Biggest & Tallest Doug fir and Sitka Spruce & redwoods

[JasperSparthing]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[2dogs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.




Not amazing, really. From that very webpage:



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

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.