You know, I think the reporter, if he were truthful, mixed up log data of a tree with log data of a haul of logs on a sled. Fourteen logs that sized would make a significant horse drawn sled haul. And, the logs of two or more trees would be mixed and indistinguishable from eachother. It was pretty common for star hauls of 20000 feet or more to be reported around here, but few reports of data on individual trees.
PJ ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary A Beluzo To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 Bob, Okay, tree pride and ENTS spirit suggest that we need T-Shirts, banners, pins, and rings. Anyone want to initiate an ad hoc committee? Gary On Nov 15, 2009, at 3:54 PM, [email protected] wrote: Gary, Ed, Paul, Tim, Jack, et al, It is tempting to Ents to read about giant trees growing in the past, the likes of which we don't see today. There is a romantic element in thinking nostalgically about the reported big trees of yesteryear. Our problem is that the sources of information about those trees, which we must rely on, are not only uncorroborated, but inconsistent with anything remotely close to what we see today. Past accounts are often newspaper stories or their equivalent. How can we put in credence in those loose accounts when we can't even trust documents like the National Register of Big Trees. Over the years that highly respected, and often quoted, document has had egregious errors in it. American Forests has been informed about many of the errors and allowed them to remain for fear of alienating contributors to the register. At one time or another, virtually all of the ENTS super measurers have been witness to extremely mis-measured trees reported by surface-wise credible sources. I am reminded of a white pine in Shelburne, MA that was reported to Jack Sobon and myself some years ago. We were told it was 175 feet tall as reported by a service forester of DCR. You'd think an experienced field forester could take one quick look at a white pine and distinguish it from a merely tall pine. You'd think. Well, it didn't happen. Measurement errors and misjudgments of height are constantly being promulgated from otherwise reputable sources. This is why ENTS does not except tree height measurements coming from non-ENTS sources. So, if we're wary of even the National Register, why would we give a past newspaper account of a highly unlikely measurement much credibility? Because it is the fun to think of the possibility. I fall prey to the temptation too. But we must be on guard if we're to be the arbiter of credible big tree reports. To reinforce this point, Andrew Joslin has come face to face with one of those mis-measured trees from an otherwise credible source. A big silver maple grows on the grounds of Harvard's Arnold Arboretum. It is stated to be 134 feet tall, if I remember correctly. The claims is at least 130 feet. I think Andrew measured it to 108. However, even though he exercised the highest level of diplomacy in informing them of the closer measurement, Andrew failed to get Arnold Arboretum to take a second look at their tree. Personal prides are obviously involved. However, people in the future may read of the 130+ foot silver maple that grew on the grounds of the prestigious Arnold Arboretum. I suspect that they would find it illogical to challenge the report. After all, if the Arboretum staff can't measure trees accurately, who can? Do we have news for them? This all brings me to a final point. As ENTS tree measuring methods gain wider acceptance, it is incumbent on us to strengthen our resolve never to back off our resolve to seek ever more accurate measurements. It is what we do and it is what we should be proud of. But have said this, it is still loads of fun to speculate about great trees of the past and try to determine yesteryears maximums. Now have you heard about that 200-foot dogwood that once grew .................. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 2:34:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 Gary, Even if the tree were leaning severely, say at 60 degrees, the height would still be 260 feet with a length of 300. I doubt that a tree that tall could lean that much and still be stable - the top would be 150 feet from the center of the base. Ed Check out my new Blog: http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/ (and click on some of the ads) ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary A Beluzo To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 Ed, That is the sentence that cued me. Again, even if the LENGTH of one route to the branch tops is 300 feet, that would be far less than the HEIGHT. Gary On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Edward Frank <[email protected]> wrote: Paul, The problem isn't with the number of logs taken out of the tree, The article says: A Large Tree. --- Mr. D. E. Hawks, of Charlemont, cut a Pine tree a short time since, of the following dimensions. It was 7 feet through 10 feet from the stump, and 5 feet through 50 feet from the stump. Twenty-two logs were taken from the tree, the average length of which were 12 feet. Fourteen feet of the tree were spoiled in falling. The extreme length of the tree from the stump to the top twigs was 300 feet! ---- Greenfield Gazette. Ed -- 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] -- 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] -- 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] -- 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] -- 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] -- 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]
