Your list is of west coast native trees. They do better here because it is the climate they are adapted to. And the largest examples are often very old, too old for almost anything planted anywhere to be comparable.

I think there are larger tracts of old-growth forest in the west. We do have them on the East Coast, but not the expanse of which is on the West Coast.

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:481277}}

There's no expanse of them out here anymore, either. Perhaps many back east are not aware of the repeated waves of wholesale cutting that western North America has been subjected to over the years. Stumps running up to a park boundary or a small grove of monarchs surrounded for miles by small trees and brush is not a rare scene.

When the sun goes down in the east, it continues to shine for another 3 hours in the west........therefore larger trees on the west coast!

I think we just cut all the large trees in the east. I'm in PEI, and it was all completely cut over by the 1880's. The growth rate on never plowed land seems good here. I have western redcedars in our woods and the growth for age seems about like the west coast. Sweet chestnut grows pretty fast here, and red oaks..............but as you get further north, like here, the eventual sizes go down.

There are larger trees in the West because European civilization has only settled that region on a large scale for the past 160 years, and 60 years after it arrived, the conservation movement was beginning to get off the ground - European civilization began to settle the East on a large scale about 400 years ago, and so had much more time to destroy and decimate Eastern Forests. What once existed, we will never know. American Chestnut trees used to reach diameters of 12 feet across...of course we all know what happened there.

The tallest flowering trees in the world are in Tasmania, which has a cool-mild maritime climate similar to PNW. I think this climate makes for large trees, if not diversity in species.

I'll add that I think a big factor besides all that have already been mentioned is a lack of thunderstorms. Thunderstorms, of course, have lightning and high winds (well, sometimes). Those tend to keep trees short. With both of those being relatively rare along the west coast, trees are more likely to attain great height.

Thank you beeone. You made my day! Jay

The trees on the west coast generally reach 2 to 3 times the height of eastern trees largely due to climate, wind, elevation, light, and genetic propensity of the tree species among many other factors. The douglas firs and redwoods are the two tallest species in the west coast, and the world. Recently a number of douglas fir were located near Roseberg, Oregon which topped 300, 310, and 320 feet. It is still a mystery as to how tall the tallest douglas firs (and redwoods )could have reached, one study in 2008 projected a height limit of between 109 and 138 meters for doug fir based on water and gravity thresholds, and referenced historically measured fallen specimens. Of the 100 reports of giant firs I have investigated the tallest one ever reported was 142 m, a photo of a cross section of this tree resides in the whatcom museum which includes the dimensions of the tree and age. Tall tales were certainly common in the old days, but the persistency of giant douglas fir reports does suggest to me there were a lot more giants than we have today, at least in the low elevation zone around 500 or 1,000 feet asl. Some forestry scientists believe we have more old growth today than we did 100 years ago (Zybach and company). Others contend as much as 90% of the low elevation Doug fir has been logged in the PNW... which is a number I feel the historical data supports.

so yeah, maybe there were 250 foot pines growing in the east coast before the mid 19th century, what they need to do is conduct a study of how tall they could theoretically grow under optimal circumstances, like the study they have done for redwoods and firs.

There are Ponderosa pines in oregon that have reached about 269 ft, Michael Taylor the big tree researcher who found Hyperion, thinks the biggest ponderosas logged in the area may have reached 300 ft at the best sites.

who knows. Our few remaining big trees are still growing, and new champions are found every year in the forests of oregon, wa, and california by a select number of committed enthusiasts who probably number in the tens.

There is a Douglas Fir in Britain that is over 212 ft tall. It is in my book "Meetings with remarkable trees". The book was written 13 years ago, so the tree is likely much bigger now. It's supposed to be at the Hermitage, Dunkheld. The tree was planted in the 1820's. Not quite the east coast, but different from the west coast. There are Sitka spruce at Scone arboretum in this book that say they are 20 ft in girth (in 1998) a Monterey Cypress at Montacute that gets bigger in the UK than out west. The guy next to it in the picture shows it to be about as wide as 2 average size cars sideways nose to bumper. There are some impressive redwoods in there too. The native Quercus Robur pics show the potential this oak has, I'm talking room size boles. Maybe it's the moisture being good in both places coupled with the fact that people don't go chopping them down as soon as they have some rot on them.

That is interesting to hear of the giant specimens of Douglas-fir & conifers in the United Kingdom. It may well be that they can attain the same size as the American counterparts if they are given 200 to 500 years time to grow, and millions of them are planted across the countryside. Time will tell. Some have suggested that around 212 feet is the upper ceiling no conifer can exceed in Britain, but I doubt that.

The redwoods once grew all over the world millions of years ago, and who knows how tall they may have grown under different environments and conditions. Lower altitudes generally afford a longer growing season for conifers, for example, The Washington Forest Reserve by Horace Beemer Ayres, Geological Survey (U.S.) 1899. on pg 295 mentions a Douglas fir which grew at the alluvial bottom of the Skagit river and measured at 315 ft length after it was cut by lumbermen, and where it was cut at 7 ft above ground, the stump recorded 253 annual rings. Ayers collected his data on the spot from dozens of trees felled by lumbermen.

AT the same note fir trees east of the cascades can reach 250 years and grow no higher than 80 or 90 feet. Altitude is a big factor in the forests of the Pacific forests, most of the super tall historical trees, verified and unverified grew in the sub 1,500 feet elevation -- and primarily only a few hundred feet above sea level. So I think Britain could potentially be the spot for some real big trees -- but I doubt it will, because with 60 million people on an island, with only a few forests, it will never contain the vast space needed for giant timber forests the likes of which were present in Oregon and Washington pre-1900.

Trees east of the Cascades can't grow as large not only because of the colder temperatures, but because of the drier climate. A river valley west of the Cascades sounds ideal for tree growth with moderate temperatures, plenty of rainfall, the river for moisture whenever it gets dry, and plenty of nutrients in the alluvium.

Yeah, the temperature is a big factor. When you go up to timberline at Mt Hood in Oregon, 6,000 ft above sea level, the trees are like frigid shrubs. But going down to 3,200 feet the fir trees are once again giants, 150 to 250 feet tall -- some of the big trees around Lost lake are 6 to 7 feet diameter and 400 years old with eagles nests in the tops. I can only imagine trees at even lower altitudes in warmer rainy climate would become proportionally larger yet.

When left alone, we have some big trees too, what about the state champions of some of the oaks. The Angel oak for example. Some of the Sycamores. More human influence in the East maybe? I've never been out west, maybe a visit there would change my mind. There are some huge trees in places where they are not hastily removed because they are too big. In cemetaries and on trails at Ohiopyle park near me. Sorry if I'm repetative.

Poaky1... having grown up in the east, and having moved out west and seen the giant forests... there really isn't anything in the east that compares. Eastern forests look tiny by comparison.

The eastern white pine forests that grew in colonial times in New York and New Hampshire may have had trees comparable in height to some of the western pines. Sadly anything over 200 ft seems to be long gone.

Many of the fir and redwood forests in the pacific northwest are free of branches for 100-200 ft. It's the sheer height of the trees of the west that are striking. Even for people who were born and raised in the northwest, such as myself, there are still areas where I'm surprised at how tall the trees are. And fir trees appear even taller than they are because of their slender trunks.

Yes, adapted species grow or grew quite large in the east. Tulip poplar, chestnut, red oak, loblolly pine, white pine...see the ENTS web site. It is often the same pattern as you see out here, scattered giants on prime sites among many more much smaller trees. Whole large groves of similar giant trees is the exception rather than the rule. The scenes produced by the coast and Sierra redwoods are not typical, and are now greatly diminished.

Vicinity of Coos Bay is considered the prime habitat for Douglas fir. There has been much logging there.

Famartin - none of the forests in the east compare with certain old growth forests in the west because Europeans destroyed all of the Eastern Forests over 300 years ago (and "god" supposedly told them to do it). They took EVERYTHING, save for a scattered giant here and there.

Jimmy - I don't think that any foresters or forest scientists honestly believe that there is more old growth today then there was 100 years ago. It is impossible, because a 100 yr old forest is still considered "second growth", and can not compare -ecologically or in tree mass - with a true "old growth" forest.

Just sayin'.

shastensis,

According to Dr. Bob Zybach of Oregon the old growth in the Northwest was comparable to today's old growth over a century ago in the settlement era. He studied fire history in the state of Oregon and believes most of the trees were second growth when the white man came. Zybach has said reports of Douglas fir in excess of 300 feet are mostly stories that cannot be documented, and he has said that the city of Vancouver BC was a prairie before the white man came. I think his views are the minority opinion. He was a reforestation contractor for 20 years, so I value his input.

Most estimates I have seen suggest between 70 and 90% of the biggest and oldest Douglas fir forests have been logged in the past 130 years. In some places like Southern Vancouver Island up to 99% of old growth fir is said to be gone. One need only look at the hundreds of old logging photos of giant fir and cedar to get an idea of how large the lowland forests once grew, and in places like present day Seattle, and Vancouver BC. To deny all of this pretty much tells me one would have to be a lobbyist for the timber industry, but that is just my gut feeling.

I think a lot of good points have been made above--heavy precipitation (especially in winter when more might be available for growth--much of summer precip gets evaporated due to high temps), mild temps without either extreme cold or heat, lack of hurricanes or even incidence of thunderstorms. I have a question though, let's go outside the USA. Do other cool, maritime climates also tend to have really tall trees? (I am thinking about South Chile, New Zealand, and the British Isles?--Or, is the American West really unique in the world?)

njoasis,

New Zealand, southern Australia and Tasmania have some really tall trees in the temperate and rainy valleys. Some of these forests contain hardwood trees that are as tall as the fir trees of the west. The Eucalyptus Regnans may have been the tallest tree species in the world 150 years ago. Dozens of trees were measured by surveyors after they were felled and reported second hand to Baron Von Mueller of Melbourne's botanical garden in the 1860's to 1880's. The tallest were said to be over 400 foot. The biggest Eucalyptus documented first hand was reported to the assistant commissioner of lands on Feb. 21, 1872 by the state inspector of forests, Mr. William Ferguson. His tape line showed one fallen specimen to be 435 ft long from the base to a broken top 3 ft thick -- suggesting the tree may have been taller still. Ferguson reported other fallen trees which exceeded 350 ft long in the watts river and its lowland tributaries.

The tallest known tree in all of Australia and Tasmania today barely reaches 328 feet.

>especially in winter when more might be available for growthDouglas fir sets winter buds in summer or fall and then does not grow again until these open in spring.

Another idea... What about salmon? The salmon swim up the river and dies, bears eat them, and then poop. Trees use all the bear scat as fertilizer. Was there salmon on the east coast? Did they swim up the Hudson? Today I only hear about dead bodies floating on the rivers around NYC. They would work as fertilizer.

Same reason so much of the nursery stock comes from the PNW. Better growing conditions.

all the people commenting thusfar seem to be hokeys, so let me give you a real answer. for one, the west coast has better weather for the same latitude. warmer, wetter air, less storms, more rainfall, not as much temperature fluctuation throughout the seasons. this is due to the fact that wind, on average, blows eastwards in the upper northern hemisphere, bringing in warm air from the oceans. reason two, the rocky mountains. millions of years ago, the whole of the north american continent and even the world was covered in massive trees like the coast redwoods, giant sequoias, coast douglas firs, sitka spruce, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, western hemlock, western red cedar, etc etc., but when the ice age happened huge glaciers and freezing weather pushed southwards throughout the continents, wiping out forests. the north american west coast though, was spared due to the high rocky mountains, creating a separation between the warm ocean air and the freezing continental winds, as well as holding back the miles thick glaciers that would otherwise steamroll those forests.

Ok great info.