# Milling long dead wood - can you identify?



## DaltonPaull

Last week I spent several days building a trail and milling wood at my family's property in North Idaho. The tree that started the project was an ancient Ceder that went over roots and all a few years ago that was 36"+ dia with the first branch at 25' - too good to let it rot on the ground. The wood from this tree is great - clear and tight grained but I decided to take a break from milling and continue the trail to the creek. While clearing a path, I cut through a log that looked like it had been dead for ages - no bark and a layer of moss. To my surprise there was minimal rot and it looked great so I decided to try milling it. The result was beautiful CVG slabs but of what type I cant decide for sure. I've attached pictures of the log I milled and a near by standing dead tree that still has some 6" think bark and looks like the same species (this one looks to have started out standing dead as well.) I think it is most likely Douglas fir but possibly Western Larch (aka tamarack.) There are several old stumps (and some butt sections I might try to mill) as well as several standing dead trees in the area that look the same but no living fir trees in the area and only one small tamarack that I can find. Most of the living trees in the area are Hemlock and Ceder but there are some spruce nearby too. Does anyone have an idea of how to tell for sure if this is Fir or Tamarack?


----------



## woodsrunner

*I don't know*

what species you have there. But, I have had similar experiences on my timber land. A lot of the deadfalls/rootwads are actually in really good condition especially if they have landed in a position that holds the main trunk off the ground. In January of 08, after looking at this kind of stuff for years, I decided to try a salvage operation of this sort of timber. I have a buddy who is a pro logger and I hired him to bring his skidder and truck and in a day and a half we salvaged over $3000.00 worth of logs just like what you are talking about. We had intended to take them to the local sawmill and have them sawed for lumber to use around the farm, but after we got them yarded, we decided to sell them. Everything we pulled out sold for going price according to species and no discount for not being standing live logs! There is a lot more value in timber than most land owners realize! Especially if you are willing to think outside the box. Keep looking, I'm sure you will find more good useable timber on the ground.

Scott


----------



## dallasm1

Looking at the bark I would say that was doug fir, but I would expect more of a color differnce towards the center, the heart should be more red. However this is dead, so maybe that would not be true. Perhaps when dead for a long period the color changes? How about all of the west coasters out there chimining in on this one? Nice looking wood! I would take that in a heartbeat!


----------



## deeker

My guess is Ponderosa pine. Smell the bark when first pulled off, smells kind of like an orange.

Kevin


----------



## DRB

The wood you cut looks like western hemlock to me. It's usually slow growing like the nice tight VG you have there and not as orange as doug fir.

I would say the standing tree is likely doug fir looking at the bark. What diameter is it?


----------



## smithie55

I agree with DRB, the milled wood looks like Hemlock.
The bark on the standing dead tree definitely looks like Doug fir.


----------



## DaltonPaull

The standing tree is about 2' diam. The cool thing about the standing tree and the one I'm milling is that they are almost exactly the same diam for close to 100 feet with no branches. In fact when I stand way back I can see the top of the dead tree and even though it has lost all it's branches it is still possibly the talllest tree in the area (175 ish.) I think the tree I milled is the same species because they are all in a grove, some standing dead, some fallen after being standing dead. Seams like they just rot right at the ground level and finally fall over.

I agree that the wood looks like hemlock with the tight grain and consistent light color but there are at least a few reasons that I don't think it's hem.

-- All of our hems are shorter and wider
-- the bark on even a 3' diamater hem is under 2" thick
-- hems seam to have low rot resistance (I tried to mill one that was only down a few years and it was already too late.)

I'd like to find a good hem to mill and we have some huge one's but they seam to be prone to heart rot.

I don't know about pine, all of the large one's in the area are white pine and have thin bark but there are some small ponderosa. Could a ponderosa be that rot resistant and have such thick bark? The whites are dying a lot from blister rust and once dead the wood really breaks down fast. I'll give it a smell again when I get a chance.


----------



## mtngun

Ponderosa rots quickly, especially if it is laying on the ground. It typically doesn't grow in that type of shady forest, either. It likes partial sun.

The boards don't look like either Ponderosa or Douglas to my eyes.


----------



## DaltonPaull

How about larch then?


----------



## Backwoods

*Doug-fir *
Not all Doug-fir has the bright red center. Take a good whiff that will confirm it for you.
If you look at the boards that you have laid out you can see a red tint to the wood and the close up shows the red tint in the grain as well. Pine will not have that. The bark is defiantly Doug-fir. There is nothing there to tell me that it is not Doug-fir.


----------



## Brmorgan

Personally I'm going with either Douglas Fir or Western Hemlock, but leaning towards the Hemlock. Here's why:

1. There also appears to be a smaller Hemlock (or maybe a Silver Fir) in the very far upper-right of that photo, and what looks like a very young one right behind the end of the log in the upper-left. Hard to tell without a higher resolution image though.

2. No distinct color difference between sapwood and heartwood. On the other hand, I've often found an old Douglas Fir log that has been down for years and only the sapwood was completely rotted, while the heartwood was just fine. It looks like the outer edge is mostly intact on this log though, so I don't think that's the case. For what it's worth, Larch often has a white sapwood-reddish heartwood coloring much like Douglas Fir too.

3. The color appears more of the pale grayish-purple typical of Hemlock - especially in the "cathedral" grain sections thru the center of the piece. This of course could just be a slight color alteration by the camera. Hemlock also often has dark purple mineral streaks too, though it isn't uncommon to not find any in a piece as big as the one in the photo..

4. Many of the knots are not intergrown, and have a black ring around them as is often the case with Hemlock. But then the largest knot in the piece has more of a reddish-yellow tinge typical of Douglas Fir. 

I'd probably have to see some more pictures of knots or some bark from farther up the tree or something to say for sure. But there are some things you can check too. What does it smell like? Douglas Fir smells pretty much like Elmer's white school glue. Hemlock has a bit of a sour smell when it's wet but I can't really compare it to anything. Also Hemlock is a non-resinous tree and as such doesn't have pitch. If you see any pitch pockets or streaks in the wood, it's definitely a Douglas Fir. The standing tree looks like Douglas Fir at first glance, but it's not terribly rare for Hemlocks to get fairly thick bark as well, at least up here inland anyway. It _could_ be Ponderosa but I would doubt it due to the rather wet-looking ecology of the area (base on the picture). And Larch has very quite thin, spruce-like bark.

Following is a photo I just took to compare some Hemlock & Douglas Fir. The 2X6 on the left is a Hemlock, note the grayish appearance and almost black small knots. The small piece on the right is a highly figured piece of Hemlock, which I just put in to show the dark purple mineral streaks I spoke of and how black the knots in Hemlock can really get. The one in the middle is Douglas Fir; you can see the distinct heartwood transition from white to pink at the right-hand edge, and the more yellowish appearance of the larger knots.






Here is a handy chart outlining some species characteristics of common West-coast softwoods:


----------



## Matildasmate

DaltonPaull said:


> Nice pics , looks like you have a nice little forest there Paull . Cheers MM


----------



## mtngun

A lot of good information in this thread.

I've never seen a doug fir lay on the ground for long without beginning to rot. The heartwood may remain solid, but the sapwood touching the ground would definitely rot.

The forest in the picture looks pretty dark and damp, typical for the panhandle of Idaho. I just can't see a doug fir surviving on the ground in that climate for any length of time. 

Tamarack and hemlock don't grow on my mountain, so I am not familiar with their appearance, but tamarack is reputed to be extremely rot resistant. Hemlock, on the other hand, rots easily.

My vote is for_ tamarack _(larch). It is the only species mentioned that has exceptional rot resistance. Plus, it likes to grow in moist, shady areas.

Tamarack is very desirable lumber. It is sometimes used for flooring. I wish it grew in my neighborhood.


----------



## DaltonPaull

I think I'll have to print out that ID chart.

Here's a picture of some larch that I took from http://www.kalesnikoff.com/ To me this looks pretty close, even though the identification chart says that the heart wood should be brown. 






Here is an example of engleman spruce from wood-database.com. This looks possible too except for the bark.






Here is some hemlock from bearcreeklumber.com Those little dark areas seam to be common for hem.





And here's one more picture of the standing dead tree from farther back. Those are Hemlocks growing next to it and the log I was milling in the foreground. Hemlocks never stand 'buckskin' like that, they rot before the bark falls off and frequently fall while still live.






I think on my next trip to Idaho in a few weeks I'm going to try to find an 'expert' that I can bring a sample to for identification.


----------



## Daninvan

Interesting thread!

I cannot help on the ID part as I would be just guessing, but I would mention a couple things. 

First, be careful of putting too much faith in the colour. It looks to me like the photos, in particular the first and third, may be slightly overexposed due to the flash. Maybe DaltonPaull can comment?

Second, for a positive ID you should plane the end grain with a sharp chisel or block plane, then take a close up shot using the macro feature of your camera. Then I'd go to hobbithouse or the Romeyn Hough book on line (http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/specialcollections/forestry/hough/index.html) and look at the end grain shots of the likely suspects there.

Lastly, great table Brad, thanks for posting that. I plan to print it out, add another column for info about the bark, and keep it with my saw. Very handy!

Dan


----------



## wavefreak

Can't send a sample to a DNA lab, eh?


----------



## Backwoods

I worked in a high production mill where we ran runs of Hemlock, Doug-fir, White fir, Red Cedar and Incense Cedar. If I was sawing I would kick that log out unless I was cutting Doug-fir and if I was running the sorter, I would stick it in a Doug-fir tray. When you look at 3-400,000 bft per shift, you get to where you know which wood is which. Describing the subtle differences in a way that everyone can under stand is another story, but if you take a look at the picture that Brmorgan posted just above his chart you can see that the small knots of the Doug-fir board have the same characteristics as what was milled. Don’t get hung up on the red hart of a freshly fallen Doug-fir as these trees have been down a day or two. If you look at the end of the log that was cut you can see a change in color as well. I stand by my call of it being Doug-fir.


----------



## mtngun

Backwoods, I respect your experience. Sounds like you've been in this line of work most of your life.

I agree that, except for the missing orange tint, the board in the picture could easily pass for doug fir.

But, a couple of things puzzle me. Why didn't the log have any bark ? I'm not smart enough to explain why some species lose their bark and others don't, but I just can't recall seeing a naked doug fir in the woods. 

And, if it is true that the tree had been dead for many years, why didn't it rot ? Surely it must be a rot resistant species ?

A dead doug fir with bark will start to get punky after 2 - 3 years, because the bark retains rainwater like a sponge.

On the other hand, I've seen 50 year old doug fir fence posts that were still solid (and ORANGE) on the inside (the above ground portion of the post), despite looking rotten on the outside. .As long as there is no bark to retain moisture, and no contact with the ground, doug fir does last a long time out in the elements.

I hope we get a final answer. This thread has aroused my curiosity.


----------



## DRB

Interesting post looking forward to the diagnosis.

I think the standing tree pictured is likely Doug Fir by looking at the bark. The milled wood still looks like Hemlock to me. Doug Fir would likely have rot in the sap wood when growing in a wet hemlock forest. DaltonPaull did the log you mill have any thick doug fir bark on it? Maybe near the root ball or lay on the ground under the log? 

Could it be larch? I don't have experience with this one.

BTW nice stand of hemlock trees. I always loved waking the hemlock cedar forests of the coast.


----------



## Backwoods

DaltonPaull said:


>



Here is the Doug-fir bark on a naked tree. Standing dead Doug fir will shed there bark rather easily. Keeping the bark on a Doug-fir thru out the handling of the log is harder then removing it. The bark will come off in big sheets if the log has shrunk away from the bark. 
As a kid my brother and I would find a big dead Doug fir and debark the whole tree from the ground by prying the bark loose and standing back as the loose bark came crashing to the ground from as high as 80’-100’ up, resulting in a naked dead tree.

By the looks of the log that was milled it did have a thin layer of decay, this could be explained by the slow growing nature of the area where the trees are. Meaning that the tree only had a thin layer of juvenile wood 2”-3” and the rest of the wood being more mature wood and less susceptible to decay.


----------



## BlueRider

I think Backwoods nailed it. but just to toss another log on the proverbial fire so to speak; I have heard from a guy that does salvage milling around Portland that there are a few port orford cedars in the area. port orford cedar is not really a cedar but is actualy a cypress relatice and like doug fir it is easily identified by its scent. It is sometimes called ginger cedar but I find the smell is a cross between lemon, ginger and a touch of mint. 

port orford cedar's are dying by the grove due to a root fungus.


----------



## mtngun

The thick, brown bark on the stump looks more like Ponderosa to me. Or maybe white pine ?? -- it's been a long time since I've been up in white pine country. Obviously, photos are not the same as seeing it in person. If we could see it in person, we wouldn't be guessing.

The species of Doug Fir that grows in Idaho is different from the Doug Fir on the west coast. Rocky Mountain Douglas is not as big and the bark is not as thick. Bark is typically 1/2" thick, maybe 1" on very large trees (and 24" is large in 2nd growth). It is not brown, but charcoal or grey,. with relatively small scales.

Here's a doug fir in my log pile (the end is coated with latex paint, in case your were wondering). It's bark is maybe 3/8" thick. Yes, it is starting to peel in spots.






A doug fir next to a ponderosa. The ponderosa bark is thick and brown/orange, similar to the bark on the stump in the original post. 





The cookie on the left came from a snag that I felled last fall, about 24" diameter. The snag still had all its bark, yet it turned out to be completely rotten. 





BTW, I may be the only person in Idaho who refers to it as Douglas Fir. The locals go by its nickname "red fir." It is definitely Douglas, with the easily identifiable cone, but it is a different species than the coastal Douglas. Not as big, and the bark is thinner.

I wish I had pictures of the 50 year old fence posts that I cut up for firewood. Looked rotten on the outside, but the inside was solid and unmistakably orange. Doug fir weathers well if it can breathe. Lay it on the ground, or smother it with wet bark, and it rots quickly.

Having said all that, DaltonPaul's place is a 2 - 3 hours north of me, in white pine country. They get much more precip than I do, almost like the coastal forests, with moss hanging from the trees. Maybe the doug firs up there grow bigger and have thicker bark than my doug fir ?

Let's review the possibilities:

*Hemlock* -- boards could pass for hemlock, but hemlock rots quickly. 

*Cedar* -- DaltonPaul has milled cedar logs on this property, so if the mystery log were cedar, you'd think he'd recognize it. 

*Doug Fir* -- not orange like Douglas, and douglas is not especially rot resistant, though it weathers well providing it can breathe.

*Tamarack* -- boards could pass for tamarack, and tamarack is rot resistant -- but I thought tamarack was a relatively small tree ? ? ? 

*White pine* -- they used to grow HUGE in N. Idaho before the blister rust came along. (One near Elk City is 219 feet). Known for long straight trunks free of branches. But what do the boards look like ? I didn't think it was rot resistant ? 

Here's a stolen pic of a white pine. I've seen bigger.





A stolen pic of white pine bark. Looks like the bark in the original post, eh ?





A stolen pic of a fallen white pine log. I think I've been to this place -- in the St. Joe forest, between Potlatch and St. Maries. 





At the moment, I'm leaning away from tamarack -- because it is too small -- and toward white pine. But there's no way to be sure just from a few photos.


----------



## DRB

Backwoods good point regaurding the bark peeling off easily and the small amount of sap wood due to the slow growth. Bark always seems to peel off easily with age except when you want it to.


----------



## Brmorgan

mtngun, the Douglas Firs up here can get some extremely thick bark, and I live in a fairly dry area which has an almost identical ecology to you, judging by some of the milling shots you've posted anyway. I've cut firewood trees in the 3' diameter range with bark around 6-8" thick. I take the bark as extra firewood - those big pieces burn like fury but don't do your chimney any favors where creosote is concerned. Once I get/build a wood chipper though, I'll be making my own bark mulch I think.

I'd sure like to see some bark from either the stump or farther up this tree. If you can find a piece from around the stump that's fairly thick and large, cut a fresh cross-section of it. That will tell you once and for all. Here's what a D. Fir cross-section looks like:






Hemlock won't have the orange-red color or the distinct cell-like scaly structure. Pines will have a similar scaly structure but much smaller and finer, and not nearly as thick with the exception of Ponderosa. I'm really doubting that a Ponderosa _or_ White Pine would be common in that wet of an environment around Portland though. Both favor drier, well-drained and fairly open hillsides. Larch bark is a light silvery-gray on the outside and a nice deep red on the inside. It is very scaly, with much larger scales than Pines or Spruces which break off very easily if pulled on.


----------



## Matildasmate

Thats a nice pic there Brad of the Doug Fir . Cheers MM


----------



## BIG JAKE

mtngun said:


> The thick, brown bark on the stump looks more like Ponderosa to me. Or maybe white pine ?? -- it's been a long time since I've been up in white pine country. Obviously, photos are not the same as seeing it in person. If we could see it in person, we wouldn't be guessing.
> 
> The species of Doug Fir that grows in Idaho is different from the Doug Fir on the west coast. Rocky Mountain Douglas is not as big and the bark is not as thick. Bark is typically 1/2" thick, maybe 1" on very large trees (and 24" is large in 2nd growth). It is not brown, but charcoal or grey,. with relatively small scales.
> 
> Here's a doug fir in my log pile (the end is coated with latex paint, in case your were wondering). It's bark is maybe 3/8" thick. Yes, it is starting to peel in spots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A doug fir next to a ponderosa. The ponderosa bark is thick and brown/orange, similar to the bark on the stump in the original post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cookie on the left came from a snag that I felled last fall, about 24" diameter. The snag still had all its bark, yet it turned out to be completely rotten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I may be the only person in Idaho who refers to it as Douglas Fir. The locals go by its nickname "red fir." It is definitely Douglas, with the easily identifiable cone, but it is a different species than the coastal Douglas. Not as big, and the bark is thinner.
> 
> I wish I had pictures of the 50 year old fence posts that I cut up for firewood. Looked rotten on the outside, but the inside was solid and unmistakably orange. Doug fir weathers well if it can breathe. Lay it on the ground, or smother it with wet bark, and it rots quickly.
> 
> Having said all that, DaltonPaul's place is a 2 - 3 hours north of me, in white pine country. They get much more precip than I do, almost like the coastal forests, with moss hanging from the trees. Maybe the doug firs up there grow bigger and have thicker bark than my doug fir ?
> 
> Let's review the possibilities:
> 
> *Hemlock* -- boards could pass for hemlock, but hemlock rots quickly.
> 
> *Cedar* -- DaltonPaul has milled cedar logs on this property, so if the mystery log were cedar, you'd think he'd recognize it.
> 
> *Doug Fir* -- not orange like Douglas, and douglas is not especially rot resistant, though it weathers well providing it can breathe.
> 
> *Tamarack* -- boards could pass for tamarack, and tamarack is rot resistant -- but I thought tamarack was a relatively small tree ? ? ?
> 
> *White pine* -- they used to grow HUGE in N. Idaho before the blister rust came along. (One near Elk City is 219 feet). Known for long straight trunks free of branches. But what do the boards look like ? I didn't think it was rot resistant ?
> 
> Here's a stolen pic of a white pine. I've seen bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A stolen pic of white pine bark. Looks like the bark in the original post, eh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A stolen pic of a fallen white pine log. I think I've been to this place -- in the St. Joe forest, between Potlatch and St. Maries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment, I'm leaning away from tamarack -- because it is too small -- and toward white pine. But there's no way to be sure just from a few photos.



Mtngun what's the sealer on the log ends?


----------



## mtngun

Jake, I use leftover or on-sale latex paint for sealing boards and logs. Not as good as "real" sealer, but real sealer has to be ordered. I've heard that aluminum roofing paint works well, too.

Bmorgan, your cookie looks exactly as we would expect Douglas to look -- salmon colored. I've yet to encounter an "albino" douglas fir in my neighborhood.

Yes, I have heard that Doug fir is famous for its thick bark. My local Doug not so much. Perhaps the bark thickness depends on the exact species or on the climate, I dunno.

The original post stated this mystery log was in Northern Idaho, not Portland. White Pine was the dominant tree in N. Idaho prior to the invasion of European blister rust. Cedar was also common. 

This is part of a display of old growth white pines north of Potlatch on state highway 3. I used to go bear hunting near there and drove by the display many times. It is like driving through a tunnel, always dark and cool, because because the road is surrounded on both sides by towering old growth pines and cedars. The display used to include the world's tallest white pine, but it died and was cut down in 1999. So yes, white pine does grow in shady, moist areas. Here's the best picture I could find on the net. 





Before it was cut down. Not huge by coastal standards, but a monster by Idaho standards. It's a poor picture, but you can see that it is growing in a shady, dense forest.





Another view. I couldn't find any information on the height of this tree, but the current record tree is 229 feet tall and 79" dbh, also in Idaho.





While I was googling for this big white pine, I learned that the state record tamarack is 142 feet tall and 76" dbh, located in the same county as the white pine display. So..... larch is still a candidate for our mystery log.

Anyway, I hope DaltonPaul is able to get a positve ID on his mystery log. This has been a fun thread.


----------



## Ivan H.

DaltonPaull said:


> Last week I spent several days building a trail and milling wood at my family's property in North Idaho. The tree that started the project was an ancient Ceder that went over roots and all a few years ago that was 36"+ dia with the first branch at 25' - too good to let it rot on the ground. The wood from this tree is great - clear and tight grained but I decided to take a break from milling and continue the trail to the creek. While clearing a path, I cut through a log that looked like it had been dead for ages - no bark and a layer of moss. To my surprise there was minimal rot and it looked great so I decided to try milling it. The result was beautiful CVG slabs but of what type I cant decide for sure. I've attached pictures of the log I milled and a near by standing dead tree that still has some 6" think bark and looks like the same species (this one looks to have started out standing dead as well.) I think it is most likely Douglas fir but possibly Western Larch (aka tamarack.) There are several old stumps (and some butt sections I might try to mill) as well as several standing dead trees in the area that look the same but no living fir trees in the area and only one small tamarack that I can find. Most of the living trees in the area are Hemlock and Ceder but there are some spruce nearby too. Does anyone have an idea of how to tell for sure if this is Fir or Tamarack?



I'm Not sure What species you got their ,White Fir /western hemlock.That's what it looks like when it's milled,or it could be white pine,or sugar pine.I know one thing that it is good clear naturally cured lumber.


----------



## Ivan H.

mtngun said:


> The thick, brown bark on the stump looks more like Ponderosa to me. Or maybe white pine ?? -- it's been a long time since I've been up in white pine country. Obviously, photos are not the same as seeing it in person. If we could see it in person, we wouldn't be guessing.
> 
> The species of Doug Fir that grows in Idaho is different from the Doug Fir on the west coast. Rocky Mountain Douglas is not as big and the bark is not as thick. Bark is typically 1/2" thick, maybe 1" on very large trees (and 24" is large in 2nd growth). It is not brown, but charcoal or grey,. with relatively small scales.
> 
> Here's a doug fir in my log pile (the end is coated with latex paint, in case your were wondering). It's bark is maybe 3/8" thick. Yes, it is starting to peel in spots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A doug fir next to a ponderosa. The ponderosa bark is thick and brown/orange, similar to the bark on the stump in the original post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cookie on the left came from a snag that I felled last fall, about 24" diameter. The snag still had all its bark, yet it turned out to be completely rotten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I may be the only person in Idaho who refers to it as Douglas Fir. The locals go by its nickname "red fir." It is definitely Douglas, with the easily identifiable cone, but it is a different species than the coastal Douglas. Not as big, and the bark is thinner.
> 
> I wish I had pictures of the 50 year old fence posts that I cut up for firewood. Looked rotten on the outside, but the inside was solid and unmistakably orange. Doug fir weathers well if it can breathe. Lay it on the ground, or smother it with wet bark, and it rots quickly.
> 
> Having said all that, DaltonPaul's place is a 2 - 3 hours north of me, in white pine country. They get much more precip than I do, almost like the coastal forests, with moss hanging from the trees. Maybe the doug firs up there grow bigger and have thicker bark than my doug fir ?
> 
> Let's review the possibilities:
> 
> *Hemlock* -- boards could pass for hemlock, but hemlock rots quickly.
> 
> *Cedar* -- DaltonPaul has milled cedar logs on this property, so if the mystery log were cedar, you'd think he'd recognize it.
> 
> *Doug Fir* -- not orange like Douglas, and douglas is not especially rot resistant, though it weathers well providing it can breathe.
> 
> *Tamarack* -- boards could pass for tamarack, and tamarack is rot resistant -- but I thought tamarack was a relatively small tree ? ? ?
> 
> *White pine* -- they used to grow HUGE in N. Idaho before the blister rust came along. (One near Elk City is 219 feet). Known for long straight trunks free of branches. But what do the boards look like ? I didn't think it was rot resistant ?
> 
> Here's a stolen pic of a white pine. I've seen bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A stolen pic of white pine bark. Looks like the bark in the original post, eh ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A stolen pic of a fallen white pine log. I think I've been to this place -- in the St. Joe forest, between Potlatch and St. Maries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment, I'm leaning away from tamarack -- because it is too small -- and toward white pine. But there's no way to be sure just from a few photos.



I would go with,white pine too.Because of the blue stain in it.And good quality white pine looks clear with small knots.Like good oak.


----------



## DaltonPaull

*Verdict: Western Larch*

I brought a sample to Murphys chainsaw repair in Sandpoint and asked to mechanic (experienced with logging and chainsaw lumber making) to Identify it. He looked at it and said looks like larch, smelled it and said smells like larch and listened to my description of the tree (tall truck with almost no change in diameter) then said that it sounds like larch.

This confirmed my suspicions. From my observation this wood might be more rot resistant than Western Red Ceder. There's a tree in woods that was cut about 100 years ago (tall stump with spring board notches) that was left for no apparent reason and held off the ground by the some other logs that looks like I still might be able to mill. We'll see. Anyway I really like the tight grain of this stuff. It's right up there with the best Doug Fir I've seen (and payed up to $5 a board ft for) and even more rot resistant.


----------



## mtngun

Thanks for the update. I'd been tossing and turning at night, unable to sleep, wondering if I had to go through life not being able to positively identify your tree. 

Supposedly larch (or tamarack, as it is sometimes called) is highly rot resistant. It's also supposed to be pretty hard. It's sometimes called "the other hardwood."

Since your original thread, I've found a handful of tamarack in my neighborhood. They are exceptionally tall trees, straight as an arrow, with no lower branches. The loggers harvest them before long before they mature, so the biggest I have seen locally is maybe 16" - 18" diameter, and even those skinny trees towered over the doug fir and ponderosa. 

It's easy to identify live trees by the needles, which grow in bundles.





I'd love to mill a tamarack, but they don't seem to die of natural causes or get blown over like other species, and I'm only allowed to harvest dead wood.

What do you plan to do with your milled tamarack ? Decking ? Flooring ?


----------



## DaltonPaull

I'm trying to think of the best ways to use it - I'll probably cut a lot of it into 4/4 quartersawn stock that I can use for panels for furniture, flooring, interior trim or outdoor furniture. I'll cut some 8/4 stock too - maybe for stair treads. Some of the pieces are nice as slabs so I might use them to make benches or hall tables. I need to replace some parts on my canoe and might use it for that too. Sitka Spruce and Red Ceder are traditional Kayak woods - seams like Larch would be a good choice too except that it doesn't grow near the cost.

The attached picture is a book shelf I made recently from alder and black walnut. I like the way the alder looks but it's really too soft for legs and shelves. I'm thinking of making some more but using walnut everywhere the alder is in this version and larch everywhere the walnut is. Maybe I'll try something small first to see if I like the combination. Hardwoods and softwoods can look good together if you're careful.

Anyway I'm excited to try working with it.


----------



## 333.okh

Backwoods said:


> *Doug-fir *
> Not all Doug-fir has the bright red center. Take a good whiff that will confirm it for you.
> If you look at the boards that you have laid out you can see a red tint to the wood and the close up shows the red tint in the grain as well. Pine will not have that. The bark is defiantly Doug-fir. There is nothing there to tell me that it is not Doug-fir.



That id D-fir bark.....I work in those everyday. If you cut the bark with a knife lookt at the red and light yellow mottling.


----------



## DaltonPaull

I also brought in a bark sample to the saw shop and he said that is was larch and that Doug fir bark is pretty similar but "corker."


----------

