Biggest & Tallest Doug fir and Sitka Spruce & redwoods

[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.

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]

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]

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]

90-95% accurate with the big trees

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

 

[Humptulips]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DavdH]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


























Well, not too often anyway. :msp_wink:

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]

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

 

[DavdH]

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]

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]

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