Scott, Good call. I had a feeling that it wasn't so old. They should have included more photos of the tree.
Mike On Aug 20, 10:40 am, pabigtrees <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike > > That tree is barely 150 years old. First, they are measuring too > high. With such low branching it should be measured at the narrowest > point below 4.5 feet (don't know how many centimeters that is, sorry) > It is obviously multiple trunks at a low height, so it is unlikely > that the tree is old at all. It is only 16.9 feet in cbh. I know a > 167cm dia. sounds bigger, but that is all it is. > My other question is why the hell are they wearing safety vests?!? > I knew liability would come to this sooner or later. Now we have to > wear safety vests just to walk around. What's next flashing light > hardhats for everyone? Poking fun here. > > Scott --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
