Big butternut and box-elder, Ashville, NC
Will Blozan Images 3		    Will Blozan
   Oct 19, 2003 17:37 PDT 
box_elder1.jpg (135130 bytes)

Box-elder: 15'5" x 55.5' x 90'

butternut_trunk.jpg (171555 bytes)

Butternut: 15'10" x 55.5' x 87'

box_elder2r.jpg (124065 bytes)

Box-elder: 15'5" x 55.5' x 90'

October 19, 2003  I have posted some shots of a huge butternut and box-elder I measured this weekend at the attached link. I think both may be NC State Champions. Both are doubles but have high fusion and are likely more "legitimate" than the current champion trees. I hate to sound so negative but if a multi-stemmed clump of (any tree) measured at ground level and called one tree can make it on the list, I'll nominate awesome trees such as these any day!

Big Tree Points:
                                
Butternut: 15'10" x 55.5' x 87'= 268pts 
[Current NC Champ 295pts (Height is likely 30-40' off)]

Box-elder: 15'5" x 55.5' x 90'= 264pts 
[Current NC Champ 254pts]

BTW, The cute model in the photos is my daugther, Cora ;)

Re: Big butternut and box-elder    Colby Rucker
   Oct 19, 2003 18:17 PDT 

Will,

Nice daughter, nice photo, nice trees.

I share your continuing concerns about bogus champions, but realistically, I
think trunks like the butternut and boxelder will always be accepted. Both
pass the slice test, and aren't obvious coppices. The one adjustment that
we can call for is using the Rule of 73 for low-waisted trees. If the 15'
10" butternut was measured at 24" up, we should multiply 190 inches by 85
percent (73 + 12) and convert to a calculated cbh of 161.5, or 13' 5.5".

It will take time to get such changes at the state level, but we're making
progress at American Forests.

Colby
Re: Big butternut and box-elder   Will Fell
  Oct 19, 2003 19:08 PDT 

Will;

Again some great shots of some great trees and thanks for posting.

I am glad that Colby commented on the measurements as he was much more
precise than me.

I see your reference to the trees being "twins". As Colby stated, the
generally accepted scoring procedure set by the AFA and adopted by the
states, is if it forks above 4.5 feet then accept the measurement at the
narrowest point below. Short of taking some sort of DNA (or whatever trees
have) test, common sense would have me at least to believe that these were
one tree. As such I believe the measurements as given are valid. I think
where the problem is, is in stems that are obviously separated (the Lovers
Oak being an extreme example). I have visited the Lovers Oak and it is in no
way even close to Championship size. I hesitate to offer the same indictment
on the Seven Sisters Oak, as all I have seen is photos, but it appears to
have similar characteristics. Even as such I still believe they (Lovers Oak)
were a single oak, probably damaged at ground level or coppiced as Colby
states.
RE: Big butternut and box-elder   Will Blozan
  Oct 20, 2003 15:56 PDT 

I believe both the butternut and boxelder are the same tree, just fusions of
two stems (twins). The resulting massive trunks are the result of two
separate (but genetically identical) photosynthetic efforts, not a single
"stem". I know, I am a purist, but would still nominate them to a champ tree
list solely for their "awesome-nicity".

Will