Biggest & Tallest Doug fir and Sitka Spruce & redwoods

[paccity]

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]

 

[cnpser]

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

View attachment 246017

 

[paccity]

 

[cnpser]

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

 

[RandyMac]

got this from Norm.

 

[JasperSparthing]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wow, Those are some tall tress there!

 

[Alex D]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.