# Oregon and Washington at war



## smokechase II (Sep 12, 2006)

This first site has some interesting info about the war:
http://www.odf.state.or.us/DIVISION...ce_planning/Big_Tree/firwars.asp?id=401010205

Stats on the Doug Fir that has ruled the NW since well before 1991 when it was first recognized.
Diameter; 11.5 feet
Height; 329 feet.

A California tree that deserves great respect.
Diameter; 13.6 feet
Height; 301 feet

The Washington tree that was falsely acclaimed as the champ.
Diameter 13.4 feet
Height 281 feet

So I'm wondering, Clearance. How big are the pecker poles in BC?
Are the rumors of that 425 foot fir based in any fact?


----------



## clearance (Sep 12, 2006)

That will be 417', and no it was a hoax. Seatle loggers formed a club and bragged that the biggest trees grew in Washington. A guy in B.C. doctored a picture that was allegedly a D. fir 417' by 25' through at the butt, people are sitting and standing on it, it fooled people for many years. This was back in 1895, the picture was in govt. books on forestry. I figure that the tallest trees must have been logged way back, D. firs have been measured over 300, this is true. There is second growth here over 150' I have seen myself, probably approching 200' somewhere on Vancouver Island.


----------



## rmihalek (Sep 13, 2006)

Those are the 18 foot diameter ones that Simonizer is cutting down, right?


----------



## smokechase II (Sep 13, 2006)

*18 foot*

I think there are some very big trees being cut down.

Well sort of.

In Northern Cal they're going back and cutting down the stumps pf some of the Coast Redwoods. They were originally spring boarded up 15 feet or so.

Redwood has a high resistance to rot, so now its time to cut those 12' diameter stumps down and get some use out of them.

Then again, what's the largest tree Clearance has seen cut in the last few years up in BC?


----------



## Sprig (Sep 14, 2006)

There are still quite a few spots in BC where they are logging '1st' growth, but its getting spotty as there is major hue&cry to keep what is left protected. Some of these trees hit the 'giant' catagory, 4-8ft diameters and sometimes more (and ive no doubt approaching 300ft heights), but like I said, it is getting few-and-far between. Much of what was planted in the 40's and 50's (before the fir 'super trees' which imho are garbage wood compared to naturally seeded ones of similar age because they grow so fast that the fibre structure is not near as sound (the much larger spacing in the growth rings) is being logged now, many are 2-3+ft in diameter, 150ft tall is about average. Considering the age that these trees can grow to these are really juveniles and haven't even got their stride yet, but the lumber is nice still. On the 'super trees'; because of their rapid growth they lack a bit in structural intergrity comapered to their natural bretherin. Having had my hand in milling millions of bf of these I can honestly attest to this, some of it feels more like balsam fir or pine than dougy firs. The structural strength in my opinion is far inferior as the density is far less, closer to spruce maybe (tho spruce is an exteremly flexable and strong wood for its weight) with a much lower ring count. On my last property, just to comment on the speed these things put on, the planting was 35-40 years ago, the trees average 2ft butt height and well over 100ft high and they are actually third growth. This area was once a 'tree farm' but is now designated a secondary water-shed reserve under a covenant, so they will not be logged in my lifetime, which is great since I transplanted a chantrell patch up there 10 years ago which has taken off (another story alltogether), and I loves mushroom chowder (if anyone wants the recipe feel free ta ask lol). Enough blather fer now, I seem to have side-tracked myself lol. 

:greenchainsaw:


----------



## ranchjn (Sep 18, 2006)

RandyMac said:


> Here's a local story of recent discoveries in the redwoods.
> 
> http://www.triplicate.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=2163
> 
> ...



I chatted with the Stephen C. Sillett mentioned in that article above about reiterations in these older trees. Its pretty amazing to find douglas firs and huckleberry bushes growing 200+ feet up in a redwood tree!


----------



## Doctor Dave (Sep 18, 2006)

clearance said:


> That will be 417', and no it was a hoax. Seatle loggers formed a club and bragged that the biggest trees grew in Washington. A guy in B.C. doctored a picture that was allegedly a D. fir 417' by 25' through at the butt, people are sitting and standing on it, it fooled people for many years. This was back in 1895, the picture was in govt. books on forestry. I figure that the tallest trees must have been logged way back, D. firs have been measured over 300, this is true. There is second growth here over 150' I have seen myself, probably approching 200' somewhere on Vancouver Island.




My 2 cents:

The Mineral Tree, fell 1930, (Mineral, WA)

393 ft. tall, 15.4 ft. diameter
Largest volume of any known tree, any species--this tree was 6 ft. in diameter at 230 ft.
The tree fell when it was 225 ft. tall; the section on the ground, that had broken off earlier, added up to the total height. Part of the reason it fell was that it was a popular picnic spot, and people built fires against the trunk 

Current champion:

Red Creek Fir, 242 ft. tall, 13.9 ft. diameter , (SW British Columbia)
11,710 cubic ft.

Fattest:

Queets Fir, 15.9 ft. diameter, WA (Olympic National Park)

There is that story of the forester who went up to the valley east of Vancouver, BC and put a metal tape on a fir that had just been felled, measuring 415 ft. (Around 1910)


Good book to check out:

Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast,
by Bob Van Pelt; University of Washington Press


----------



## ranchjn (Sep 18, 2006)

There i am standing next to the largest living thing on this planet


----------



## Doctor Dave (Sep 18, 2006)

My mistake--the Mineral tree (Doug fir)was the largest by volume _except_ the Sequoias and coast redwoods


----------



## Canyon Angler (Sep 27, 2006)

ranchjn said:


> There i am standing next to the largest living thing on this planet



HOLY COW!!  What's the diameter and height on THAT thing?


----------



## windthrown (Oct 10, 2006)

*Tall tree factoids*

The tallest tree now on the globe is in Redwood National Park in California. It is a coast redwood that stands 379+' tall. It was recently (this summer!) named the Hyperion tree. That tree was only recently discovered/measured and beat the Stratosphere Tree (371') in Humbolt. Actually, measuring teams this summer found several coast redwood trees taller than the Stratosphere Tree, but do not want to list any of their locations fearing that they will be trampled by the public wanting to gawk at them. So there may be an even taller Redwood out there.  

The second tallest tree type is the Doug fir. The tallest Doug fir now living is not far from where I live here in Oregon, called the Bremmet fir, 328' tall. The largest living tree (in volume) is the giant sequoia, The General Sherman tree, also in California. Is has a volume of 52,510 cubic feet. 

FYI: In 2004, _Nature_ published that the theoretical maximum height that any tree can grow is 425' due to the combination of tree cell size, capillary action, friction and gravity. Physics just gets in the way of trees being any taller than that. Hence, the tallest tree reliably recorded was a Doug fir in BC's Lynn Valley, measured in the late 1800's at 414 feet. BC also has the oldest known living Doug fir tree, which is between 1300 and 1400 years old. 

Oregon and Washington at war? Can't we all just get along??? (Jack Nicholson, asking the Mars aliens just before they blast him away in the movie, _Mars Attacks!_). 

BTW: I am planting coast redwoods here as they are found in many fossil records in Oregon. I gatered several cuttings from some huge giants in California (had them tested for SOD). They do well in boggy areas where Doug and grand firs tend to croak here. They also do not need replanting when they are felled. They resprout on thir own. We also planted several hundred giant sequoias here this winter. They are all of 2-3 feet tall this year. But some day... they may be giants!


----------



## JasperSparthing (May 18, 2008)

*Tallets fir trees*

The giant Douglas fir was not a myth.

According to respected BC historian Walter Draycott, in his "Early days of Lynn Valley" Alfred Jack Nye, a veteran of the Boer War was granted 160 acres in Dec. 1902 Lynn valley, BC through the South African War land grant Act of 1901.

Draycott, who had direct correspondence with Nye says it was that same year, 1902, while clearing his land, Nye reports that the "Tremblay Brothers" felled the biggest fir in the district, on his land at what was later called Argyle street, just off of Mountain Highway. The fir was 14 feet 3 inches in diameter when cut at the stump, 5 feet above the ground. The length of the felled tree, which appeared to be *still growing*, was 410 feet along the ground, and including stump, 415 feet of total tree height.

Draycott recalls other monster firs, as big as 11 and 13 feet in diameter, and over 350 feet high; atleast one he participated in cutting. 

Other Douglas fir trees of about 400 feet were reported in the region, according to Dr. Al Carder in his latest book from 2005.


----------



## slowp (May 18, 2008)

Can't remember the diameter, but I cruised a blowdown that had not busted up and had 6 32' logs in it. I couldn't go watch, and I don't think they wanted people around, but a contract cutter cut a 90 inch DF in a campground on Friday. Our cutters did not want to cut it as it had a long split going up from the butt for some distance. I'll have to venture up to the "Big Tree" area and see if those still don't look so big. 

A friend asked me to come out and look over some of their property and see if a processor could work on it. They'd planted it 20 years ago. Some of those trees were already 12" in diameter but not too tall--might get a 32 out of them. The funny thing was, a lot of them were almost girdled by elk and or bear damage but the diameter growth didn't seem to be affected, nor the crowns. After I went through it, she got a forester to walk through it and he recommended cutting it all and starting all over, as the damaged trees were going to blow down due to the rot in them. I wonder how you keep the elk out in an economical way, oh, legal too.


----------



## windthrown (May 18, 2008)

Elk? The scurge of this property. We had another herd of about 20 through here this winter. I drove them off with the dogs. They walk through wire fences like they are made of butter. A real problem here, with the deer. Too many of them. They tend to pull the baby planted trees out by the roots and then just spit them out. Or gurdle the trees, like the goats do if they get out. 

OR at least will do larger scale emergency hunting if the herds get too large and/or the damage too severe. We can hunt 2 of anything that needs a tag a year here, and another 2 'emergency' kills if needed. We have cougar, bear, elk, and 3 type of deer here (mule, white and black tail). And so many turkeys this year it is rediculous. One of our peacocks decided he was a turkey last year and left with a group of toms. I saw him a few months later passing through with about 3 of his tom buddies. 

Anyway, back to big trees...


----------



## smokechase II (May 18, 2008)

*How big*

I read somewhere that it had been calculated that 4__ feet was felt to be the maximum height a tree could reach. This was based just on the strength needed to support the continuing growth above that was need to support the continuing growth above .......

Doug fir is certainly strong.
Also it has a flexible but strong characteristic that made it an idea mast.

Even in a usually wind sheltered setting a tall tree that stands well above its peers is likely to fail to wind gust timing.

The 410 must have had something going for it to protect it from a more powerful force in nature than wood, the wind.

************************

Looking at the Giant Sequoias, they are huge stumps. There wasn't enough nutrients and water to support a dense enough stand and there all the tops were broken off. *All the big ones.*
They would be the tallest, probably, if they could have made each other stronger from the wind.


----------



## PB (May 18, 2008)

Here is an article that was published in Nature.


----------



## JasperSparthing (May 18, 2008)

PlantBiologist said:


> Here is an article that was published in Nature.



Very informative article. thanks for the find. Looks like 430 is the projected max tree height.

Wind protection has got to be the likely ingredient for such a ridiculous height to grow. Looking on Google maps, it appears Lynn Valley at 150 m above sea level, is situated at the converge of several mountains, in the 1000 m range. Draycott, the historian, recalls the average firs in the valley were 3-6 ft diam, 150 to 250 feet tall, the occasional stand of ultra giant firs was apparently noteworthy and caught the attention of loggers.

Ive seen the photos of some of these trees which were felled in Lynn valley. One, just up the hill from Argyle, at Wellington road, felled in 1911, was 13 feet in diameter, height not recorded. It looked to be in the 1000 year range.

300 foot tall firs were evidently quite numerous enough to go unrecorded.


----------



## Backwoods (May 18, 2008)

This thing is smack dab in the middle of what I call my backyard. I have hunted that area for years, everyone knew about the tree and just assumed that it was on the books. Finally a forester was checking for more info on it when he discovered that it had never been placed in the record books.
We have at least a dozen trees thru out the county that are in one record book or another, our county being bigger then 3 of the states on the east coast.


----------

