Page 5 of 5

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:24 pm
by Lucas
Joe wrote:
Lucas wrote:
The other extreme.

Any comment?


I don't get it. What's the point? Provide cover? Provide a food source? I don't think the deer will benefit all that much and- the trees look ugly. In most areas of the country- deer are overabundant.
Joe


https://www.qdma.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1879739

Search hinging or hinge on the above and you will see more than you want.

"Provide cover? Provide a food source?"

Basically but not for any deer. Antlers are the goal. Bucks like it thick and the idea is to draw\retain them on your land. There are a lot of guys doing this. On the plus side, they plant a lot of fruit and nut trees.

Tree people want them high and big. Game people want them low and thick. Everybody wants something different.

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:49 am
by wisconsitom
You aren't kidding, Lucas.  I had a DNR Forester once say to me something like "yeah, the wildlife guys want everything to look like a prairie..... I get it....wildlife habitat has for so long been focused on game species, most of which do flourish under early-succession-stage habitat that there has long been a sort of unacknowledged reality that such seemingly disparate entities as trophy deer hunting groups and paper companies formed unholy alliances to keep the shorter rotation systems dominant across the Lakes States.  Then, beginning in the 80s (I guess), the federal agency finally started employing a more broadly-focused management, and this was aided and abetted by the people in states like this one, where we became true partners in research and operations, to reach mutual goals.  

Of course if you've seen any of my earlier screeds here, things in the state here are, uh, very, very much worse now.

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:40 pm
by Lucas
Image

Given the love for Norway Spruce, some might like this pic of one of my favorites.

Lousy pic but I like how the branches fall in a spray to the ground. The grounds keepers may not, though.

It has a split leader like a lot of them here.

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:39 pm
by Lucas
Image

This self description may amuse some.

Seen in https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=q0aM5t5GMpsC&q=orchid#v=onepage&q=marsden&f=false

Check the book or link for background context.

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:46 pm
by gnmcmartin
NTS:

  Norway spruce trees show considerable variety, much, if not most of it genetic.  I especially love those with dense, weeping foliage.  This is one on the Morvin Park Estate in Leesburg, VA.

               
                       
DSC00525.gif
                                       
               


  It is just up from the parking lot on the path to the historic house. My guess is that it is about 80 feet tall and 30" in diameter

  --Gaines

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:27 pm
by Lucas
dbhguru wrote:Joe,

 I agree. I have never seen a weeviled Norway spruce in Mass either. Strange.

Bob


THERE WAS AN ARTICLE ON NS IN THE NEW ATLANTIC FORESTRY MAG.

From memory...

They were discussing its new approval as structural lumber in Canada. Plantations that were started 100 years ago are starting to come on line as timber. It grows 50 % faster than native spruce and is very hard to tell from white spruce. The fast growth lead to concerns about lumber strength so  a lot of testing was done before it was listed as the first approved non native structural lumber source.

Porcupines target it badly but not as badly as white pine weevil which infects up to 80%. It destroyed many lots.

I will post the article if I find a way to.

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:49 am
by wisconsitom
Porcupines indeed.  I await the arrival of these nasty herbivores in my plantation any year now.  I've also got the larch they love.  We'll see what happens.

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:22 am
by Joe
That newspaper article from last March quotes somebody for saying, "Wilderness rubs professional foresters the wrong way." By and large this is true. I'm an exception. I really dig wilderness. If I had a time machine, I'd go back 1,000 years in North America, or some tens of thousands of years anywhere else. I don't really think the human race has gained much with "modernity". I also love doing forestry- which is something most people who like wilderness DON'T like. It's a left brain right brain thing.
Joe

Re: Potential tall trees?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:38 am
by Joe
gnmcmartin wrote:NTS:

  Norway spruce trees show considerable variety, much, if not most of it genetic.  I especially love those with dense, weeping foliage.  This is one on the Morvin Park Estate in Leesburg, VA.

DSC00525.gif


  It is just up from the parking lot on the path to the historic house. My guess is that it is about 80 feet tall and 30" in diameter

  --Gaines


Gaines, you should look for a NS with a true "weeping" genetics so that the main stem and branches twist all over the place, in addition to the expected weeping. I got one at a local nursery. Mine is now about 5 feet tall. I recently saw a much bigger and older one on the Smith College campus in Northampton, Mass. I'm sure Bob Leverett and other local NTS members have seen it. I may have a photo of it as I go to that campus yearly to view the trees and the small but nice art museum on the campus.
Joe