Giant Sequoia

[Kidbee]

Not sure if this has been posted before on the forum, as the attached photo dates back to 2012.

This is what was said about the log: "This Sequoia log is 13' in diameter and over 2600 years old. That means that it predates the existence of the United States, the Dark Ages, the birth of Christ, and the Roman Empire. Now that's impressive".

[ian]

here's another big one
http://jaredfarmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Wawona-Tree.jpg

[Bushmiller]

The tree's fairly large too.

My second thought was, "Ahh super feet." Did that tree fall over?

Regards
Paul

[ian]

My second thought was, "Ahh super feet." Did that tree fall over?
Like your second thought Paul, mine was that they need a bigger chainsaw

[Bushmiller]

Ian

I think this is the tree they hollowed out. They paid a couple of blokes $75 to do it. However, I think this tree might have come down now under a particularly heavy weight of snow. It may have also been renamed.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

woodPixel

I understand the sentiment and we are all too frequently very casual in this regard. my understanding is that the tree already had a very large hollow buttress which was trimmed up so a vehicle could pass easily through. However trimming in this instance was a fairly daunting task, particularly because it was before the chainsaw era.

There are several trees that can be driven through:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_058751.pdf

However as you can see from the statement on the tunnel through a fallen tree below, times are changing: A little: Maybe not enough to quell your concerns:

The tunnel, which remains in use today, is 17 feet wide and 8 feet high (5.2 meters by 2.4 meters). There is a bypass for taller vehicles. "Why not cut a new tunnel tree?" many visitors suggest, when they discover that the Wawona Tree can no longer be driven through. Times change, however, and actions proper for one generation may not fit the needs and goals of a succeeding generation.
Our expectations of national parks have changed immensely during the past half century. When our national parks were young, cutting tunnels through sequoia trees was a way to popularize the parks and gain support for their protection. In those early days, national parks usually were managed to protect individual features rather than to protect the integrity of the complete environment. Today, we realize that our national parks represent some of the last primeval landscapes in America, and our goal in the parks is to allow nature to run its course with as little interference from humans as possible. Tunnel trees had their time and place in the early history of our national parks. But today sequoias which are standing healthy and whole are worth far more.

These might be some links to interest you. Big is beautiful:

Australia's Largest Trees : Big Tree : Giant Trees : Australia's Biggest Trees : National Register of Big Trees (http://www.nationalregisterofbigtrees.com.au/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superlative_trees

America has the tallest tree and the also the biggest by volume. Australia has the tallest hardwood (Mountain Ash). Of course who knows what lurks in what remains of the Amazon jungle.

Ooops! Perhaps I should not have mentioned that :- . I was chugging along quite well until that point :rolleyes: .

Regards
paul

[artme]

This is an interesting thread and the thoughts expressed by others with regard to our guardianship of the home
on which we live align pretty much with my own thoughts.

hen It comes to big tress i am simply glad to have seen some of the surviving giant sequoias, the trees in the Styx Valley,
the few remaining Big Kauris in Nz, the karri , jarrah and tingles in Wa and, as a kid, massive logs being milled on the Nambucca.
I am sad that none of this will ever be seen by future generations.

I look at the housing developments around Brisbane in particular and see the displaced plovers and possums, the goannas and
the other fauna. Do we really need to remove so much??

[Bushmiller]

I think there is a distinction between the resources that are relatively renewable and those that realistically are not.

We cannot realistically renew our resources of coal and oil. We can, if we chose renew our metals by recycling.

We can certainly renew our forests. The problem is that we are not doing this and have not done so in the past. Without wanting to digress from Kidbee's OP, which I liked by the way, I cannot help but comment on the doubled edged sword contributing, in my mind anyway, to climate change.

It is bad enough that we burn the fossil fuels at such a rate, but what would make anybody think that we can remove the main consumer of carbon dioxide, namely the trees, as well? I don't really have a problem with clearing land and this is a very contentious issue in Queensland currently, but make any land clearing conditional on replanting a larger area with new trees and leaving corridors of forest.

Apologies Kidbee, I probably should not have started this, but some things just have to be said.

Regards
Paul