Boy Scout Tree Trail

Gerald_Beranek

Gerald_Beranek

New member
Location
Ft. Bragg, Ca.
Terri and I went to Prairie Creek Redwoods to hike the north end of the West Ridge Trail, but the park had close the gate to the trail head. So we went to Mill Creek instead and hiked the Boy Scout Tree Trail. Short, only 2.8 miles one way. But with all the ups and downs it felt like a lot more by the time we got back to the truck.

There are certainly some nice trees along this trail and it made it well worth the extra time to drive to Crescent City to and take it.
225850-DSCF9228rr.jpg
225850-DSCF9271rr.jpg
225850-DSCF9282rr.jpg
225850-DSCF9316rr.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 225850-DSCF9316rr.webp
    225850-DSCF9316rr.webp
    67.7 KB · Views: 133
One of my favorite stretches along that trail is that huge fern glade about mid-way.

Plus the big redwoods of course. If you ccompare this image from last year, you can see that the tiny tree near the sign fell over since last year. My son has his hand on it, last July.

225854-Boy_Scout_Tree_300.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 225854-Boy_Scout_Tree_300.webp
    225854-Boy_Scout_Tree_300.webp
    63.5 KB · Views: 125
I sometimes wonder why I live in the armpit of southern Ontario when I could live there. 80 foot dbh Gerald? It very well could be, hard to tell from my hammydown laptop.
 
The Boy Scout Tree is a double and easily over 20 ft the wide way. But the oval shape of the tree may just make the average out to be less.

I don't spend time trying to measusure the trees any more. There's so many people that are so anal about it getting down to tenths of an inch and averages....

Mario knows some of people that like to measure the trees.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That trail is really one of the best.

Were you able to get a circumference measurement on the BS tree, Mario?

Just guessing it might be close to 80 feet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't measure that one. Maybe I should have for curiosity sake.

It was a lot bigger redwood than expected.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I don't spend time trying to measusure the trees any more. There's so many people that are so anal about it getting down to tenths of an inch and averages....

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha... yes the measurers get picky. I think it comes from people saying that ground based laser/clinometer measurements can never equal manual tape drops. In the east we do a lot of comparisons of tape drops and ground-based measurements. We're getting good accuracy within 1-2 inches bewtween manual and ground-based. I'm sure it's the same with the measuring maniacs in the PNW. Tape drop is still the gold standard (whew, climbers are not obsolete).

Many of the measurers use CBH not DBH for trunk measurement so there are no worries about averaging. Trunk cross-section shape is so variable that getting average diameter isn't very useful, the big double in the photo is a good example where an average diameter is meaningless.

Although I have no idea how CBH works on your giants, seems like basal trunk flare/shape throws the breast height value (4.5') out the window.
-moss
 
On the other hand a great tree is a great tree, from that perspective I don't care what the height is, it's all about the character/qualities of the tree. For capturing individual tree growth rates I can see why a researcher wants accurate measurement year in and year out.
-moss
 
I'm going to the Avenue of the Giants this weekend to shoot the tops of groves from the highway cuts. There's a few vantage points that will put you near even with the tops. Morning and evening light will make for some awesome photos.

There's another vantage point from the Brown Creek bridge at the Prairie Creek bypass that offers a spectacular view of the canopy. Even better than if you climbed a tree because you have over 600 feet of unobstructed horizontal angle to shoot from.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to the Avenue of the Giants this weekend to shoot the tops of groves from the highway cuts. There's a few vantage points that will put you near even with the tops. Morning and evening light will make for some awesome photos.

There's another vantage point from the Brown Creek bridge at the Prairie Creek bypass that offers a spectacular view of the canopy. Even better than if you climbed a tree because you have over 600 feet of unobstructed horizontal angle to shoot from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure wish I was free to go there myself this weekend. I gave my travel budget a small whoopin' when I went to the redwoods last January and February. Usually it's 10 to 12 week intervals, and that was only 4 weeks apart during my slow income season. Anyhow, it was awesome nonetheless.

I've been using one of these Trupulse 200 rangefinders in the redwoods.

You ever thought about snagging one of these for yourself? Sort of a fun tool. Even if you can't see direct to the base, it helps to guesstimate the height pretty good. Needs about a 5 to 6 foot window to aim at the top leaders. I think its pretty slick the way these tools sense the angle they are held at and do all that math internally. That 200 model is only about $599. Not likely worth it to spend $1500 on the 360 model. If someone is going to dish out $1500, they may as well put out $3000 and buy the Impulse 200 that Chris Atkins uses. It's an incredibly nice piece of technology. He has a remote cable to increase accuracy, plus the small scope. Used it for years. I think that Michael Taylor has one too.

The Trupulse 200 is pocket size and the case is tiny.



226003-TruPulse200.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 226003-TruPulse200.webp
    226003-TruPulse200.webp
    5.3 KB · Views: 128
While its on my mind, here is part of that huge fern glade that I enjoy so much at Boy Scout Tree Trail

226007-By_Sc_Tr_600.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 226007-By_Sc_Tr_600.webp
    226007-By_Sc_Tr_600.webp
    203.2 KB · Views: 145
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a shot I got of the glade that same day. I like the openness of it. It's not all brushed up like so much of the rest.
226046-fernglade.jpg


[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that the glade might be 3 acres in size, maybe more. It goes up and around the corner from the photo I posted, and stretches both up and down hill from the path.
Sound about right?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a shot I got of the glade that same day. I like the openness of it. It's not all brushed up like so much of the rest.
226046-fernglade.jpg


[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that the glade might be 3 acres in size, maybe more. It goes up and around the corner from the photo I posted, and stretches both up and down hill from the path.
Sound about right?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting, I wonder if a burn cleared that out at some point and allowed the ferns to dominate?
-moss
 
Most of the trees in the glade show very little evidence of a burn. Nothing major anyway. But it appears they are about the same age. Younger and smaller size average than the outer lying areas on either side. All about the same height. My guess is a major burn had cleared the area and the trees all came up at the same time. The thick young canopy kept the brush species down.

That's very close to the way it works, and looks, in a 130 year old second growth redwood flat. Which all comes up at the same time after a clear-cut and burn. Though the trees in the glade are about 300 years old... max.

Just an educated guess.
 
Did you happen to get a shot of the lips on Boy Scout Tree redwood? I should have taken more photos of it to get a better pic.

Reminds me of a Simpsons character or something.

Has a nice rim of leatherleaf ferns along the top.

226067-Boy_Scout_Tree_Burl_600.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 226067-Boy_Scout_Tree_Burl_600.webp
    226067-Boy_Scout_Tree_Burl_600.webp
    262.1 KB · Views: 129
I'm surprised that I missed that angle on the BS tree, because I been cataloging most growths on the trees just like that. Looks like another hike is in order.

The neat thing about all the trails is each time I go out on one the lighting is different and so I can always get a new angle on something that I couldn't before. Makes for endless picture taking opportunities. It's great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom