Can this tree be saved? [LIGHTNING DAMAGE PIX]
Ignoramus8786
is nowhere in sight...
The blasts we heard last night were tremendous, ear shattering. Yet my
2 yo son slept through all that! (around 3 am)
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/lightning/
Thankfully, both of my computers were protected by UPSes.
The tree destroyed was a huge 200 year old oak.
Pieces of that oak were strewn 50 yards away.
i
MF
locations) I think it will probably survive since it does not have damage
all the way around. Hopefully it will heal up before any borers can inflict
damage. Good luck!
"Ignoramus8786" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbggo8h.hjj...@manifold.algebra.com...
Ignoramus8786
And yes, indeed it saved the house. Ours is right on top of the local
hill (a relatively small hill but nevertheless at the highest
elevation).
i
In article <g8rggvc0bnkpm5l9j...@4ax.com>, Lawrence Glickman wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2003 17:49:05 GMT, Ignoramus8786
> Consider the probability that the tree saved your house.
> Small price to pay?
>
> To answer your question, the tree WILL LIVE.
>
> I have one near me just like that. It will get along quite well if
> you just leave it alone.
>
> Lg
>
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
<ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid> wrote:
>Thanks LG, I am greatly hoping that the tree will live.
>
>And yes, indeed it saved the house. Ours is right on top of the local
>hill (a relatively small hill but nevertheless at the highest
>elevation).
Being on the highest elevation does not always mean you are the best
target. Lightning is a strange beast and can pick one person out of a
crowd of thousands to hit. A girl at a concert was hit by lightning
even though the stadium and light towers provided a much better path
to ground.
>
>i
>
>In article <g8rggvc0bnkpm5l9j...@4ax.com>, Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>> On 6 Jul 2003 17:49:05 GMT, Ignoramus8786
>><ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>|Would like to know if you think ths tree can be saved... our tree guy
>>|is nowhere in sight...
>>|
>>|The blasts we heard last night were tremendous, ear shattering. Yet my
>>|2 yo son slept through all that! (around 3 am)
>>|
>>|http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/lightning/
>>|
>>|Thankfully, both of my computers were protected by UPSes.
>>|
>>|The tree destroyed was a huge 200 year old oak.
>>|
>>|Pieces of that oak were strewn 50 yards away.
>>|
>>|i
>>
>> Consider the probability that the tree saved your house.
>> Small price to pay?
>>
>> To answer your question, the tree WILL LIVE.
>>
>> I have one near me just like that. It will get along quite well if
>> you just leave it alone.
>>
>> Lg
>>
Kirk
"Moe, Larry, the cheese!", Curly
Xenos the elder
Ignoramus8786 wrote:
You have to cover the exposed part of the stem with something otherwise
the tree will dry out.
I don't remember with what but a professional gardener should know.
>
>
renato luciani
> Thanks LG, I am greatly hoping that the tree will live.
>
> And yes, indeed it saved the house. Ours is right on top of the local
> hill (a relatively small hill but nevertheless at the highest
> elevation).
>
I agree with LG, since only one side of the tree looks affected,
probably the tree will survive.
I think you've been lucky it was nightime, no one around...
remember a couple of years ago, in a park near Milan an even
bigger tree (but it wasn't an oak )was hit and actually exploded.
Only the roots remained, the trunk and branches disappeared,
several people were wounded by debris an a girl 100 mt far
was hit by a chunk and died :o<<
r.l.
Ignoramus8786
I am glad that my tree exploded away from the house. Otherwise windows
would be shattered by flying bark.
i
B
protect the bare wood from all manner of bugs and varments.
-Bruce
"Ignoramus8786" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbggo8h.hjj...@manifold.algebra.com...
'Captain' Kirk DeHaan
<lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:59:34 GMT, "B" <nospa...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>|I would go out there with at least a gallon of the black sticky stuff to
>|protect the bare wood from all manner of bugs and varments.
>|-Bruce
>
>Actually, that is NOT a good idea.
>Forestry people have told me it is best to let it heal by itself.
>Painting it with creosote or such isn't a good idea, in -their-
>opinion.
>
>Same with limbing a tree. Leave it exposed. Do not paint with
>anything. _according_ for U.S. Forest Service.
>
>Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.
>
>Lg
The same group that has let our forests become tinder boxes ready to
explode?
Tom Jaszewski
>I would go out there with at least a gallon of the black sticky stuff to
>protect the bare wood from all manner of bugs and varments.
>-Bruce
NO!!!! tar would be far more damaging, most of the vascular system is
in place. What borer attacks oak?
Doug Miller
>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:07:49 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
><lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:59:34 GMT, "B" <nospa...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>|I would go out there with at least a gallon of the black sticky stuff to
>>|protect the bare wood from all manner of bugs and varments.
>>|-Bruce
>>
>>Actually, that is NOT a good idea.
>>Forestry people have told me it is best to let it heal by itself.
>>Painting it with creosote or such isn't a good idea, in -their-
>>opinion.
>>
>>Same with limbing a tree. Leave it exposed. Do not paint with
>>anything. _according_ for U.S. Forest Service.
>>
>
>explode?
>
the scientists. The advice to not paint wounds on trees comes from the
scientists.
You decide if they're worth listening to.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Frank White
ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid says...
OK, two worries.
First, that the lightning bolt might have killed the tree
outright (rare, but it does happen) or that disease might
settle into the gaps and kill the tree slow. You can't do
much about it if the tree is already dead (and you'll find
out soon because the leaves will fall off), but sealing the
places where chunks were blown out will reduce the risk of
the latter.
Second, did the lightning structurally damage the tree, as
by splitting it, for instance? If so this can be fixed
sometimes by running a heavy bolt through the tree and
forcing the split together. But first you'll have to
have a tree doctor look at the tree and see if it needs
external repair to keep from falling apart in a few years.
Trees usually survive such hits. But having expert help
look at it will increase its chances.
Good luck
FW
Ignoramus9242
> In article <slrnbggo8h.hjj...@manifold.algebra.com>,
> ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid says...
>>
>>Would like to know if you think ths tree can be saved... our tree guy
>>is nowhere in sight...
>>
>>The blasts we heard last night were tremendous, ear shattering. Yet my
>>2 yo son slept through all that! (around 3 am)
>>
>>http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/lightning/
>>
>>Thankfully, both of my computers were protected by UPSes.
>>
>>The tree destroyed was a huge 200 year old oak.
>>
>>Pieces of that oak were strewn 50 yards away.
>
> OK, two worries.
>
> First, that the lightning bolt might have killed the tree
> outright (rare, but it does happen) or that disease might
> settle into the gaps and kill the tree slow. You can't do
> much about it if the tree is already dead (and you'll find
> out soon because the leaves will fall off), but sealing the
> places where chunks were blown out will reduce the risk of
> the latter.
>
> Second, did the lightning structurally damage the tree, as
> by splitting it, for instance?
No. The tree is intact, only a strip of bark was blown away.
> If so this can be fixed
> sometimes by running a heavy bolt through the tree and
> forcing the split together. But first you'll have to
> have a tree doctor look at the tree and see if it needs
> external repair to keep from falling apart in a few years.
Right.
> Trees usually survive such hits. But having expert help
> look at it will increase its chances.
Thanks.
i
> Good luck
>
> FW
>
Jim Mc Namara
"Ignoramus8786" <ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid> wrote in message:
> Would like to know if you think ths tree can be saved... our tree guy
> is nowhere in sight...
>
> The blasts we heard last night were tremendous, ear shattering. Yet my
> 2 yo son slept through all that! (around 3 am)
I would let nature take its course (looks as though it already has now.) I
wouldn't paint it, coat it, or do anything to it other than keep an eye on
any type of disease it might be subject to during the healing process. If
you have any signs of any of this - treat accordingly. After all - it's
been around for over 200 years so far - and as the pictures tell the story -
it appears that the bark was blown off. Keep an eye on infestation of
insects on the white strips of exposed wood - this is the softest part of
the oak and easily attacked.
However, if anyone here cares to discuss the benefits of the divorce,
marriage, or survivalism since that was greatly cross-posted - I'm all ears.
:-)
Jim
Tim May
Ignoramus9242 <ignora...@NOSPAM.9242.invalid> wrote:
...
> > In article <slrnbggo8h.hjj...@manifold.algebra.com>,
> > ignora...@NOSPAM.8786.invalid says...
> >>The tree destroyed was a huge 200 year old oak.
> >>
>
> No. The tree is intact, only a strip of bark was blown away.
>
You need to get your story straight. In an early post you say the tree
was destroyed, now you say "only a strip of bark was blown away."
--Tim May
empress_otku
One thing about Igor's crossposting, I get such a kick out of seeing
Tim May posting to alt.support.marriage.
~Empress Queenie
Temily
<Empress Otku> said:
> One thing about Igor's crossposting, I get such a kick out of seeing
> Tim May posting to alt.support.marriage.
Yeah! I looked at Tim May posting and it looked funny to me too!
Temily
Ignoramus9242
I thought, in the beginning, that the tree was "destroyed", that is,
not survivable. Now it appears that perhaps it is actually survivable.
i
Louis Boyd
It least Ig. is seeking advice. He's under no obligation not to change
his mind about the level of damage. From the second set of pictures I
would expect the tree to survive with no intervention but the pictures
don't show the condition of the core wood well. I don't claim to be an
"expert" either.
He really has three choices.
1. cut it down. (some cost)
2. hire someone to evaluate it and to care for it or remove it. (more cost)
3. leave it be. (no cost unless it falls on his or a neighbors house).
--
Lou Boyd
Ignoramus9242
I am not sure if plan 2 is going to be more expensive than plan 1.
As far as care is concerned, at most, one would spray some tar on the
bare wood, and at best, one would do nothing.
i
Tom Jaszewski
<captkirk...@sandpoint.net> wrote:
>The same group that has let our forests become tinder boxes ready to
>explode?
>
Healthy Forest Restoration Act ...
Not So Healthy
Under the guise of preventing wildfires in western
states, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act leaves
national forests vulnerable to clear-cutting.
A new threat to national forests has risen like a specter from the
taxpayer-subsidized boondoggle days of public-land clear-cutting. The
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, so named without discernible
irony by its sponsors, Representatives Scott McInnis and Greg Walden,
recently passed the House as an attempt to control wildfires in
western states. But as written, it would leave communities at risk
from fire while gutting laws that protect national forests.
"The McInnis bill, like the president's Healthy Forests Initiative, is
not good for forests or people in the West," says NWF Legislative
Director Adam Kolton. "It uses the tragedy caused by last year's
wildfires as an excuse to rob the American people not only of their
forests but also of their rights under federal law to seek strong
protection for those forests. It is a giveaway to the logging industry
and a restriction on fundamental American rights."
The bill, which awaits Senate action, would allow the U.S. Forest
Service to conduct large, harmful logging projects, ostensibly to
remove fuel that could feed wildfires, without considering alternative
measures or their relative impacts. This would undermine the most
important aspect of the landmark National Environmental Policy Act,
enacted in 1972 to ensure that federal actions' harm to the
environment is weighed.
Although the McInnis bill purports to protect western communities by
speeding the removal of nearby plant matter that could fuel a
wildfire, the bill also encourages logging in remote backcountry
areas. It would even allow logging in endangered species habitat and
along streams that feed municipal water supplies.
In all, the bill calls for logging 20 million acres of federal land,
even though 85 percent of forestland near vulnerable communities is on
private, state and tribal lands. It fails to focus federal funding and
resources on areas adjacent to at-risk communities, considered the key
to reducing the threat of wildfires. The limited funding the bill
would provide to communities is dedicated to new programs that have
nothing to do with wildfire protection.
The bill also slams the door on judicial review and reduces
opportunities for public comment.
"The McInnis bill sets its sights on increasing the cutting of
publicly owned forests, not on reducing the threat of wildfires," says
Kolton. "It fails to help vulnerable communities while threatening
potential wilderness areas, forest health and the legal rights that
are part of being American."