The second Picture doesn't look like Belt Woods, where there are no hemlocks. But it does look a bit like parts of my timberland in western MD.

The first doesn't really do Belt Woods justice. I took some better pictures than this, where the towering trunks really just grab your eyes and pull you upwards. Maybe you can visit this site--it really is not too far. I used to visit it almost every year for many years, but since I live in Winchester now, it is a bit far.

In Western MD one place where you can see old trees, especially hemlocks, and two wonderful waterfalls, is Swallow Falls State Park.

Another very close by, but in WV, is Cathedral State Park. No waterfalls, but some very large old hemlocks and some other trees. Nice trails in both.

--Spruce

Given your description, I doubted that these photos did Belt Woods justice. When I looked through Google images, I didn't find much (except for a couple of people hugging the trunk of a huge tree).

Spruce: I'm not surprised that you have better pictures. But you can't share them.

I have an idea - many companies specialize in taking old photos, negatives, movies, scan them, and save as digital files on DVDs. The price is pretty good too. If you did that, the photos you've taken over the years would be safe and protected from degradation - and available to share with others. When I read about this service, I thought about all the boxes of photos we have stored IN THE ATTIC - so this in on my to-do list.

I just googled "scan photos" and came up with pages of companies - like this one: http://www.scanmyphotos.com/

Just a thought.

Pam:

Thanks for your thoughts about digitizing my pictures. To tell you the truth, I am not sure why I have not gotten up to speed with a digital camera, etc. There always seems to be something else to do, but, of course, there really isn't--it is just an illusion that I have not yet found out how to prick.

Boy do I have pictures. Years ago--perhaps you remember--there were 3D cameras. I had--still have somewhere--a Kodak model that had two lenses, so every picture I took was really two. The best way to see these 3D pictures was a 3D viewer, but I could also project them with a special projector and then wear polarized glasses. I have pictures looking up redwood and giant sequoia trees, among many, many others, that really bring them to life. In comparison the regular picures look like nothing--dead and flat, with no depth. I think sometime there will be a new digital version of 3D--3D is just too amazing not to come back and get a following.

As for Belt woods, many, many years I had a friend who was a photographer and we went there to get pictures. All I got from her--before we broke up--was contact paper versions of the pictures. But boy were they something. Taking good tree pictures takes some skill and experience, and this woman really had it. Well, I am sorry I didn't get real prints of those pictures.

--Well, thanks for the info/encouragement.

Oh, by the way, there are also some amazing tuliptrees in a slightly "out-of-the-way" section of Glover Park in Washington, D.C. I don't know who reads these posts, but if there are people who can get to that park, here is where they are. I forget the street names, but if you enter the park on the trail from the bottom--South end--just above the mowed field area on the other side of the road, and then walk up the trail until you see a flat bottomland area opening up the the left--it can't be much more than a quarter mile--and then walk in there, the tuliptrees you see may be about as tall as those in Belt Woods, but somewhat younger. I tried to sight them up and estimate years ago, and even then I thought they must be about 160 feet.

--Spruce

Spruce, I second what you're saying about stereo photography. My older brother is very into that, and as you said, once you view slides of this type, well......there's just nothing else like it. And my own opinion is that nothing in the digital realm will ever be as good. He has taken shots of things like bees visiting flowers, or on the other end of the scale, views of waterfalls and cliffs up in N.E. Minnesota along Lake Superior that are indescribably amazing.

Those tulip trees in D.C sound amazing as well.

+oM

Something about the 2nd picture which brought me back to the distant past. Felt good.

Glover Park and Digital Cameras

Spruce, et. al.

My husband was born and raised in DC so I asked if he was familiar with Glover Park. He grew up near that park and spent his childhood exploring that area. He went on Google maps, showed me the street where he grew up in relation to Glover Park. He also described how to get to the entrance. I asked him to put it in writing in case anyone wants to visit (and he promised to take me):

"A portion of Glover Park is bisected by Reservoir Road in NW Washington DC. This is at a point halfway between Reservoir Road and Foxhall Road and the entrance to the Georgetown University Hospital. At that point, east by just a few yards from 44th Street which borders the Park and where Reservoir Road bottoms out at a creek, is the entrance. The field is on the South side of Reservoir Road where I used to go sledding and on the North is the entrance toward the Tulip trees."

Does this sound right?

naturalstuff: I thought the 2nd photo was pretty cool too.

Tom & Spruce: I didn't like digital cameras when they came out. Images looked flat, lacked depth of field. I grew up with a photographer father, developed my film, made prints, etc.

But technology changes. Take a look at photos taken with a good digital SLR camera. We have friends who are professional photographers and work for newspapers - a cynical group for sure. Yet, they were entranced (and seduced) by the quality of photos taken with the digital SLR.

We have a Canon EOS 20D and 3 lenses -- the one that came with the camera, a wide angle, a telephoto, and polarizing filter. Our camera is at least 3 years old, no longer made, and I'm sure newer models have other good features. The quality of photos is remarkable.

Spruce: Having your collection, or part of it, digitized, is easy and painless. The biggest job is getting your photos together before you send them off. I'd probably experiment with a few companies, see who did the best job before I did a large job. I read about this services in the NYT and WSJ - they had some recommendations.

Pam

"Having your collection, or part of it, digitized, is easy and painless"

But very expensive. A while back I investigated getting mine done, and couldn't find a price below ã1 (at the time $2) per slide. With something like 500 slides, that makes $1000. Also, if the slides are at all dusty, they will need to be cleaned carefully or the results will be awful with every speck of dust making an ugly black spot. Any scratches show up horribly too.

Resin

Pam, I have no doubt digital is improving, and in any case, it's here to stay. But what Spruce brought up, and what I'm corroborating, is stereo photography. The images so produced, are viewable only through a 3D viewer Spruce mentions, or as a distant second alternative, a special projector with you the viewer wearing 3D glasses. When done in the former way, this is an experience far beyond any photos you will have ever viewed. I always say that these images look better than reality itself!

Both my older brother and my dad know far more about photography than I, and they both lament the lessening quality of lenses themselves in recent years. I can only take their word for it.

+oM

Man, you guys have got to get together and get the job done!! Pam and Spruce are practically neighbors. Huh, huh? Tom would surely be shamed into joining. Two with the most to offer. There should be a rule. Please. Very serious here. Hank

If there is any confusion, TO BE ABLE TO POST A PICTURE (;!)

Pam:

As for the tuliptrees in Glover Park--yes, that sounds right. But Glover park is full of tuliptrees, and the specific ones I am talking about are significantly taller than others. As you enter the trail, you go down to where there is a small stream. Then you follow that trail for just a bit and you will see a large cement "pipe" (it must be something like 10 or more feet in diameter, 3/4ths buried). After a fairly short distance--there are nice sycamores and tuliptrees right next to the trail--you will come to the point where you have to leave the trail and go to the left through some bursh, cross the stream, and then enter this little bottomland area.

There is actually an easier way to get to this area, but I am not sure I can describe it. If you go West on Resevoir road to the first street that turns to the right and go up just a few houses, there is a little dead end bit of a street that only goes about 150 feet to the right, again, and there is an easement into the park and a trail that goes along what turns ourt to be a little bluff. Follow that just a bit and you will see where the land drops away into the hollow/bottomland. That is where the tallest trees are.

Also, near the start of the trail from Resevoir road there used to be one very large tuliptree, dead for quite a few years now. It was something over 6 feet in diameter.

--Spruce

spruceman,

if your into fishing bring your rod next trip to swallow falls. great fishing above and below the falls. if your can stand the roar below toss hardware or weighted minnow lures for some very fat neglected trout.

beautiful area, i grew up in western md.

regards,

wildlifeman

Thanks Spruce: Since this was Pete's stomping ground during childhood, we'll find it. I'm really looking forward to walking this park, for the trees and from an "historical" perspective. You have great suggestions and they aren't so far away.

Pam:

Just one little "refinement" for my description of how to find the really tall tuliptrees. If you enter the park using the easement I tried to descripe and find the little path that goes into the park that way. I said the path, as you go for a short ways seems to lead to a bluff. If I remember right, before the path really gets near the bluff it turns to the left. The tall trees are also to the left if you use as a reference the direction you were going as you entered the park. Also, this group of very tall trees is relatively small--somehow I can't remember exactly, but the very best trees may be no more than 6 or 8, and from a forestry persprctive, they should have been thinned out 50 or more years ago.

--Spruce

Got it. I put the directions into my Palm so I always have them.

I've been wondering what you decided to plant on your new 6 acres but I should start a different thread for that question. I know you ran yourself ragged this summer carrying buckets of water to keep your young NS alive.

BTW: If you have favorite photos, and it sounds like you do, this site will digitize 1,000 photos for $49.95. http://www.scanmyphotos.com/photoscanning.html

Resin said he had 500 slides. This company will scan 500 slides at 2000 dpi for $0.98 each so the cost would be about $500 US. They can scan at 4,000 dpi but it costs more. They prefer that slides be in carousels, slide boxes, or sleeves.

I haven't had my photos digitized yet and am not recommending this company. I plan to do this when I have time ... and you know how THAT goes.

What kinds of trees are those in the second picture?

ryan...looks like hemlocks to me.

Thats what I was thinking. They look really big and tall. Thanks. Time to research the kind they are.

No question--if they are in Maryland, they are eastern hemlock, Tsuga canadensis. These trees can grow quite large. The maximum height I have heard of is 160 feet, but I would not be surprized if they could grow taller--virtually all the virgin hemlock stands were cut many, many years ago, and no accurate measurements were made and/or records kept of tree sizes. Tree diameters can exceed six feet for trees with large crowns.

The best place I know of to see these trees is in Swallow Falls State Park in Garrett County, MD. There are some very dense old growth stands there. I don't think any of the trees there are actually 160 feet tall, but I am not aware of any measurements of their height. They are very tall, and very beautiful. Not far away in WV is Cathedral State Park, also known for its hemlocks. The biggest trees in Cathedral State Park may be a bit larger, but the stands are not so dense.

I hope the wolly adelgid is controlled before these old hemlock stands are destroyed.

--Spruce

Tallest recent record was 52.8m, but it died from HWA last year; tallest currently alive is 51.8m

Resin

Here is a link that might be useful: Gymnosperm Database: Tsuga canadensis

The photos at the beginning look very nice.

You just inspired an extra topic related to forest access - climbing redwoods though.

If that Belt Woods area is by permit access now, were the photos taken before the permits were needed, or did you find an easy route to enter the area?

Hemlocks are my favorite forest trees for species - size set aside.

Hi mdvaden - I can't take credit for the photos. When I searched for "Belt Woods," I found them on Google images. I haven't visited the area yet - Spruce mentioned it in another post.

mdvaden:

She got the photos from on-line sites. But I am confused, or ill informed--is there some rule that one needs a permit to enter Belt Woods? I did a quick and not very thorough search on-line, and couldn't find any reference to a need for a permit. Is it now true one needs a permit to enter this woodland? If so, that is amazingly ridiculous. Wow!

As for hemlocks--yes, they are amazing. The eastern hemlocks do become more beautiful with age and size, but the young ones are incredibly graceful. The wooly adelgid problem is a tragedy that I really can't come to terms with. I know efforts are underway to find some biological control--predator beetles--but I can find little to give me hope at this point that this approach will work and that these trees will not be extinct in the wild in just a few years. Really, really awful!

The latest place where they have begun to kill the hemlocks is now the Joyce Kilmer Memorial forest in NC. Of course, this preserve is most famous for its giant tuliptrees, but the loss of the hemlocks there is a tragedy.

And, of course, my own 275 acres of timberland is about 30% hemlock, with many hundreds of beautiful old, towering individuals. The wooly adelgid is now on my "doorstep," so to speak. The destruction of these trees is something that I am trying to come to terms with, but so far, not very successfully.

--Spruce

Dear G-d, I didn't realize the adelgid was so severe. I have not heard of any trees this far north being affected (Poughkeepsie new york). What is the range on this pest?

Klavier:

The wooly adelgid has spread to just about, if not absolutely all, the eastern states. I am not sure if there is any accurate and up-to-date accounting of all the areas it has hit, but it is in Maine and I think all other New England states, and NY and PA. But my understanding it that it is in some states very spotty. Also, it spreads more slowly in the more northerly parts of its range, which may explain why it has still not hit my timberland in Western MD--Z5.

But in warmer areas it can spread quite rapidly--10 miles or more per year through natural means, but of course man can transport it inadvertantly without any time/distance limits. Several years ago the MD Forest Service began suggesting that landowners "consider" harvesting all their hemlocks that have any value, but as of now, thanks to the cold winters on the Allegheny Plateau maybe, they have not arrived in my timberland, at least from what I can observe.

One thing that is also involved here is the dependence of other plant and animal species on hemlock forests. There are a number of bird species, salamanders, and all kinds of things that are being threatened along with the hemlocks, which provide their habitats, habitats that are uniquely provided by these trees.

Attempts to control this tree killer were, in my opinion, too long delayed by exaggerated concerns about the impact of introducing potential predator insects to control this plague. I am not sure, but maybe 10 years were lost. I have some hope--not much--that some biological control will be found. If and when it is, there will be considerable regret that the efforts were not started sooner, with so many areas having been devastated in the meantime. But now, I am satisfied that the seriousness of the loss of the hemlock forests is well understood and real efforts are underway. Pray!!

--Spruce

Here's the best map I can find showing the spread of the HWA. It's not completely up-to-date. I've seen HWAs in Anderson County, TN and know that the forestry people are aware that they are there. But, the county is not shown as infected on the map.

Spruce, I can only imagine what you are feeling if your forest is 30% hemlock. I know how you feel about your land and would imagine you feel something like a tentative, overwhelming, helpless, semi-panicky frustration.

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:499751}}

Brandon:

Exactly! Thanks for the kind, sympathetic words.

Of course, we are all in this together--the nation as a whole stands to be a big loser. But, like I say, there is some hope. I found a recent report that seems to suggest that some of these predator beetles have survived over the winter, and one theory now is that even though they have not yet made any impact on controlling the adelgids in the wild, the populations of these beetles may increase over a period of years to achieve a balance with the adelgids. The adelgids will always be here now--no one thinks they can be eliminated--but if the beetles control them to the extent that some think possible, the damage to the hemlocks will not be so generally devastating. We can only hope and pray.

Oh, I also read that the adelgids on mountaintops in Japan survive temps far below anything that is experienced within the hemlocks' natural range here is the US, so all areas are vulnerable, even if the spread in colder areas is more slow.

--Spruce

Of all the introduced pests attacking our trees, this one-HWA-is for me also one of the harder ones to take. Spruce, I wish you hadn't included that last paragraph about their surviving in cold areas. Just kidding, of course. I don't really want to be shielded from bad news. It always seems to go that way with these foreign invaders: First, we in the cold states are lead to believe that our winters will keep these things out.......and then, they get here anyway.

And while Spruce and I have discussed these ideas before, in order to share with any other readers, this is one of the reasons why I am opposed to purist notions of land management that call for only working with native tree species. In my view, as more and more exotic invaders take hold here in N. America, we may well need exotic tree species to somewhat fill the ecological niches that are vacated by the demise of native tree species.

I am somewhat heartened to learn that there may be at least some success with that predatory beetle.

+oM

Tom:

If adelgids are not accidentally transported to your area, the "natural" movement of the infestation should leave you untouched for many years. By then, if some control method using these beetles works out, people will know what to do by then to protect the hemlocks.

But, and here is a depressing story, the nectria/scale disease was no where near my Western MD timberland, and was not expected to get there for a long, long time. Then, some jerk, decided that he would bring a truckload of firewood down from his place in Maine to Kempton, MD, which is about 4 miles south of my land. Of course, the logs he brought were from dying beech trees--all infested with the disease. So I not only will lose my hemlocks, but also my beech trees. Carrying firewood from Maine to the mts of western MD is as wierd and senseless as it gets, even forgetting about the fact that he should have known better, seeing the beech trees die there.

Lets hope no one decides to take any hemlock trees from some infested area up to Wisconsin!

Oh, as for the beetles--they are trying several kinds--I think at least three, but I have not kept up on the details of each kind. One issue of concern is that one or more of the beetles they are trying feed exclusively on the adelgid, making it difficult to get a population built up BEFORE the infestation starts, and after the infestation starts, it is difficult to get the beetle population to catch up with the numbers needed to make an impact. There are all kinds of complications facing these efforts.

--Spruce

******
wisconsitom says:
we may well need exotic tree species to somewhat fill the ecological niches that are vacated by the demise of native tree species.
******

The only elm that'll survive on my lot is Chinese elm -- even Siberian elms are dying (except for the old, original ones so far). This is due to DED and Elm yellows, both introduced diseases.

beng:

Yes, you are right--many, if not most, or all of the trees we are losing are irreplaceable. The Chinese and hybrid chestnuts can't replace our American chestnuts, etc., etc.

But Tom makes a good point. We had a discussion earlier about the restrictions placed on planting non-native trees for those participating in any of the MD forestry incentive progrms. For example, we are losing our hemlocks, but I am not allowed to plant Norway spruce, except up to 10%, as a part of any reforestation effort. Now NS will not really replace the hemlocks--it is not so shade tolerant and will not grow and reproduce in dense groves in any way that could mimic the environment created in hemlock forests, but in some general way it can compensate somewhat for the loss of the hemlocks.

Also, NS is generally very deer resistant. Other trees approved for the reforestation efforts, such as white pine, in some areas are virtually destroyed by deer. What is the sense in these restrictions? Same with European and Japanese larch--amazingly deer resistant, but not allowed. Stupid. Of course, the best answer to this specific problem would be to control the deer population, but as I have said in more than one rant previously, they won't do that.

--Spruce

Deer kill numbers were down significantly in WI this year and you should see the flack the poor DNR is taking! Of course, they've always been a target for criticism but this is ridiculous. Everyone's saying they've killed off all the deer with their harvest goals and techniques like "earn-a-buck" where a doe must be shot first before the hunter can kill a buck, etc, etc. What a pile of nonsense, this idea that deer are being exterminated!

Personally, I want to applaud their (The DNRs) efforts. I don't get the notion that every hunter who participates is "owed" a nice trophy buck.

Here in WI, as elsewhere in the north, the current deer populations are a relatively new phenomenon brought about by forest clearing, agriculture, etc. Those squawking the loudest about there being too few deer are completely clueless about the impact these herbivores have had, and are continuing to have, on the forest. And typically, if the issues are brought to their attention, they just don't care. Who needs white cedar and hemlock? (Well....the deer do)!

+oM

One perhaps encouraging observation is that a couple 40' hemlocks at my brother's house got infested w/adelgids some yrs ago, but have recovered to a large extent. I didn't see any trace of the adelgids remaining on them (no pesticides were used).

However, the pests are still around and the trees may simply get reinfested.

A few posters here touched on the topic of "Belt Woods" but nobody has really delved into the whole story. It can only be described as a conservation nightmare. Here's how I remember it:
Seton Belt owned 515 acre farm 15 miles east of Washington DC. This contained a North and a South Woods tract of VIRGIN GROWTH it had never been cut nor plowed. He was very protective of it. When he died in 1959 Belt stipulated in his will that the property was never to be logged. He left it to the Episcopal Church along with $10,000,000. WHAT WAS HE THINKING???????? In 1981 the will was broken and the North Woods was logged.
The tiny 43 acre South Woods is all the virgin growth that is left and is managed by the Western Shore Conservancy. One can understand why they are very protective of it. Volunteers can go in on Saturdays and help remove weeds like honeysuckle and winged euonymus.
Only 30 miles south is the Chapman Forest which is open to the public. It is preserved and owned by state of Maryland. This contains 2,000 diverse acres much of which is Old Growth bordering the Potomac River. Antebellum Mt. Aventine estate is also there along with lots of bald eagles. I'll take Chapman's any day over the tiny relic which is known as Belt Woods.

Gah, I have been floored by the level of apathy and ignorance the last two days that I have been home and able to read up on the world. I am new to trees, but I was always aware of their value. How can you break some guy's will when he left you $10 million, and virgin forest. Some Christians. What amazes me is how many people do not even realize there are trees around them. They know what trees are, but a tree is a tree is a tree to them, and all they know is that trees make air and they look nice. People don't understand how valuable trees are to their very existance, or what kind of damage their actions have. I am no tree hugger. I am perfectly fine with cutting down a tree, or logging ones private property, but really folks some of this stuff is just plain ignorance. I would love to know what the loggers were thinking when they cut the biggest tallest redwoods down, to make pennies for them as tooth picks. Yay, man dominates tree. :: grunts ::
The eucalyptus in southern australia is another subject. The record holding tree was measured on the ground with a chain after it was felled. Really?! And of all things, they are used for wood chips. At the rate we loose woodland species, we will find ourselves extinct in no time.
American Chestnut
American Elm
Eastern Hemlock
R.I.P.