking for Pauline Johnson monument location, but...

Checking to see where it was; I thought it was over by Brockton Point, in behind the Totem Poles, but according to the Pauline Johnson article it's near Siwash Rock (which would be fitting; see my comments on Talk:Siwash Rock). So I went by the Parks Board website, but lo and behold not much in the way of a map or list of monuments and such; only the main "attractions". So the Nisei memorial, the Pauline Johnson monument, the Harding memorial, the Princess Sophie memorial (I think that's it; a certain shipping disaster), the Empress of Japan figurehead, Lumberman's Arch and more are not listed on either Wiki or the VPB site. Weird. Not even Beaver Lake is listed (OK, not quite a lake anymore but it used to have rowboats on it, doncha know?). The history of the ring road - the first paved road in British Columbia by the way, and paved for bicycle use, not cars, using the crushed material of the ancient shell midden of Qwhy-qwhy (Lumberman's Arch area), in the early 1890s - that's worth mentioning; I'll get the cites (in Alan Morley's book I think; if not then in Major Matthews)- and the building of Hawaiian/Mexican style palapa canopies as rain shelters around it, especially at Prospect Point; not to mention Lumberman's Arch....geez, this listing has made me realize how incomplete the article is....hmmmmm.....Skookum1 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I responded about the Pauline Johnson memorial at the Siwash Rock page, but apparently she's by the restaurant at Ferguson Point, (formerly the Teahouse, but now called something else). She requested to be buried within sight of Siwash, so even though she's a fair distance, it's still within view. (She also requested that no memorial be erected in her honour!) I haven't seen the monument, but have read that it's pretty obscured in an area taken over by raccoons. As for your other comments, I begun working on this, partly as a result of finding the same thing you did - the Park Board has diddly listing what's all in the park. I've begun a list, and hope to get it fairly complete at some point, ideally with a sentence explaining said attraction. I'm trying to expand this one to, with the view that Stanley Park could be a good featured candidate eventually, but in a narrative structue that couldn't possibly be comprehensive on all the crap that's in the park, ..er.., I mean, important historical artifacts.Bobanny 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deadman's Island

I moved this to its own page, partly because it's not technically part of the park, but also because there's other stuff to be added when I get a chance. For now, it's only a stub, but need not take up room here.Bobanny 19:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)