Larry,
I've never had much luck with historical societies acknowledging the roll or value of old forests except in their use to people of the time. Preservation of natural features is not what they're all about. They're focus is pretty narrow. We owe a big debt of gratitude to David Tice and TNC. Any tree of value on an estate will be one planted by a famous person. That's the prevailing attitude. Frustrating, but true. Of the many people who visit the Montpelier estate, very few of them visit the Landmark forest. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "x" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 6:12:57 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] Re: Montpelier in images so hideous they cut so much down and had planned to cut it all down?? why????????? not a few little fly specks can be left without the meddling and ruination of man?? everything needs the hand of man and has to be cropped and managed?? why is it the all of the most spectacular stands are the ones least or never touched? the timber men there just have to have one more great stand to cut they can't stand to let some last little bits escape??? can't even let stuff stand in parks??? why is the old forest any less historic than the buildings are?? how does creating a clearcut make the property more historic?? why is it that the 'over-mature', 'decaying', 'decadent', 'over-ripe', 'clearly in the early stages of major decline' parcels called such in the late 1800's and very early 1900's in the adirondacks somehow magically still have the best timber and most impressive forest over a hundred years later now and the spots they did cut look weak and decayed and feeble???? why did the first settlers leave accounts of the meeting up with the most astonishing forests if a forest can only be healthy and strong when forestry practice are put into place??? anyway thank David Tice you helped save the 200 acre patch, great work it's just stunning to think anyone needed to make an effort to save it -------------------------------------------------- From: "ranger dan" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:04 PM To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected]> Subject: [ENTS] Re: Montpelier in images > ENTS, > > Glad to see some exposure about the Montpeilier forest. In the early > 1980's, Dave Tice was a consultant for the timber management to be > done on the farm. I spoke with him before his death about the forest, > which he said showed no evidence of timber harvest since the time of > James Madison. The Trust for Historic Preservation at the time wanted > to cut down the 200-acre area now set aside as the Landmark Forest, > but thanks to his recognition of this area as special, and with help > from the Nature Conservancy, it is now saved. Unfortunately, there > was much more forest like this that was destroyed following my first > visit. > > There are remnant trees worthy of note outside the 200-acre preserve, > for those of you wanting to explore: From the trailhead into the > forest, to the right, across the field and across a gravel road, at > the foot of Chicken Mountain, is a row of huge tuliptrees along what > used to be the edge of the woods. Far to the left of the trailhead, > across a field and fences, there is a row of fine tuliptrees at the > edge of the woods. This is a buffer that was left after logging in > the 1980's destroyed a forest "as significant as the Landmark Forest", > according to an employee of the estate. I never saw it, but there is > some mature forest remaining behind this row of ancient trees. > Probably the finest stand of trees on the estate is not far to the > left of the trailhead, off-trail and near the edge of the forest. > Near here is a giant forest-grown white oak, probably the largest I > have ever seen. When I first saw it, it was marked with blue paint > (to cut). I expressed my alarm to Tice, who may have been responsible > for having this area spared. It was still standing at my last visit a > few years ago, close to 5'dbh. > > For big trees, Montpelier is probably the finest remaining example of > old-growth forest in the entire Piedmont region, and beyond. > > Dan Miles > > On Jan 1, 9:12 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> ENTS, >> >> I just finished downloading images from Montpelier. I didn't take many >> photos, but did manage to capture a little of the place. Descriptions of >> 6 images follow. I'll later send another email with a few more images. >> >> DESCRIPTIONS >> >> Montpelier.jpg: This is the front of the James Madison home. Montpelier >> is where our Constitution was drafted. The Madison property covers 2,650 >> acres. The Landmark forest covers about 200. >> >> MontpelierLawn.jpg: This image looks west toward the Blue Ridge from the >> front of Montpelier. The field you see in the foreground was once a >> tobacco field. The Skyline Drive runs along the crest of the Blue Ridge >> on the horizon. >> >> MonicaAndTulip.jpg: This is an image of one of many large tuliptrees you >> see in the Landmark Forest, as it is called. It was freaking cold >> throughout the period and I didn't document the trees nearly as well as I >> otherwise would have. Oh well, I guess Monica and I will have to return. >> >> Tulipartistry.jpg: This image looks into the crowns of 150+ foot >> tuliptrees. There are many tuliptrees with girths between 12 and 15 feet. >> The largest I measured was an open-grown specimen that measured 17.4 feet >> around. It was about 120 feet tall. >> >> IntoTheCrowns.jpg: This is perhaps a better shot into the crowns of these >> very tall, picturesque trees. At Montpelier, the lordly Tuliptree reins >> unchallenged. ENTS needs to document the groves much better. I hope to >> start the process more formally when I contact the chief horticulturist. >> >> JamesMadisonTree-1.jpg: The James Madison tree is the one in the center. >> After a fierce struggle, we subdued this great tree and confirmed its >> height at 166.1 feet. It is a most respectable 13.8-foot around. I am not >> sure I found the top of the tree. I am reasonably sure that the 166.1 >> spot is within +/- 0.5 feet. Three measurements produced 166.1, 166.1, >> and 166.5. There are three 160-footers fairly close together, of which >> the Madison tree is the tallest. The other two are each around 161 feet >> tall. One is 14.8 feet around and the other 14.0 feet. Over the entire >> property, I suspect that there are seven or possibly even eight >> 160-footers and probably twenty to twenty-four 150-footers. >> >> Bob >> >> Montpelier.jpg >> 396KViewDownload >> >> MontpelierLawn.jpg >> 268KViewDownload >> >> MonicaAndTulip.jpg >> 619KViewDownload >> >> Tuliprtistry.jpg >> 714KViewDownload >> >> IntoTheCrowns.jpg >> 702KViewDownload >> >> JamesMadisonTree-1.jpg >> 854KViewDownload > > -- > 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] >
