RE: Cook Forest fat trees   Dale J. Luthringer
  May 06, 2004 18:11 PDT 

The missing CBH's on the hemlock will most likely stay that way. There
really is no sure way of me knowing which heights would match the
correct stem. I haven't recorded CBH's of many trees due to their
inaccessibility mediocre height. Since I have relatively little time to measure
trees,  I usually rank the amount of energy I'll put into a CBH measurement on a
priority scale. If a tree reaches the following height for Cook, it is
usually guaranteed a CBH measurement except for inaccessibility issues:

E. hemlock >= 130ft
E. white pine >= 140ft
N. red oak >= 115ft
white oak >= 110ft
red maple >= 115ft
black cherry >= 120ft
white ash >= 115ft
tuliptree >= 120ft
cucumbertree >=110ft
black gum >=90ft
pitch pine >=75ft
black birch >=100ft
yellow birch >=85ft
sycamore >= 105ft
bitternut hickory >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
shagbark hickory >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
slippery elm >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
sugar maple >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
Am. basswood >= 100ft
black locust >= 100ft
black oak >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
chestnut oak >= 100ft
butternut >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
juneberry >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
witch hazel >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)
common winterberry holly >= any height for Cook Forest (minimal data)

I know this diminishes the things I can do with the data afterwards,
but I
just don't have the time to measure every tree in the forest.

Those numbers are just a personal feel that I've developed with all the
data I've obtained across PA. Bob would lower some of those numbers for
up in MA. He drools over 120ft hemlock and black cherry. They're like
weeds down here.

Likewise, Will barely lifts an eyebrow when Bob and I dance over finding
another 150ft white pine. Also, Will has 150ft hemlock like we have 120
footers up here.



Energy saving rule
  May 06, 2004 19:21 PDT 

Ed and Dale:

   I too like the priority list idea. I do what you do, Dale. My priority list for MTSF in terms of picking up CBH (unless conspicuously large) is as follows:

   White pine     140
   White ash      120
   Sugar maple    115
   Hemlock        115
   N. Red oak     115
   Red maple      110
   Black cherry   110
   A. basswood    110
   Bigtooth aspen 110
   American beech 100
   Black birch    100
   White oak      100
   American elm   100
   Yellow birch    95
   White birch     90

   If a tree is very close and easy to access, I'll generally get its girth if it exceeds 100 feet, but if it requires more energy, the above table comes close to what I do.

RE: Energy saving rule   Dale J. Luthringer
  May 10, 2004 16:42 PDT 


Yes, conspicuously large trees always get a CBH measurement. That is,
unless it is grossly inaccessible. It's nice to see we've come to use
the same general system.