Old
White Pine  Schroon Lake, NY 
Howard
Stoner 
May
31, 2006 07:53 PDT 
Bob,
...
Regarding the "Kudish" tree referred to by Will,
number 110 on my list,
maybe we have just named this tree, sounds good! I have no
photos.
Michael Kudish characterized this tree with the word
"knee". From its
15.3 foot CBH it tampers none or very little up to aroung 25 30
ft. At
this point its circumference reduces quite dramatically, with
the reduction
occurring on just one side creating a bulge or knee. My theory
is that over
the 325350 years of its life the tree split into two trunks and
one of them
broke off. The scare from such an event has totally healed over
leaving
no visible evidence of such an event. Thus the volume will be
less than
what some of you may have been guessing.
Howard

RE:
Old White Pine  Schroon Lake, NY more 
Ron
Gonzalez 
May
31, 2006 22:13 PDT 
Re:
Old White Pine  Schroon Lake, NY more 
Don
Bertolette 
Jun
02, 2006 01:44 PDT 
Bob/Howard
I know I'm probably unpopular on this subject, but this tree is
the best
reason I can think of to not measure at the base, not measure at
breast
height, but to measure it representationally at about 6 or 8
foot up from
base...yes if you're looking at mass/volume, you'd want to get
that bottom
section, but on a page of numbers with no pictures, cbh
misrepresents
it...it's an anomaly. But a nice one...:>}
Don

Question
for Don Bertolette 
Robert
Leverett 
Jun
02, 2006 04:34 PDT 
Don,
No disagreement with you. When a tree's shape is odd and it is
clear
that a measurement at a conventional spot such as 4.5 feet above
base or
at base would be misleading, if unaccompanied by a photo, the
measurer
should include more information. Fortunately, with both an RD
1000 and a
Macroscope 25, I can measure diameter well above the heights to
which I
can reach. I've been trying to settle on a measurement protocal
that
will tell more about the form of the tree, but will not be too
burdensome in terms of time needed to take the measurements.
With the RD
1000, it is relatively simple to find the spot on the trunk that
is say
20 feet up and measure it. Accuracy with the RD 1000 is a
problem, so
once the spot is found, I could switch to the Macroscope. If you
were to
have to choose one height up on the trunk to take a second
diameter
measurement, what would you choose? Any thoughts? What about 25%
of the
full height of the tree? 33%? 50%? The rest of you, please feel
free to
weigh in on this one.
I've been taking a lot of measurements at 50%
of the full height of
the tree (white pines) and will share findings when I collect
more data.
An interesting pattern is emerging.
Bob

Re:
Question for Don Bertolette 
Don
Bertolette 
Jun
02, 2006 07:20 PDT 
Bob
When I view the tree, and this comment is for this tree, I see
an area where
a pronounced flare begins (I'm looking at the top of the picture
and
proceeding down the bole of the tree). If viewing this trees
'edges' as two
lines of an angle, there's a point where the lines begin a
pronounced
curve...that's the point (BC, begin curve) where diameter
measurements are
representative of the tree. Assuming that the remaining portion
(going down
to the base) is the result of injury, one could, by
"typical species shape"
project a more realistic mass/volume/cbh...I say project,
because if you
were doing a Rucker index of diameters/circumferences, including
bases such
as this trees in the calculation would be inappropriately
skewing the
results.
Before everybody jumps on me, I offer these comments, not as the
'truth',
but as a start of a discussion...:>}
DonB

RE:
Question for Don Bertolette 
Robert
Leverett 
Jun
02, 2006 08:04 PDT 
Don,
In the case of bulges, I would work to isolate their effects in
any
descriptions of the tree to others. I'm unsure of how I would
proceed if
I were intending to use the CBH/DBH in a calculation such as a
champion
tree formula.
Back to my question. If you could choose one
point to take a diameter
along the trunk, other than at 4.5 feet, where might that be?
For
conifers, my current preference is midway between the base and
the top.
The method used to compute the diameter at that point follows.
After determining total height, I calculate the midpoint and
then the
height above eye level where the midpint occurs. I then
calculate the
angle above eye level needed to intercept that vertical
distance. The
calculation is just the inverse tangent of (h/d) where h is
height of
midpoint above eye level and d is horizontal distance to the
trunk. Of
course, if the tree is leaning, a small angle error results, but
is
usually not significant. Using the clinometer to identify the
spot at
the calculated angle, I can then shoot the distance to that
point with
the laser rangefinder and get a reading with the Macroscope 25.
If L is
the distance to the midpoint from my eye and mm is the diameter
reading
in millimeters, the diameter D at the midpoint is:
D
= L(mm)/75.
As an alternative to locating the midpoint by
the above method, I can
scan up the trunk to the height with the RD 1000. I can take the
diameter measurment at that point with the RD 1000, but if the
distance
is great and/or the target is broad, using the RD 1000's
diameter leads
to significant errors.
Bob

Re:
Question for Don Bertolette 
Don
Bertolette 
Jun
04, 2006 01:12 PDT 
Bob
With no Zorzinian intention of "deconstructing", I
will respond in the body of your text below, IN SMALL ITALICIZED
CAPS...
 Original Message 
From: "Robert Leverett"
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 8:04 AM

Don,
In the case of bulges, I would work to
isolate their effects in any
descriptions of the tree to others. I'm unsure of how I
would proceed if
I were intending to use the CBH/DBH in a calculation
such as a champion
tree formula. 
I'D BE
CURIOUS HOW MANY CHAMPION CANDIDATES HAVE 'ANOMOLOUS BASES'...
I'D THINK A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER WOULD, AND THAT PROPER
MEASUREMENT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

Back
to my question. If you could choose one point to take a
diameter
along the trunk, other than at 4.5 feet, where might
that be? 
WHILE MY
EXPERIENCE IN MEASURING TREES INVOLVED A BROADER SPECTRUM OF
SIZES, 4.5 FOOT ABOVE BASE TOOK CARE OF A WHOLE BUNCH OF
TREES...THE FS THEN DIRECTED US TO MEASURE THE POINT WHERE THE
ANOMALY CEASED AND NORMAL FORM BEGAN, AND TO NOTE THE HEIGHT AND
REASON FOR NONTRADITIONAL DIAMETER HEIGHT MEASURE. FOR USFS TO
HAVE MEASURED DIAMETER OF TREE AT BASE, WOULD HAVE SUBJECTED US
TO CONSIDERABLE LIABILITY, AS EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD WOULD HAVE
ACCUSED US OF MISREPRESENTING TREE VOLUME (MILLS,
ENVIRONMENTALISTS, EVERYBODY BUT ENTS, AND ENTS WASN'T AROUND
MOST OF THE LAST CENTURY.

For
conifers, my current preference is midway between the
base and the top.
The method used to compute the diameter at that point
follows.

OF COURSE,
YOUR INTENT HERE IS TO CALCULATE VOLUME IN A FORMULAIC WAY.
FOREST MENSURATION LITERATURE IS REPLETE WITH PERMUTATIONS OF
FRUSTRUMS AND CONES AND SUCH...

After
determining total height, I calculate the midpoint and
then the
height above eye level where the midpint occurs. I then
calculate the
angle above eye level needed to intercept that vertical
distance. The
calculation is just the inverse tangent of (h/d) where h
is height of
midpoint above eye level and d is horizontal distance to
the trunk. Of
course, if the tree is leaning, a small angle error
results, but is
usually not significant. Using the clinometer to
identify the spot at
the calculated angle, I can then shoot the distance to
that point with
the laser rangefinder and get a reading with the
Macroscope 25. If L is
the distance to the midpoint from my eye and mm is the
diameter reading
in millimeters, the diameter D at the midpoint is:
D
= L(mm)/75.
As an alternative to locating
the midpoint by the above method, I can
scan up the trunk to the height with the RD 1000. I can
take the
diameter measurement at that point with the RD 1000, but
if the distance
is great and/or the target is broad, using the RD 1000's
diameter leads
to significant errors.

I'D SAY THAT
THE ABOVE SCENARIO SHOULD SERVE WELL FOR ESTIMATING VOLUME, AS
WELL AS REPRESENTING TREE "PRESENCE"...WHAT YOU'RE
DOING WITH EYE HEIGHT FOR CONVENIENCE IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO WHAT
FORESTERS DID FOR CONVENIENCE OF MEASURING DIAMETERS...CAN'T PUT
AN ACCURATE PERCENT ON IT, AND IT SURE DOES VARY WITH SPECIES,
BUT I'D BET THAT OVERALL, 90 PERCENT OF ALL TREES GET THEIR
BUTTRESSING OOUT OF THE WAY (BY THE WAY, MY SENSE OF THE EASTERN
TREES IS THAT SOME OF THEIR BIG BUTTS ARE DUE TO THE EROSION
THAT ONE WOULD EXPECT WITH THE TYPICAL EASTERN PRECIP REGIME) BY
CHEST HEIGHT ON THE AVERAGE FORESTER...
DON

Re:
Question for Don Bertolette 
Edward
Frank 
Jun
04, 2006 15:52 PDT 
Don,
Your observation that many of the champion trees have anomalous
girth measurements because of bulges etc. at the standard
measuring height is valid. One of the purposes of the champion
tree program is to interest people in trees in general. That
can't be done if the process of measurement is too complicated,
ie: based upon variable measurement positions using the judgment
of each individual measurer. 4.5 feet standardizes the process
so that all can participate. The anomalies goes with the
territory.
For volume estimates, clearly these trees with high buttresses
and bulges are not good points to measure if you are trying to
estimate tree volume. Other points are better but more
complicated to measure. I favor taking a cbh at 4.5 feet if not
for any other purpose that making sure our data set can be
compared to older sets of measurements, and can be compared to
measurements taken by others, even if the quality of these
measurements are questionable. For trees with anomalous girths
at 4.5 feet clearly more measurements should be taken at a
position that is more representative of the true girth of the
tree, and the height of that measurement and circumstances
should be noted. But I still think the 4.5 foot value should be
measured as a base reference.
Ed Frank

Re:
Question for Don Bertolette 
Don
Bertolette 
Jun
04, 2006 19:09 PDT 
Ed
Relative to "dbh/cbh", It shouldn't surprise you that
I have in the past, do currently, and most likely in the future
agree with you 100% in the context you provide! But stand back
for the wave of dissent that shall follow your
pronouncement...;>}
Don

RE:
Old White Pine  Schroon Lake, NY more 
ston@hvcc.edu 
Jun
05, 2006 17:21 PDT 
Ron,
I owe
you a huge apology. These photos are indeed the tree
at Paul Smiths Elders Grove referred to as the "Kudish"
tree
and #110 in my records. I revisited the tree over this past
weekend and could not find the tree I had pictured in my mind
anywhere. What I did find was the tree in your photo.
It is more of a bulge in the trunk up to between 1520 feet with
an indent on one side.
I remeasured
the cbh with tape and got 15.5 feet, I think this
is more than we have it in the data base. That would be a dbh of
just under 5 ft. I then measured the diameter just above the
bulge
(at approx. 20 feet up) using my new macroscope 25, my first
attempt at
such and got 4.0 feet(4.0mm x 75ft/75). The mist and humidity
kept
fogging up the lens, and the mosquitoes were about to carry me
away so I
gave up my intentions of modeling the tree for volume. Another
day will do.
Thanks for supplying these great photos. I also took some photos
and will post them if they reveal anything that yours don't.
Howard

RE:
Old White Pine  Schroon Lake, NY more 
Ron
Gonzalez 
Jun
05, 2006 19:12 PDT 
Howard,
I'm glad to find out that this fascinating tree has a bit of a
history w/ ENTS.
Are there any height estimates for that tree?
I know what you mean about the mosquitoes in there. They can be
fierce.
I was there over Memorial Day last year, and I think I was lucky
to get
out of there alive! But what a great place that is. Talk about
coarse
woody debris...
 Ron

RE:
Old White Pine  Schroon Lake, NY more 
ston@hvcc.edu 
Jun
06, 2006 08:12 PDT 
Ron,
The height
is 157.5 feet as of 42906.
This tree, along with many others in this grove, has a
"flag" top.
The height measurement was taken standing perhaps 2025 feet
from
the base of the tree and shooting straight up to the highest
point
of the flag.
This past
winter was a bad one for wind and those a lot of downed
trees, between the old 33.5 feet diameter moss covered trunks
and
the new debris it is nearly impossible to move around in there.
It has its own charm as an exemplary old growth forest. I love
going up there.
Howard

Re:
Old White Pine  Schroon Lake, NY more 
Howard
Stoner 
Sep
06, 2006 22:02 PDT 
Barry,
Yes it did and the report is as follows:
The large white pine has a circumference of 13.1 ft. and a
height of
approximately 2 ft.
It seems that some time after you were there, the grounds guy
thought
around 1985, the building
next to the propane tank, as seen in photo, burned down and the
heat
killed the white pine.
It was cut down a few years later for safety reasons and the
stump is
what I measured.
The center is decayed and has flowers growing in it while the
perimeter
is still together and
I was able to count some rings. A safe estimate is that the tree
was
over 300 yrs. No one there
now knows and they think that no one knew back then the real age
of the
tree.
I also counted rings on a hemlock they had taken down recently
and got
330 in a diameter
of 2.1 feet. There were lots of hemlock around with similar
diameter.
Found some nice WP with tallest 133.7 feet and 11.8 ft. cbh.
Thus the saga of the "oldest pine", "biggest
pine" comes to an end.
Howard

