The life and death of a 125-year-old tree (video)

Discuss

11 Responses to “The life and death of a 125-year-old tree (video)”

  1. Paul Renault says:

    “Very old”?  One hundred and twenty five is typical for a maple (which is what that tree looks like, confirmed by the leaves on the ground).

    Now, a 500 year old maple, THAT’s old.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_Maple

    /I can’t imagine how many times the chainsaws had to be sharpened that day.  I hope that the Nozkowskis have a wood stove, so they can further be thankful for that tree.

    • awjt says:

      If they were ACTUALLY thankful, they would have left it right where it is.  ALIVE.

      • koanhead says:

         The tree was dead or dying. If you look at the cross-section of the trunk you will see rotted areas and drying consonant with a dying tree.
        If the tree were really alive it probably would not have “had to go”- living trees are much more flexible and less likely to shed roof-breaking limbs.

  2. dejoh says:

    We just had a tree very simular to that one removed.  Eight guys, one day, its gone.  Kept the stump to remind us how big it was.

    • awjt says:

      Why?  I hate that all these trees are being removed.  It’s stupidity.  Superstition.  Maples don’t fall over.  They drop weak limbs and keep on living.  People build their stupid shit under trees and then they cut the trees down as if they are expendable and the stupid, vinyl-sided, poorly constructed structure sits there, bare in a field with tiny new trees around it.  UGLY.  STUPID AMERICAN BEHAVIOR.  Shame on you if your tree was healthy and you just decided one day it had to go.

      • koanhead says:

         Unfortunately, while maple trees can live for centuries, some maples die young. All it takes is a couple of years of drought, sometimes. Other times the tree can weather all kinds of crazy things.
        Maples are not immortal. Sometimes they get blight, sometimes they get parasites.
        I agree that removing trees without need is ugly and stupid behavior. I just want to point out it’s not always so bad as you seem to paint it.
        Unfortunately I don’t have maples around me where I live. I hope you do, and that you get some joy from your obvious love of these beautiful trees.

  3. Isaac Hils says:

    To be honest, a maple is useless after 100 years. It produces little benefit to wildlife, and it’s wood production is FAR reduced. Oaks are far more beneficial, but render little benefit after 120 years. I hate when people try to protect certain old-growth trees. Death and re-generation are essential.

    • awjt says:

      You’re 100% wrong about old trees. Old trees provide canopy, habitat, wind protection to other trees and a million other things, just like smaller trees.  And they die when they get outgrown.  A chainsaw doesn’t count. Natural death is the marker. It may be useless to YOU, but to the land, far farrrrr from useless.  Your opinion is totally uninformed.

      • dejoh says:

        My house was built around the tree in 1951,  One of the branches fell and downed our power, cable, and phone lines.
        It turned into a freakin danger. Okay?

        • koanhead says:

           Your house was built “around” the tree?
          Does that just mean near the tree or in some sort of ring surrounding it? If it’s something like the latter, could you post pictures? I love seeing buildings like that.

      • koanhead says:

         All old trees are not equal.
        Some standing deadwood is terribly dangerous only weeks after it starts dying- poplar trees are a good example.
        As I’ve pointed out elsewhere maples in particular (since those are the first that Isaac Hills mentions) have highly varied lifespans and can rot quickly under certain conditions.

Leave a Reply