Joe & Bob, I take being called a " treehugger " as a hell of a compliment!
JP On Oct 24, 6:51 am, "Joseph Zorzin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, Bob, I think there should be a Noble Prize for "Tree Hugger of the > Year". You'd probably get it more than once. You realize of course that such > a title puts you at odds with the forestry/logging world- because they > dislike tree huggers more than any other kind of person. After all, for them > - trees are just a raw material for their more glorious "wood products". > > Joe > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:27 AM > Subject: [ENTS] Rejuvenated White Pine Lists > > Will, Dale, Ed, et. al: > > I've begun sifting through my sizable white pine data database to > organize a new listing of white pine sites in the Northeast that have trees > meeting any of the following criteria: > > 1. Trees 12 feet or more in girth, > > 2. Trees 130 feet or more in height, > > 3. Trees that earn 1500 or more ENTS points [(Cir^2*Hgt)/10]. > > The list will include up to 3 trees per site: the tallest, the largest > girth, and the highest point total. Where a particular tree fits more than > one of those categories, the trees listed for the site will be fewer than 3. > If a single tree at a site is the tallest and largest in girth, it will > consequently earn the most points. The site would have only the single tree > listed. > > I'll post the new white pine list to the ENTS list when completed. I > hope you all and others will join me in maintaining the list. I think the > criteria is exclusive enough to exclude sites that don't have significant > trees. The challenge is to decide on what represents a separate site. Maybe > we can think through a site definition criteria. As an example of what I find > myself up against, fairly large properties like Mt Tom State Reservation, > MTSF, MSF, etc. have clusters (sites?) of white pine that are sufficiently > separated from one another to warrant separate treatment especially if > thinking at the stand level. MTSF has at least 4 distinct pine areas and one > could argue for more. However, it is convenient to think of MTSF as a single > site. I constantly waffle on places like Mohawk. I'm sure Dale has the same > concerns with Cook Forest State Park. How should we define a site? > > Bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
