Jump to content


Photo

What to look for when buying a new House?

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#26 csa/montana

csa/montana

    Den Mama

  • *****
  • Posts: 86110
  • Joined: 14 May 2005
  • Loc: montana

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:07 PM

However, coming from southern California trees were unique and rather special to them!!



One doesn't have to be from southern California to make trees unique and rather special to a person.

I personally know how long it takes to grow trees, as I planted one-footer evergreens, and trust me; it's many years for them to achieve any growth. If trees are healthy, it's a shame to destroy them. I saw hundreds in my area destroyed by the pine bark beetle; that area will never regrow in most of our lifetimes.

#27 TCW

TCW

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1743
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away.

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:53 PM

My area has the same problem with bark beetles. Ironically the solution is cutting trees down as the problem is driven mostly by overcrowding.

#28 vsteblina

vsteblina

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Wenatchee, Washington

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:33 PM

Our Forest Entomologist had the following quote "we have an epidemic of trees".

It really depends on where you live....but on the eastern slopes of the Cascades we have a tree density SEVEN times historical. In most of the western US, we have many, many more trees than in historical times. That is one reason why
forest fires burn hotter and many times the acreage today.

It is a little more difficult back east since there are very few records of the historical landscape. And I don't know anything of eastern forest ecology!! But I suspect tree density is much high than historical.

#29 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11148
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 23 April 2014 - 04:19 AM

I personally know how long it takes to grow trees, as I planted one-footer evergreens, and trust me; it's many years for them to achieve any growth.


It depends where you live. In the eastern U.S., trees are weeds; it's very hard to cut them as fast as they grow. If you don't keep on top of them, they take over in a hurry.

My grandparents bought our property in the country in 1930. When my father was growing up there, it was fields as far as the eye could see -- just lines of trees along the edges of the fields and a few stands of trees here and there left to be cut for firewood. Now it's solid forest with just a few clearings. The very biggest trees are the ones that used to line the fields. But even the younger trees are now 50+ feet tall and a couple of feet in diameter. All of that in one human lifetime.

If trees are healthy, it's a shame to destroy them.


I don't cut any tree needlessly, but I have no qualms about cutting down a few dozen to improve my view for astronomy. There are thousands more where they came from.

I saw hundreds in my area destroyed by the pine bark beetle; that area will never regrow in most of our lifetimes.


That's a different story entirely; the pine-bark beetle infestation is truly disastrous.

There are similar infestations in the East. But unlike the West, where forests tend to be monocultures, we have dozens of species in any given forest stand. So if one species diminishes, others will eagerly take over.

#30 TCW

TCW

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1743
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away.

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:44 PM

Nature will reclaim the land!

The western forests I have seen are far from mono cultures with many different species. The problem here is twofold - excessive fire suppression that historically has thinned trees and eliminated excess fuel and bans on logging that instead of preserving forests, actually contribute to their fiery demise in catastrophic wildfires. Over crowding weakens trees and aids the spread of insects and disease.

#31 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9773
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 24 April 2014 - 11:11 AM

Nature will reclaim the land!

The western forests I have seen are far from mono cultures with many different species. The problem here is twofold - excessive fire suppression that historically has thinned trees and eliminated excess fuel and bans on logging that instead of preserving forests, actually contribute to their fiery demise in catastrophic wildfires. Over crowding weakens trees and aids the spread of insects and disease.


Apoligies to the OP, since we're going off on a bit of a tangent here, but I'll tie this back in at the end.

I spent a summer back in the 1970s working on a HoDad (tree planting) crew in the National Forests of the southern Cascades of Washington state. We replanted clearcuts with monocultures of Douglas Firs (or occasionally, western Hemlocks), bypassing the more diverse natural succession of species that occur between natural wildfires in any given area severe enough to mimic clearcuts - with the planted grove often given a herbicidal head start the year before replanting, to minimize delay from the new trees having to compete with brushy species. Most clearcuts then (and I suspect still are) mostly replanted with near-monocultures. THAT SAID, your point about excess fire suppression having counterproductive effects with respect to vulnerability to insect infestations/greater vulnerability to catastrophic wildfires is spot-on true.

AS TO THE EASTERN PART OF THE COUNTRY, any tree cover existing on the vast majority of land, whether it's still rural or else has become suburban or semi-suburban, is a second or third-generation succession forest-in-progress (or more suburban areas, in a semi-arrested state of succession). I have a half-acre of such forest in my back yard, in which a still relatively young and small set of hardwood trees will, if left alone, gradually push out the dominant pine trees over the next 100-150 years. The rub is the extent to which homeowner "landscaping" type culls interfere with the rather messy, cluttered natural process, including the fact that some of the places where both pines and hardwoods "naturally" try to reestablish themselves with young seedlings are inconvenient or unsightly for the look of a well-tended lot. On the scale of a 300 acre farm, fields or other areas stripped of trees will spontaneously regenerate a succession forest over the following few decades. But not so much once the land's been subdivided into half-acre housing lots.

#32 NorthWolf

NorthWolf

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 20 May 2014 - 07:21 PM

Hey guys,

I just rejected a house I was about to buy, everything was going great until I paid close attention to the backyard, it had a North East view, was really well covered on every side, but it had humongous 70 feet tall trees almost on every side leaving me with a circle viewing spot right on top of me... I let it go...

Anyhow the hunt goes on, I am definitely looking now for a house with at least 3 good views with the South as a must. Also, no cottages as it equals to no privacy, I want a bungalow where I can place my scope in almost any corner of the backyard without anyone seeing.

Are these trees good for placing all around the backyard if I find one with no trees?

http://www.homedepot...ld-cedar/991784

What else would I need to buy, how do you plant them, I need to research Cedar planting/growing!

http://www.renodepot...layView?navR...

http://www.rona.ca/w...hView?navDes...

http://www.cedarguys...dgeplanted.html

#33 richard7

richard7

    Not Quite

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 5860
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Sacramento

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:53 PM

As a general rule of thumb, if you live in or near an LP area then the area just above the horizon is not worth trying to view so anything that grows below that level will probably help.
How far above the horizon that extends is what you'll have to find out yourself.
In this area, I'm deep in a red zone with trees covering about 15 to 20 degrees above the horizon and it helps block some of the LP.

#34 TCW

TCW

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1743
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away.

Posted 22 May 2014 - 10:25 PM

Trees will block nearby lights but will do nothing about the overall skyglow caused by city lights.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics