On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:47:05 GMT, animaux
wrote:

I was told, and it may not be true that, live oaks are difficult to age unless
you cut it down and count sections.

That is true and I wonder if anyone verified the purported age of
Treaty Oak by sectioning one of the larger main branches they had to
remove. But I never saw a report on it and I think the politically
correct position of claiming it is 400 to 700 years old was protected.

I had a 36" dbh live oak that I babied for ten years after I moved in
my home and it died of oak wilt in 1986. I sectioned it for aging it
and then split the tree into fire wood. My best estimate was the tree
was born prior to 1825 but after 1820. By about 1836, the tree was
large enough for some camper to use a brace and bit to drill a hole in
the tree that was used to hold a support for a cooking pot that he
built a fire under - killing the bark on that side of the tree. Then
someone took an adze to the tree, etc. There was alot of history
buried in that wood - sort of the science of dendroarcheology as trees
have the capacity of burying their wounds.

By the 1870's the tree was large enough to attract other campers,
including military units, as I have retrieved a number of artifacts
buried in the soil under where the tree stood. That could have been
George Custer, himself.

Rusty Mase


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---