Biggest & Tallest Doug fir and Sitka Spruce & redwoods

[hammerlogging]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

why the rash?

 

[slowp]

why the rash?

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

 

[Gologit]

why the rash?

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

 

[JasperSparthing]

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]

 

[JasperSparthing]

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

 

[northmanlogging]

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]

I was told that the top 50 feet was missing.

 

[2dogs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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