On 12 Nov 2002 07:58:34 -0800, (Larry Harrell)
wrote:

(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...

Sequoias do look nice for quite a long time but, at some point, the
top will die and you'll have a scraggly, scruffy-looking fat tree (not
unlike an aging biker G ). Redwoods are very poor trees to use for
landscaping. They grow fast and big but, the worst thinga about them
is that the roots will buckle sidewalks and foundations while needing
vast amounts of water. I really hate it when I see redwoods and alders
planted as landscaping in Sacramento G.

I could understand Giant Sequoia in Sacramento. But I'm having
difficulty envisioning Coastal Redwood the isn't it way too dry? As
for alders...I suppose along steams or rivers, where the floods could
wash them out.G

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Yep, it IS way too dry and hot for Redwood trees in Sacramento. Could
landscapers be liable for damage caused by redwoods? Why not plant
drought-resistant native trees for landscaping instead of
water-intensive species? Seems like people do not realize that drought
will be a constant companion for all of us in the West.

Larry

Larry,
The question is not hot, but dry. When I lived in Sacrament for seven
years, dry was not a problem. I bought a townhouse. The next day, I
went out to the alley in back to use my water connection. I met my
neighbor and we discovered that we shared a single pipe.How come?
Water was not metered and the contractor saved a few bucks. I don't
know if that situation continues today, but watering a Ss would not
have been a problem then. Just set up artificial fog. don't get me
started. I later worked for the Bureau of Reclamation. Take a look at
the "Law of the River", the Colorado River Compact, and Reclamation
Law in the West, generally. You will be in for an exciting time. Oh
yes, I am a forester, but I spent many of my (non) productive years as
a policy analyst.

Larry Stamm wrote in message ...
"Joe Zorzin" writes:

"Larry Stamm" wrote in message

There are redwoods planted in the early 1900's in the Victoria, BC, area
that are about a metre in diameter now. They appear to be thriving, and
Victoria gets temperatures down to -10° C every decade or so.

Maybe the redwood is hardier than is usually thought?


A lot of species will grow very nicely outside of what is considered their
"natural range". The question is, "will they adapt and 'go native'" so they
don't have to be replanted?".

Many southern species are planted and do well here in New England. I've
heard that there is a fine Baldcypress stand planted in western NY.

I wonder if foresters are experimenting with those redwoods in BC to see if
partial cutting will allow natural regeneration? Hey Larry, maybe you could
find out more and let us know.

All the redwoods on Vancouver Island that I know of are in residential
areas or botanical gardens, so I doubt that much experimenting is being
done on a commercial basis. However I have seen redwood suckers around
the bases of a few trees, so it does seem as if they might regenerate
naturally.

In the same vein, there has been some success commercially in planting
Doug fir in northern BC several hundred km north of its natural range.
In fact, Doug fir has been the saviour species on some burned over
southeast facing sites in which pine/spruce plantings had failed because
of summer heat and drought. These plantations are young, and haven't
reached commercial thinning stage yet, but they seem to be thriving. No
evidence yet of natural regeneration, as the trees have yet to produce
viable seeds.

Assuming global warming is a reality, D-fir may be growing much more
prolifically further north soon. Might be a good time to get a truffle
plantation started.G

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com