# Biggest & Tallest Doug fir and Sitka Spruce & redwoods



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

I was wondering if anyone has any accounts from their father or grandpa of felling 300 foot+ Douglas fir, redwood, or spruce trees way back? Or any of the older members here have tales of cutting 300+ footers?

There seem to be lots of wild frontier accounts of Douglas fir way past 300 and even over 400 feet cut down 80 to 150 years ago I'm just curious if anyone has personal knowledge of these giants, or any such. I know the redwoods are up to 380 ft. but there are even tales of 400 - 424 foot redwoods at, Elk river 1886, Lindsey creek, and Orick Flats.. giant firs in B.C., and Washington, up to 415' Lynn Vallley 1902, and 465' Nooksack river 1897. If tales of 400 footers were that abundant back then, there must have been a lot more 300+ foot trees??... Maybe when the tree hit the ground it split to pieces and they measured it on the ground so the height was exaggerated by 50 feet? Some of these old time accounts have precise details, board foot, ring counts etc. Hard to explain.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/09/04/2016112910.jpg

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/09/04/2016113110.gif

http://www.cardcow.com/images/set38/card00494_fr.jpg

http://www.minerallake.com/Iverson Photos/IversonMineralBigTree35.jpg

This news account below, from 1921 makes it sound like 400 feet was common in old fir stands:
Schenectady Gazette - Google News Archive Search

A caption in the article above shows a photo of a "spar" tree getting topped at "275 feet" and what appears to be 50 - 70 feet of the top falling off... I can't imagine the pain these men had to go through using old saws and axes. 

A study in 2008 by Domec et al, and reported by Oregon State University estimated that Douglas fir trees have a theoretical height limit of 109 - 138 meters (358-453 ft), but could be as high as 145 m (476 ft). That makes for an awful lot of "tall." Another study, Koch et al, 2004 had concluded redwoods have a limit of 130 meters (430 ft). 

Sitka Spruce has grown 315 feet tall, but there is at least one old account from the Oregon coast of a 400 foot spruce as well.
Maybe there are still a few of these ultra tall giants left in Washington, Oregon and B.C. awaiting discovery?


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

Interesting there are still quite a few 320 + foot Douglas fir being found in Oregon, California.

http://www.landmarktrees.net/douglas.html

Olympic peninsula probably still has a few 300 - 350 footers, I've been up there around the Quinault area, and Clallam bay. There are some extremely huge trees up there, and makes me wonder how many unexplored giant record trees might be found if someone flew over the area with LiDAR mapping software.


----------



## madhatte (Jul 23, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> LiDAR mapping software.



Too easy! I'm pretty sure the bare-earth vs top-level DEM data already exist; while the analysis is processor-heavy, it's not difficult. I'm guessing that somebody has already done this and just hasn't reported it to the general populace. I could make a few calls, but, really, I don't want to know. I'd rather folks go out and hike and measure the old-fashioned way. It's more fun like that.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Too easy! I'm pretty sure the bare-earth vs top-level DEM data already exist; while the analysis is processor-heavy, it's not difficult. I'm guessing that somebody has already done this and just hasn't reported it to the general populace. I could make a few calls, but, really, I don't want to know. I'd rather folks go out and hike and measure the old-fashioned way. It's more fun like that.



Yeah, I'd be curious if they had DEM data on all of Western Washingtin, Western Oregon, northern California and lower B.C and Vancouver Island. That would really be processor heavy!

The old stories of 350 -400 foot firs generally came from places like Puget sound, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver etc, from only a few hundred feet elevation. Most of that I-5 corridor lowland is is farmland, or asphalt and cities today. And even the super tall freaks of the past were fairly rare; average timber was 150 -250 ft for old growth fir, but Edward Tyson Allen in 1899 reports some regions in the Cascade foothills were they were averaging 300 ft, so I suppose growing conditions, rain fall etc were all factors.

Do you know how I could view the DEM data on my P.C.? or would I need a really fast computer? thanks!


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 23, 2012)

I spent some time in the Big Lagoon area doing both forestry work and a short stretch of logging. Some of the old guys there told of many very tall and large Redwoods. A fair amount needed halved or quartered, before being loaded on a railcar. As far as height goes, there was talk about lots of 400' plus timber brought out of the Redwood Creek watershed. I saw Redwoods felled that ran 340 feet, the Master's record was 385 feet, my personal best was a paltry 290'. I saw some spectacular Douglas Fir in the Klamath Mnts. and there are prime examples of Sitkas in Northern Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. The biggest and best timber is in Del Norte.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

RandyMac said:


> I spent some time in the Big Lagoon area doing both forestry work and a short stretch of logging. Some of the old guys there told of many very tall and large Redwoods. A fair amount needed halved or quartered, before being loaded on a railcar. As far as height goes, there was talk about lots of 400' plus timber brought out of the Redwood Creek watershed. I saw Redwoods felled that ran 340 feet, the Master's record was 385 feet, my personal best was a paltry 290'. I saw some spectacular Douglas Fir in the Klamath Mnts. and there are prime examples of Sitkas in Northern Humboldt and Del Norte Counties. The biggest and best timber is in Del Norte.



Wow. That is fantastic information. I appreciate this. I am collecting personal accounts and anecdotes like this for my files! the 424 foot Elk River redwood cut down in 1886 is the tallest record I am are of, that matches the giant 400 footers you speak of.

290 is still a big tree by any standards!

I know of a guy in Washington state who says his father cut down a fir in the Black hills, south of Olympia which was 480 feet long 12 ft thick at the butt. I have no way of proving if it is true, but it seems a lot of the real woodsmen from the twenties, thirties and fifties are dying off so I am really interested in collecting these accounts! Thanks!


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 23, 2012)

The old guys are getting pretty thin alright, I think I'm about out of old guys.


----------



## 2dogs (Jul 23, 2012)

I have also read accounts of 400' plus redwoods and D-firs. I sure wish those old timers had an iphone.

I suppose today if any champion trees are found the gov't would keep quiet about it due to the rec (read wreck) tree climbers would damage the tree and trash the area.

Randy how were those big logs split for transport? Drill and blast?


----------



## cnpser (Jul 23, 2012)

Can you imagine falling one of those giants with axes and cross cut saws? The sound and vibration of one of those hitting the ground has to be awesome. 

You are probably right about them keeping things quiet as there are some out there that would do something to kill the tree just to see if they could.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

2dogs said:


> I have also read accounts of 400' plus redwoods and D-firs. I sure wish those old timers had an iphone.
> 
> I suppose today if any champion trees are found the gov't would keep quiet about it due to the rec (read wreck) tree climbers would damage the tree and trash the area.
> 
> Randy how were those big logs split for transport? Drill and blast?



There are a few pics of some of these 400 footers, but you only see a cross section or the lower end of the trunk (Nooksack giant, "Mineral fir" e.g.). My dream is to stumble upon the holy grail, an old black and white photo of a complete 400 foot Doug fir or Redwood cut into sections showing the entire tree on the ground with men infront of it for scale -- Fat chance of finding that, but who knows these things tend to be stored in old family basements and dusty museum archives. 

They aren't releasing the coordinates of Hyperion redwood (the 380 footer) because they are afraid it will be cut down. So probably the same story of CHampion fir trees in the NW. I was up in the Olympics, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had a 350 footer that they aren't telling us about. One was cut down in 1988 that was 326 ft up there.


The big tree cut in 1902 on the Aflred Nye property in Lynn Valley, B.C. was section and blown with dynamite. It was then skidded a few miles to the shore at Moodyville. The stump was 14 feet 3 inches wide and the size of the tree 415 feet, according to the late Walter Draycott who had a hand written note from Mr. Nye in 1912, giving the particulars of that fantastic tree.

Powder charges would be handy on the redwoods. The douglas fir, even the most massive ones are skinny as hell next to redwood and Sequoia. Anorexic would be an understatement.


----------



## slowp (Jul 23, 2012)

2dogs said:


> I have also read accounts of 400' plus redwoods and D-firs. I sure wish those old timers had an iphone.
> 
> I suppose today if any champion trees are found the gov't would keep quiet about it due to the rec (read wreck) tree climbers would damage the tree and trash the area.
> 
> Randy how were those big logs split for transport? Drill and blast?



I believe the biggest Noble Fir is near here up either Yellowjacket or McCoy Creek. Some that were close to record size were felled as part of a timber sale in the 1980s. The land was not too steep but it was high lead ground. The logger got the blessing of the Forest Service and was allowed to use a dozer to make a bed. The trees were felled. They had a special order that the logs were destined for. The faller bucked them to the wrong lengths because he had spliced his tape badly and screwed it up. I think he was fired. It was very nice wood. I'm sure some hats were flung about.


----------



## 2dogs (Jul 23, 2012)

slowp said:


> I believe the biggest Noble Fir is near here up either Yellowjacket or McCoy Creek. Some that were close to record size were felled as part of a timber sale in the 1980s. The land was not too steep but it was high lead ground. The logger got the blessing of the Forest Service and was allowed to use a dozer to make a bed. The trees were felled. They had a special order that the logs were destined for. The faller bucked them to the wrong lengths because he had spliced his tape badly and screwed it up. I think he was fired. It was very nice wood. I'm sure some hats were flung about.



I have processed thousands of Noble fir...in the Christmas tree lot. Gotta love those pagan rituals. Anyway what is Noble lumber used for? How big do Nobles get? Big enough to build a camping trailer with?

Oz has some big trees too.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mruhsam/


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

slowp said:


> I believe the biggest Noble Fir is near here up either Yellowjacket or McCoy Creek. Some that were close to record size were felled as part of a timber sale in the 1980s. The land was not too steep but it was high lead ground. The logger got the blessing of the Forest Service and was allowed to use a dozer to make a bed. The trees were felled. They had a special order that the logs were destined for. The faller bucked them to the wrong lengths because he had spliced his tape badly and screwed it up. I think he was fired. It was very nice wood. I'm sure some hats were flung about.



Great link to the OZ website.
This old photo from Nov 1890 at Thorpdale, Australia shows a bunch of incredibly tall Eucalyptus -- they don't even fit in the frame.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mruhsam/LLOYDHOMESTEAD.jpg

If those are cabins and fern trees in the background, those Eucalyptus must be about 300 feet high or higher.


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 23, 2012)

When I was a choker setter, I walked a mile just to see an oversized butt split with blackpowder. The guy ran a chainsaw kerf along the ends and lengthwise. He used some sort of powder charged iron wedge, it went bang and fell in half.
Don't get me started on the dildo squads of adventurers who "discover" rare trees and other hidden treasures, for the acclaim involved. The Grove of the Titans is a prime example.

Special orders, fun stuff.


----------



## madhatte (Jul 23, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> Do you know how I could view the DEM data on my P.C.?



Start here. 

I realize 10m is a pretty rough resolution, but that's a LOT of data. Also, that's all bare-earth DEM as I recall. I don't know where top-level DEM data is publicly available. I know where to get some, but you sort of have to have a good reason to have it to be able to get it.


----------



## Gologit (Jul 23, 2012)

RandyMac said:


> The old guys are getting pretty thin alright, I think I'm about out of old guys.



There's still a few old guys around. They just don't make much noise.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Start here.
> 
> I realize 10m is a pretty rough resolution, but that's a LOT of data. Also, that's all bare-earth DEM as I recall. I don't know where top-level DEM data is publicly available. I know where to get some, but you sort of have to have a good reason to have it to be able to get it.



Awesome. Thanks for the DEM data. Excellent. 
I wonder why top level is harder to get?


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 23, 2012)

Gologit said:


> There's still a few old guys around. They just don't make much noise.



The link below shows forest heights within certain areas, amazingly not much forest in the NW averages over 70 meters. Only tiny patche. Same with Cal.
Global Forest Height Map « Google Earth Library


----------



## madhatte (Jul 23, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> I wonder why top level is harder to get?



Lots of reasons. One of the big ones is post-processing; canopy = noise, so any top-level imagery is going to require a LOT of clean-up. Around here, it's a bit easier with winter imagery (leaves gone off the hardwoods) but nobody flies LIDAR in the winter so that stuff is pretty much only available in metro areas. Plus, if there's anything you want to hide (such as big-ass trees), it's pretty hard to keep it under wraps. The REALLY hard imagery to get is 5m off the ground. That's useful for a lot of stand- and landscape-level analyses such as searching for disease pockets or reprod density but is harder still to clean up.




JasperSparthing said:


> amazingly not much forest in the NW averages over 70 meters



Not amazing, really. From that very webpage:



> For any patch of forest, the height shown means that 90 percent or more of the trees in the patch are that tall or taller.



90% > 70m was ALWAYS unusual. If it were drawn to display 10% > 70m, you'd have a very different map.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 24, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Lots of reasons. One of the big ones is post-processing; canopy = noise, so any top-level imagery is going to require a LOT of clean-up. Around here, it's a bit easier with winter imagery (leaves gone off the hardwoods) but nobody flies LIDAR in the winter so that stuff is pretty much only available in metro areas. Plus, if there's anything you want to hide (such as big-ass trees), it's pretty hard to keep it under wraps. The REALLY hard imagery to get is 5m off the ground. That's useful for a lot of stand- and landscape-level analyses such as searching for disease pockets or reprod density but is harder still to clean up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, 70 meters is 230 feet. That is very tall if 90% of the trees are that tall or taller! Definitely worth exploring those few areas to see what they got.


----------



## paccity (Jul 24, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Too easy! I'm pretty sure the bare-earth vs top-level DEM data already exist; while the analysis is processor-heavy, it's not difficult. I'm guessing that somebody has already done this and just hasn't reported it to the general populace. I could make a few calls, but, really, I don't want to know. I'd rather folks go out and hike and measure the old-fashioned way. It's more fun like that.



i still need to go up mill creek and see if that big stick is still there and take a pic for you.


----------



## paccity (Jul 24, 2012)




----------



## cnpser (Jul 24, 2012)

This tree will give you some redwood perspective. Notice that there are people in the tree.






View attachment 246017


----------



## paccity (Jul 24, 2012)




----------



## cnpser (Jul 24, 2012)

Here are some more old photos that I found. Notice the cut was done with axes in this first one.


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 24, 2012)

got this from Norm.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 24, 2012)

Wow. Sweet photos. :hmm3grin2orange:
Can't imagine cutting them with simple saws and axes.
Some of those firs were as big as redwoods. I like the pic with the guys standing at the base of the fir, in the valley, they are like ants. These pics are priceless/ I have an old book by Darius Kinsey from the early 1900's when he was up in WA state, it shows 16 foot diameter fir trees 350 ft tall, and Cedars 20 ft wide. some firs were said to get 17 to 19 ft thick. unimaginable by today's standards. we still have some 10 -12 ft firs, and I think one up in Red creek, B.C. is 13 1/2 ft diam.


----------



## imagineero (Jul 24, 2012)

Here's a link with some stories about tall trees in australia;

The Tallest Trees In The World

I've read in other places, old stories about prizes being offered for the tallest trees back in the day. Since nobody had an accurate way of measuring them, a lot of tall trees were dropped just purely to pace them out, left to rot when they came up short. Never seen a published acount of a prize, but it sounds pretty plausible.

Shaun


----------



## madhatte (Jul 24, 2012)

paccity said:


> i still need to go up mill creek and see if that big stick is still there and take a pic for you.



If it weren't for all those damned gates, I'd go there myself! That was a pretty cool place.


----------



## paccity (Jul 24, 2012)

madhatte said:


> If it weren't for all those damned gates, I'd go there myself! That was a pretty cool place.



most everything is closed up till fall for fire season:msp_unsure: still pretty damp. allwell . they usually open them up for rifle season . hankock just bought out forest capital , and they are pretty stingy on access . can't even get to blm land anymore.


----------



## madhatte (Jul 24, 2012)

It was already pretty much like that when I was working out there in '97. I had the BLM key which was my Golden Ticket to everything in that Purina checkerboard of ownerships. Pisses me off pretty good that dumping and poaching and the usual suspects closed the woods down for the rest of us.


----------



## ShaneLogs (Jul 24, 2012)

Wow, Those are some tall tress there!


----------



## Alex D (Jul 24, 2012)

While not the biggest or as big as some of the ones pictured here, still cool to see giants (around 15 foot diamter some of them) are still being cut even into the late 2000s- eg 2009,2010,2011, 2012 etc....

big north island red cedar - YouTube

nootka island - YouTube

danger trees - YouTube

falling the giants- west coast tree falling - YouTube

FALLING BIG RED CEDAR - YouTube

west coast falling - YouTube

West Coast Logging on Broughton Island - YouTube

West Coast Falling - YouTube

Helping my partner on a big one - YouTube

Jer's Big Cedar- YouTube


----------



## Dave Hadden (Jul 24, 2012)

While not a true giant this Fir resides in my pal's backyard, next to Painters Lodge here in Campbell River. Not bad for an "urban" tree. 
It's topped around 100' up and provides a nice table for some of the local Eagles to dine on.

Take care.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Jul 24, 2012)

cnpser said:


> Here are some more old photos that I found. Notice the cut was done with axes in this first one.



Third pic down with the trucks was taken on the main-street of Montesano, Washington. We still have some big stuff up the Wynoochee.


----------



## Humptulips (Jul 24, 2012)

I really think some of the length of felled trees that is told by some is exagerated. 
My Dad said he topped a tree at 240 feet up near Grisdale and he said that was much higher then normal. Measured with a new passrope that was known length not speculation.A tree topped at 275 or some such number is probably BS. Not because the trees weren't ever that high. The guylines wouldn't fit. They would all come up short.
Fact is there were a lot of big trees cut but for the most part they measured the base not the length. seen some real tall trees but never measured a one.
We yarded this one in 84. I remember it was 12 foot and it had 7 logs in it. The first three cuts were 40s. Some of the top cuts were shorter though. I'd guess to the tip top it was pushing 300 but not over.


----------



## OlympicYJ (Jul 24, 2012)

Where were ya workin when that one got yarded?

An oldtimer from Pacific county that got in on the tail end of the misery whip days told me the oldgrowth up Grisdale is much bigger than what he was cuttin in Pac County


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 24, 2012)

Humptulips said:


> I really think some of the length of felled trees that is told by some is exagerated.
> My Dad said he topped a tree at 240 feet up near Grisdale and he said that was much higher then normal. Measured with a new passrope that was known length not speculation.A tree topped at 275 or some such number is probably BS. Not because the trees weren't ever that high. The guylines wouldn't fit. They would all come up short.
> Fact is there were a lot of big trees cut but for the most part they measured the base not the length. seen some real tall trees but never measured a one.
> We yarded this one in 84. I remember it was 12 foot and it had 7 logs in it. The first three cuts were 40s. Some of the top cuts were shorter though. I'd guess to the tip top it was pushing 300 but not over.



Could be exaggeration. I guess we'll never know for sure how big they got in the lowlands. The grainy photo in that 1921 news clip shows a guy way up, and if it really was "275 ft" as it claims, he's taking a good 50-60 ft chunk off the top -- indicating a 325 - 350 foot fir. Some of these old accounts mention the first branches were 200 -250 feet above ground. I agree height records are rare, that's probably why the few records that do survive were from trees that were so noticeably huge, the lumbermen felt compelled to record it and the press got a hold of it. Some of the accounts from Washington 100 years ago make it sound like 250 - 300 footers were fairly common among the really old forests.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 24, 2012)

Humptulips said:


> I really think some of the length of felled trees that is told by some is exagerated.
> My Dad said he topped a tree at 240 feet up near Grisdale and he said that was much higher then normal. Measured with a new passrope that was known length not speculation.A tree topped at 275 or some such number is probably BS. Not because the trees weren't ever that high. The guylines wouldn't fit. They would all come up short.
> Fact is there were a lot of big trees cut but for the most part they measured the base not the length. seen some real tall trees but never measured a one.
> We yarded this one in 84. I remember it was 12 foot and it had 7 logs in it. The first three cuts were 40s. Some of the top cuts were shorter though. I'd guess to the tip top it was pushing 300 but not over.



12 foot? That is a monster. Awesome photo. How old was that one?


----------



## madhatte (Jul 25, 2012)

Tallest I've measured was a DF in the Oregon Coast Range near Greenleaf. It was just over 300', I forget the exact number, and I was just using a clino so my number was probably good +/- 15 feet at that scale. Biggest diameter was a spruce at 139" in ONF. I've seen quite a few ~300' tall and ~10' diameter. Bigger than that is pretty scarce. I know of a 10' fir, a 10' spruce, a 10' cedar, and a 10' cottonwood on our property, but the tallest I've measured here is 245'. We don't have good records before about 1960 so I can only speculate on what was here before.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 25, 2012)

Humptulips said:


> I really think some of the length of felled trees that is told by some is exagerated.
> My Dad said he topped a tree at 240 feet up near Grisdale and he said that was much higher then normal. Measured with a new passrope that was known length not speculation.A tree topped at 275 or some such number is probably BS. Not because the trees weren't ever that high. The guylines wouldn't fit. They would all come up short.
> Fact is there were a lot of big trees cut but for the most part they measured the base not the length. seen some real tall trees but never measured a one.
> We yarded this one in 84. I remember it was 12 foot and it had 7 logs in it. The first three cuts were 40s. Some of the top cuts were shorter though. I'd guess to the tip top it was pushing 300 but not over.



If your father topped a tree at 240 feet, that's pretty darn big, did he say how much of the top came off? I know for spar trees there was a minimum width of like 20 to 30 inches for the cut, so you might get 40 to 100 feet ofaddition top. That would make your fathers tree about 300 footer or better.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 25, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Tallest I've measured was a DF in the Oregon Coast Range near Greenleaf. It was just over 300', I forget the exact number, and I was just using a clino so my number was probably good +/- 15 feet at that scale. Biggest diameter was a spruce at 139" in ONF. I've seen quite a few ~300' tall and ~10' diameter. Bigger than that is pretty scarce. I know of a 10' fir, a 10' spruce, a 10' cedar, and a 10' cottonwood on our property, but the tallest I've measured here is 245'. We don't have good records before about 1960 so I can only speculate on what was here before.



interesting. The inclinometer is usually about 90-95% accurate with the big trees. The old timer measurements of fallen fir trees on the ground are probably accurate to within 5, 10, or 25 feet of standing height. Some of them split apart when the hit the ground and tumbled down the hill a ways, so I suppose an extra 5-10% of inflation is possible, but hard to know either way. If the science indicates they have a"best scenario" potential to grow between 358 - 453, it's probable there have been some that grew to that range.


----------



## carrbear (Jul 25, 2012)

A Giant Sitka Spruce
Copy of Ektachrome Photo by Phil Vecqueray
This giant Sitka Spruce tree measured 17 ft. 7 inches (5.4 m) across the butt. The first 24 ft. (7.3 m) log contained sufficient lumber to build a two bedroom home - a small hotel could be constructed from the entire tree. Estimated age of this spruce is 463 years. The tree was felled over 40 years ago at Juskatla Camp on the Queeen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. The saw used was a Homelite 9-26.







Model Profile: 9-26


----------



## madhatte (Jul 25, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> 90-95% accurate with the big trees



...which, at 300 feet, is 15-30 feet.


----------



## Humptulips (Jul 25, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> If your father topped a tree at 240 feet, that's pretty darn big, did he say how much of the top came off? I know for spar trees there was a minimum width of like 20 to 30 inches for the cut, so you might get 40 to 100 feet ofaddition top. That would make your fathers tree about 300 footer or better.



That fir in the picture was cut just west of 101 about 2 1/2 miles south of Neilton on the Olympic Penninsula. Mile and a half from my house. There was one on the cutting line that I rigged as a tail tree that is over 10 foot. It's still there.
The one my Dad topped that I mentioned he said was about 30 inches where he topped it. He said they had to put extensions on all the guylines it was so high. Rarely he said they would go over 200 feet. He rigged a cedar on Johns River (South Grays Harbor) that was 6 foot where he topped it ( Pre power saw days) only about a 100 feet high.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 25, 2012)

Humptulips said:


> That fir in the picture was cut just west of 101 about 2 1/2 miles south of Neilton on the Olympic Penninsula. Mile and a half from my house. There was one on the cutting line that I rigged as a tail tree that is over 10 foot. It's still there.
> The one my Dad topped that I mentioned he said was about 30 inches where he topped it. He said they had to put extensions on all the guylines it was so high. Rarely he said they would go over 200 feet. He rigged a cedar on Johns River (South Grays Harbor) that was 6 foot where he topped it ( Pre power saw days) only about a 100 feet high.



Amazing info Humptulips. I was through Neilton on 101 back in February of this year, and seriously felt I was driving in the redwoods. 200 feet must be common up there, and I saw a few that seemed 300 feet jutting out of the canopy, maybe they were really 250 or 275 - but they were huge. 10 feet diameter, I believe it. 
Dr. Al Carder, big tree author mentions a fir tree recounted by Dr. Richard McArdle (former USFS chief) which was 214 ft spar tree that was topped near Toledo, Oregon, 34 inches at the cut, and the top was 125 feet-- making the tree about 339 ft. (Forest Giants of the World, Past and Present, 1995 pg 1 - 10)... so I imagine your father's tree was easily 300 feet, if it was 30 inches at 240' -- HUGE tree.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 25, 2012)

I was reading the old 1921 news account (from the first page of this thread) and it mentions again, trees being "topped' at 250 feet. I think this is strong anecdotal evidence trees were getting 300 - 350+ feet tall in the lowlands, if they were getting topped 250 - 275 ft up, back in 1921.


----------



## Humptulips (Jul 25, 2012)

Dead serious, any accounts of trees getting routinely topped at 250'+ is BS.


----------



## DavdH (Jul 25, 2012)

Maybe so but up Rockport Creek I've had forties the same diameter on both ends and 4 40" to the first limb. The big trees made it thru several owners with selective cutting by a far seeing forester who just recently died.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 25, 2012)

Humptulips said:


> Dead serious, any accounts of trees getting routinely topped at 250'+ is BS.





Humptulips said:


> Dead serious, any accounts of trees getting routinely topped at 250'+ is BS.




Well, I suppose we'll never know for sure unless we have a time machine.:hmm3grin2orange: But since your father topped one at 240 feet (ten feet shy of 250) -- that speaks volumes enough-- rare as it was.
The press story from 1921 also mentioned a "400 foot fir" alongside the 250 & 275 ft topped trees, so unless the woodsmen were hallucinating, or the press was exaggerating a bit, I tend to put at least a decent portion of credibility behind the claim. There appear to be too many old accounts of trees over 300 feet for them to all have been B.S.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 25, 2012)

DavdH said:


> Maybe so but up Rockport Creek I've had forties the same diameter on both ends and 4 40" to the first limb. The big trees made it thru several owners with selective cutting by a far seeing forester who just recently died.




Oh wow. 160' to first branch? big timber. There is a record from 1910 near Illabot Creek, 5 miles east of Rockport, Washington (Skagit County) from old timer Henry Martin who measured a fallen fir on his property which was 325 feet long and about 10 ft diameter at the end. 

How tall do u figure your big tree was?


----------



## DavdH (Jul 26, 2012)

This was not one tree but a canyon full. Stove pipes in the lower canyon not so much on top. The broken up ground down here looks flat from above but the timber makes it looks that way.


----------



## slowp (Jul 26, 2012)

Perhaps, just like it is today, newspaper reporters were not well aquainted with the subject of logging and forestry. Perhaps, as some are known to do, the loggers were stretching the truth. That may be the reason for the reporting of the really really high stump?


----------



## Dave Hadden (Jul 26, 2012)

Above the canopy..........today anyway.

Don't know where.


Take care.


http://ca.f1212.mail.yahoo.com/ya/d...id=22&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=YahooMailNeoCL


----------



## Gologit (Jul 26, 2012)

slowp said:


> Perhaps, just like it is today, newspaper reporters were not well aquainted with the subject of logging and forestry. Perhaps, as some are known to do, the loggers were stretching the truth. That may be the reason for the reporting of the really really high stump?



Loggers stretch the truth? Naaahhh...that never happens. 


























Well, not too often anyway. :msp_wink:


----------



## redprospector (Jul 26, 2012)

Gologit said:


> Loggers stretch the truth? Naaahhh...that never happens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Stretch the truth? You're probably right. But loggers might be guilty of telling a big fat lie just to see if you'll swallow it. 

Andy


----------



## slowp (Jul 26, 2012)

Our fire crew fed a reporter quite a lot of BS. Next day, it all was on the front page!


----------



## DavdH (Jul 26, 2012)

It's amazing how they shrink at the landing. Some times it takes several 5' trees to make a load and the bunks are less than 90" wide. The skidders and rigging crew are good but the fallers, now, they may stretch the truth a little.


----------



## Gologit (Jul 26, 2012)

DavdH said:


> It's amazing how they shrink at the landing. Some times it takes several 5' trees to make a load and the bunks are less than 90" wide. The skidders and rigging crew are good but the fallers, now, they may stretch the truth a little.



:hmm3grin2orange: The fallers might stretch the truth, the side rod might agree, the owner might back them both up, and the landing crew is never wrong... but the mill scaler always has the last word. Always. And it's usually not good news.

I've seen perfectly good timber turn to just absolute junk on a two hour trip to the mill. Never have figured out how that happens.


----------



## rwoods (Jul 26, 2012)

paccity said:


>



I didn't realize the DOT cut trees. Three workers and 30+ men standing around watching with at least one woman. Must have been quite a sight even in that day. Ron


----------



## hammerlogging (Jul 26, 2012)

DavdH said:


> It's amazing how they shrink at the landing. Some times it takes several 5' trees to make a load and the bunks are less than 90" wide. The skidders and rigging crew are good but the fallers, now, they may stretch the truth a little.



This is interesting, because, contrary to trees, I've known rattlesnakes to actually grow after they've been axed, and by the time the mill scaler hears of it, sometimes there's some real footage to be considered here.

Now if only we could, hmmm, is there a psychologist here?


----------



## madhatte (Jul 26, 2012)

Gologit said:


> I've seen perfectly good timber turn to just absolute junk on a two hour trip to the mill. Never have figured out how that happens.



Don't look at me. I just mark 'em.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 27, 2012)

slowp said:


> Perhaps, just like it is today, newspaper reporters were not well aquainted with the subject of logging and forestry. Perhaps, as some are known to do, the loggers were stretching the truth. That may be the reason for the reporting of the really really high stump?



That is possible. I do think E. W. Davidson of the Foreign Press Service in 1921, seemed to know about what he was writing about, and in great detail. If there were sufficient numbers of 300 foot fir trees+ some would have been topped at 250 feet or more.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 27, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> Great link to the OZ website.
> This old photo from Nov 1890 at Thorpdale, Australia shows a bunch of incredibly tall Eucalyptus -- they don't even fit in the frame.
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mruhsam/LLOYDHOMESTEAD.jpg
> 
> If those are cabins and fern trees in the background, those Eucalyptus must be about 300 feet high or higher.



I ran this old photo and counted the pixles. if those cabins are 8 to 10 ft tall, and the tree ferns about 20 - 40 feet... Those huge skeletal, "wraithlike" Ash trees have got to be from 250 - 350 feet. Apparently the above website says these ones were up to 360 feet tall, and one was measured at 375' by George Cornthwaite in 1881 with Theodilite and again after it was felled-- the agreement was within 5 feet of standing and prostrate measure.

I don't know why, but I find those trees in the 1890 photo disturbing-- actually scary to look at.


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 27, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> Great link to the OZ website.
> This old photo from Nov 1890 at Thorpdale, Australia shows a bunch of incredibly tall Eucalyptus -- they don't even fit in the frame.
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mruhsam/LLOYDHOMESTEAD.jpg
> 
> If those are cabins and fern trees in the background, those Eucalyptus must be about 300 feet high or higher.



They do look tall and I think they are on a hill. One of those perspective things.


----------



## paccity (Jul 27, 2012)

why the rash?


----------



## slowp (Jul 27, 2012)

paccity said:


> why the rash?



I was wondering also. It seems to have happened overnight.


----------



## Gologit (Jul 27, 2012)

paccity said:


> why the rash?



Dunno. He seems harmless enough...so far anyway. I'll change the red to a more pleasing color.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 27, 2012)

Old time Swede from Oregon , Axel Hallgren, a high climber, topped big 300 foot firs at 240 feet, although most high lead trees were cut at at from 160 to 200 feet, but apparently climbers topped them at as high as 280 feet according to this article.

The High Climber

Axel in action.







Axel topping a fir at 200 ft






There are also a few other references to fir trees getting topped at 250, 256, one story printed 285 ft where a fir was topped. (Ironwood Times, Mar 9, 1923 pg 1.) So some of them must have been well over 300 ft. The Clatsop fir from Oregon was 200 ft 6 inches to a wind blown top 4 feet diameter. May have been over 300 ft at one time -- it was 16 feet thick at DBH. Seaside Museum | World's Largest Douglas Fir Tree | Clatsop County, Seaside, Oregon, USA


----------



## paccity (Jul 28, 2012)




----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 28, 2012)

paccity said:


>



Thanks for sharing these pics. That's a big chunk of wood. where is this cross section located?


----------



## northmanlogging (Jul 29, 2012)

Topping above 200' sounds highly unusual for many reasons first you would need at least 250' of cable to go up and back down at a 45 deg. just for one line not to mention yer haul back, being that unless you had a mammoth yarder most of the antiques I have seen might hold 1000' of 7/8". 700' or so of the big 1 1/4" line so you would be giving up a quarter to a third or you're line just to air... not to mention guy lines 200" or better times 12 ( a spar that tall would absolutely need to have dual guy lines) yer talking a rigging night mare. Not to mention that going that high is just kinda pointless in most units. Now keep in mind I wasn't there, but I do use a spar tree and budgeting cable is a major concern for me.


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 29, 2012)

I was told that the top 50 feet was missing.


----------



## 2dogs (Jul 29, 2012)

While we're at it what are the biggest trees you guys have ever cut? I took down a redwood staub that was 9 1/2' in diameter at the cut and about 60' tall. It was pretty burned out but I still cut for a several hours. It was very hard to tip because the weight was so low. Also the stump was rotten so the wedges just crushed the wood downward rather than lift the staub. I had to move the wedges looking for solid wood. I have felled quite a few 6' DBH trees but nowadays those are few and far between.

The tallest I ever measured was 209' though I have felled quite a few in that height range. IIRC it was about 5' DBH.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 30, 2012)

northmanlogging said:


> Topping above 200' sounds highly unusual for many reasons first you would need at least 250' of cable to go up and back down at a 45 deg. just for one line not to mention yer haul back, being that unless you had a mammoth yarder most of the antiques I have seen might hold 1000' of 7/8". 700' or so of the big 1 1/4" line so you would be giving up a quarter to a third or you're line just to air... not to mention guy lines 200" or better times 12 ( a spar that tall would absolutely need to have dual guy lines) yer talking a rigging night mare. Not to mention that going that high is just kinda pointless in most units. Now keep in mind I wasn't there, but I do use a spar tree and budgeting cable is a major concern for me.



Yeah, I think high rig logging was still kind of new in 1921 the article Schnenectady Gazette Feb 2, 1921 written by E.W. Davidson mentions this: _*"...These are at the foot of the spar tree, whose top has been chopped off at 250 feet by a skilled axman on climbing spurs and a life belt. An inch and a half steel cable from the drum of the yarding engine runs up over the sheave at the top of the tree, slanting out across the logging area 1,000 yards or even more. This is the "high lead" system of dragging in logs."*_

1,000 yards seems like an awful lot. Of course, 250 feet is a huge height for spar tree also. There are photos of spar trees being topped at 200 - 275 feet, so apparently it did happen. I'm just not sure how common it was.


----------



## RandyMac (Jul 30, 2012)

A Redwood, 11'9", went 275'. My tall one was 290', was just under 8' in diameter. What I felled mostly over years for Old Growth was maybe 48", I did a bunch in the 30" to 42" range, anything much over 60", was infrequent.


----------



## Humptulips (Jul 30, 2012)

northmanlogging said:


> Topping above 200' sounds highly unusual for many reasons first you would need at least 250' of cable to go up and back down at a 45 deg. just for one line not to mention yer haul back, being that unless you had a mammoth yarder most of the antiques I have seen might hold 1000' of 7/8". 700' or so of the big 1 1/4" line so you would be giving up a quarter to a third or you're line just to air... not to mention guy lines 200" or better times 12 ( a spar that tall would absolutely need to have dual guy lines) yer talking a rigging night mare. Not to mention that going that high is just kinda pointless in most units. Now keep in mind I wasn't there, but I do use a spar tree and budgeting cable is a major concern for me.



I did catch the tail end of spar trees so I have seen a few yarders. It would be a damn small yarder to hold the length of line you speak. High lead machines that were of the size that held 1 3/8" mainline ( a pretty common size) would typically have 1800' of mainline and 3600' to 4000' feet of haulback. 1 1/4" mainline size yarders would have more like 1400' of mainline and 3200' of haulback. There were some really small donkeys built but not to commonly were they used except for loading donkeys. Tall trees, big timber= big donkeys not little ones.
That being said you are right about trees being topped and rigged over 200'. It didn't happen a lot. You had guylines made up that were the right length for 150' to 200' spars. Start adding another 50 feet and nothing fits. Your guylines are going to come up short.


----------



## Humptulips (Jul 30, 2012)

2dogs said:


> While we're at it what are the biggest trees you guys have ever cut?



Not a lot of falling experience here. I was a riggin man most of my working days but I did fall an 8 foot cedar that I had used as a tail tree. We had to pull it anyway to keep it in the unit. Pulled it with the lines in it. Fell a 6 foot hemlock for a guyline stump once too. That was a nice tree, sound as a nut. Most impressive to me was an old growth fir maybe 4 1/2' I fell off the back end of a downhill slack line show on Stove Pipe pass on the Humptulips. Very steep and It went staight down the hill. It did a complete 360 before any of it touched ground. Never broke but it sure slid a long way.


----------



## paccity (Jul 30, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> Thanks for sharing these pics. That's a big chunk of wood. where is this cross section located?



that is at our museum at powerland in brooks or. you can come see it next weekend and see the show.


----------



## Sport Faller (Jul 30, 2012)

rwoods said:


> I didn't realize the DOT cut trees. Three workers and 30+ men standing around watching with at least one woman. Must have been quite a sight even in that day. Ron



Haha, looks like a union job to me, except I don't see anybody leaning on any shovels


----------



## JasperSparthing (Jul 30, 2012)

paccity said:


> that is at our museum at powerland in brooks or. you can come see it next weekend and see the show.




Oh ok thanks. I have probably seen it then, I've been to the tractor show south of Woodburn probably ten times or more. I was going to go this year but my schedule is filled unfortunately.

10 feet that must have been a mighty tree. not many scale ten feet diameter these days, and was even exceptional in the old days of logging. Most of the tall 300 - 330 foot Doug fir they are finding in Oregon these days are the medium old growth, 200 - 500 year class, and only 4 to 8 feet thick at breast height, probably 90% of the growth is in the first 200-400 yrs of the tree's life.


----------



## madhatte (Jul 30, 2012)

JasperSparthing said:


> probably 90% of the growth is in the first 200-400 yrs of the tree's life.



That's how trees roll. Once the stand is more-or-less mature, there's not a lot of competition to grow taller.


----------



## northmanlogging (Aug 4, 2012)

the biggest tree I've fell is a spruce in Lake Stevens WA (no not in the lake) thiink it was 5' at the stump 175-200' tall, the owners Pa had it topped some time in the 60's, this was probably 3-4 years ago, we high stumped it so the owner could have a bear or some nonsense carved out of the stump...last I knew its still there and still a tall stump


----------



## HorseFaller (Aug 4, 2012)

Not one I fell but saw this one driving around with my boys. 

View attachment 247347
View attachment 247348
View attachment 247349
View attachment 247350


And an old stump

View attachment 247351


----------



## northmanlogging (Aug 4, 2012)

I just wish I knew how to use a spring board then... as it was the flip line wasn't long enough and I had to stand on the back fender of a truck and reach to cut it off where he wanted it... kinda spooky when your'e cutting by brail with no where to run...


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Aug 14, 2012)

madhatte said:


> Too easy! I'm pretty sure the bare-earth vs top-level DEM data already exist; while the analysis is processor-heavy, it's not difficult. I'm guessing that somebody has already done this and just hasn't reported it to the general populace. I could make a few calls, but, really, I don't want to know. I'd rather folks go out and hike and measure the old-fashioned way. It's more fun like that.



Atkins or Taylor found some 300' + spruce in Nor Cal on foot without LiDAR.

Daisy, Raven's Tower and a some others.

The "old fashioned way" really is cool.

There are unlikely many 300' spruce left undiscovered. But there may be some giants remaining to find in CA, OR and WA, even B.C.

:msp_thumbup:


----------



## SliverPicker (Aug 26, 2012)

In college I measured a Sitka Spruce that was 47" DBH and was 255' tall. The tree was known to be exactly (to the year) 100 years old. Pretty impressive.


----------



## JasperSparthing (Oct 31, 2012)

This 102 year old timer from Victoria, B.C. remembers Douglas fir 350 feet tall in lower B.C. around Surrey back in the 1910's and 20's.

Dr. Al C. Carder, a plant biologist has written two books on historical giant trees of the world. He says his father and he measured a 341 foot long fir near Cloverdale in 1917, it was 10 feet thick, but still not as tall as the record fir tree from that district which topped 358 feet.

NCC: Donor Spotlight - Al Carder

Carder also writes about a 410 or 415 foot tree in Lynn Valley which he saw a photo of in 1920's in the old Vancouver Museum on Hastings street. Interesting recollections to say the least.


----------

