Our Compulsion    dbhg-@comcast.net    Jul 30, 2003 04:30 PDT  ENTS:    This last weekend's considerable time spent measuring and remeasuring the Jake Swamp tree that led to the choice of 163.2 feet as the current height illustrates the level of compulsion that some of us feel about 'getting it right'. However, shouldn't the tallest tree in Massachusetts get a little extra attention? Or is that status just a novelty or curiosity, not to be taken seriously? Why do some of us lend such significance to gaining a high degree of accuracy in tree measurements?    Well, for one thing, we're filling a niche. With respect to getting it right, we're the best, if not only, show in town. The problem for us is that we've arrived on the scene a little late and find ourselves competing with groups who aren't so driven as we. The big tree lists are fine. They serve a purpose, but their understanding desire to keep the lists popular with the public causes them to shun more rigorous approaches to measuring trees. They don't want to see all the fun taken out of the endeavor. I have expressed sympathy for this point of view and continue to feel that way.    However, the gap left is not filled by any other group - so enter ENTS, and enter we have. I wonder how many on our list realize just how much work we've accomplished in documenting so many great stands of trees and individual trees. As we gain more and more acceptance, others will want to join us? Should we accept their contributions uncritically? It would seem to be the courteous thing to do.     The answer to that has to be no. In coming e-mails I'll explain why I believe we have to keep the clamps on. Bob Our Compulsion-Part II    dbhg-@comcast.net    Jul 30, 2003 19:15 PDT  ENTS:    As stated in the first e-mail, the ENTS compulsion to be very accurate on tree dimesnions fills a conspicuous niche. Were we to relax our standards, we could no long fill the niche. Our reasoning about our compulsion can be made more complicated than this, at least as to what drives us individually, but collectively, the niche is enough.    With all the conflicting numbers floating around on big trees of the past and on species potential, where can scientists and historians turn to get reliable maximum dimension data? They can't get it from books on trees, including otherwise authoritative texts. They can't get it from government sources. They can't get it from champion tree lists. They can't get it from old records. Plainly and simply, they can't get it. But in the future they will have plenty of reliable data, courtesy of ENTS - provided we don't lower our standards to accommodate enthusiastic, but unqualified tree measurers.    We've had some good discussions on this list about different tree measuring techniques and the fanatical among us, me in particular, encourage any with new or better techniques to present them to us for consideration and testing. Colby has presented his Rule-of-73 in this spirit. I do hope some of you out there will test it and present your conclusions/recommendations. As Tom Diggins has said, this list is quite a brain trust.    Having tooted our collective horn, I acknowledge that we should never become so confident in ourselves and so critical of others who differ with us that we summarily dismiss what they have to say. However, with the tools available to us on the internet, a few good diagrams are worth thousands of words. It behooves anyone who challenges us to describe precisely how they go about their measuring tasks and then be prepared to answer plenty of questions. This isn't about politics, it's about the proper use of geometry and trigonometry. If a simple, abstract mathematical model doesn't match physical reality, then it doesn't. End of story. Forcing invalid models for the sake of perpetuating a pecking order isn't what ENTS is about. We're about getting it right. Show us where we're wrong and we'll change. That's fair isn't it? But ...... trying to pull rank on us won't work. Yesterday's experts are no longer the experts on accurately measuring the three common dimensions of trees. We are. We do it day in and day out and we demand of ourselves that we know our range of error and stand ready to prove it.    Now back to my personal compulsion over getting the Jake Swamp tree's current height correct to within a few inches. Back in 1992, Jack Sobon and I measured the Jake tree with a transit from two separate locations and got measurements that were within 1.75 inches of each other. Jake was 155.3 feet tall in the fall of 1992. Counting the present growing season, Jake has been pushing upward since the end of 1992 for 11 years. The average growth rate over this period has been:    (163.2-155.3)/11 = 0.72 feet/yr or 8.64 inches.    This year's growth has been spectacular. Strangely so was last's. The dry period didn't hit last year until well into the growing season.    I could be off a couple of inches on Jake. The pride of Mass could just be breaking 163 feet, but visual confirmation suggests the candle length to be extraordinary. So for the present, I'll go with what my eyes suggest.     Given that Jake is about 140 years of age, maybe 145, what does an average upward growth of 8.64 inches sound like for that age to those of you who make your living growing trees? What would you expect? Three or four inches per year? How much volume is Jake putting on? These are questions relevant to our current interests.     The practical side to all this is that I think we are seeing growth rates for older trees on our mature second growth sites that suggest value growth for much longer than heretofore thought. Bob   Home