Working out the age of trees

[Forsoothe!]

Actual age is perhaps important, and if not it is certainly interesting, but I am more inclined to wonder how long a tree has been in training.

Time in traning is certainly reflected in the fine detail of the presentation. The very best trees have a level of detail, especially ramification, that can't be had without years and years of careful grooming.

 

[Woocash]

Actual age is perhaps important, and if not it is certainly interesting, but I am more inclined to wonder how long a tree has been in training.

In that case, is it not more ethical to only start with trees under say, 50 years old or less, to specifically train them as old looking trees?

For example, someone takes a 500 year old juniper from it’s spot of isolated existence. The place where it was born has too much sustenance for it to die, and too little for it to thrive, yet it has existed through all of humanity’s major and most destructive development. Now, that person has reduced it’s chances of survival for another 500 years right down to very close to zero. As well as they may act as it’s custodian, they would be relying on 10, 20 or more further generations to sustain it’s natural lifetime. There aren’t many Bonsai, relatively speaking, of anywhere near that age (as in training age).

You could say that about any tree, probably, but a tree that has gotten used to the rigours of a hard life would have more chance of reaching 1000 years than a whippersnapper with delusions of grandeur has of reaching 500. Would it not?

 

[penumbra]

In that case, is it not more ethical to only start with trees under say, 50 years old or less, to specifically train them as old looking trees?

Ethics need not apply. It is too subjective.

 

[rockm]

In that case, is it not more ethical to only start with trees under say, 50 years old or less, to specifically train them as old looking trees?

For example, someone takes a 500 year old juniper from it’s spot of isolated existence. The place where it was born has too much sustenance for it to die, and too little for it to thrive, yet it has existed through all of humanity’s major and most destructive development. Now, that person has reduced it’s chances of survival for another 500 years right down to very close to zero. As well as they may act as it’s custodian, they would be relying on 10, 20 or more further generations to sustain it’s natural lifetime. There aren’t many Bonsai, relatively speaking, of anywhere near that age (as in training age).
and
You could say that about any tree, probably, but a tree that has gotten used to the rigours of a hard life would have more chance of reaching 1000 years than a whippersnapper with delusions of grandeur has of reaching 500. Would it not?

This is an ethical question that faces many collectors. There is no easy answer. I tend to understand why someone would take a 500 year old tree off of some remote--and remote is a key) ledge, where it is among literally thousands of other old trees that can't be easily collected. No one is really going to miss it. This is truer in the American West than, say in Western Europe or Japan, where there is substantially less territory. The vastness of the Western U.S. dwarfs Europe and Japan put together. There are millions of ancient trees in that territory. Bonsai hunters won't make much of a dent in them. Certainly a lot less than simple land development, logging, etc.

There is no real substitute for VERY old trees. Even an old-looking 50 year old tree can't compare to the presence of ACTUAL old and ancient trees. They have a spirit shaped by nature that can't really be accomplished artificially. That is the attraction. Collecting depends on ETHICAL people. Of course there are fools who collect such old trees without the skill to keep them alive, or they collect them in areas where they will be missed, etc.

 

[Woocash]

Ethics need not apply. It is too subjective.

Yes, fair enough. Sorry for the minefield.

This is an ethical question that faces many collectors. There is no easy answer. I tend to understand why someone would take a 500 year old tree off of some remote--and remote is a key) ledge, where it is among literally thousands of other old trees that can't be easily collected. No one is really going to miss it. This is truer in the American West than, say in Western Europe or Japan, where there is substantially less territory. The vastness of the Western U.S. dwarfs Europe and Japan put together. There are millions of ancient trees in that territory. Bonsai hunters won't make much of a dent in them. Certainly a lot less than simple land development, logging, etc.

There is no real substitute for VERY old trees. Even an old-looking 50 year old tree can't compare to the presence of ACTUAL old and ancient trees. They have a spirit shaped by nature that can't really be accomplished artificially. That is the attraction. Collecting depends on ETHICAL people. Of course there are fools who collect such old trees without the skill to keep them alive, or they collect them in areas where they will be missed, etc.

Your point about the size of the US is a great one. It’s hard for me to quantify, other than from my solitary flight to Vancouver which took the best part of 5 hours to cross Canada alone. There are a lot of trees in that area!

It’s just the long death sentence of ancient trees I am wondering about. At the end of the day, it’s true about land development and logging and the amount of shits the people who are responsible for that give. It is also true that part of the idea of Bonsai is to preserve and even strengthen old trees rather than to kill them. I don’t know, I dived down a rabbit hole with this one.

Then again, as my original post was suggesting, how can you even tell the age of a tree in an unchartered area and when the line has even been crossed, if there even is one? Think Penumbra hit the nail on the head actually.

 

[William N. Valavanis]

It is NOT always necessary to create the appearance of an old aged ancient tree. There is also beauty in displaying the image of young trees as well.

Counting the annual rings does not always indicate the age of a tree. Deciduous species often develop an additional annual ring “false annual ring” when defoliated or when there is a trauma in nature which causes leaf drop.

The beauty of a bonsai is more important than the actual age of a tree.

 

[wireme]

This is an ethical question that faces many collectors. There is no easy answer. I tend to understand why someone would take a 500 year old tree off of some remote--and remote is a key) ledge, where it is among literally thousands of other old trees that can't be easily collected. No one is really going to miss it. This is truer in the American West than, say in Western Europe or Japan, where there is substantially less territory. The vastness of the Western U.S. dwarfs Europe and Japan put together. There are millions of ancient trees in that territory. Bonsai hunters won't make much of a dent in them. Certainly a lot less than simple land development, logging, etc.

There is no real substitute for VERY old trees. Even an old-looking 50 year old tree can't compare to the presence of ACTUAL old and ancient trees. They have a spirit shaped by nature that can't really be accomplished artificially. That is the attraction. Collecting depends on ETHICAL people. Of course there are fools who collect such old trees without the skill to keep them alive, or they collect them in areas where they will be missed, etc.

I agree.

Last weekend I went out to re-asses the collectibility of a couple trees I’ve been thinking about collecting. Found them 5 years ago. Turns out that the drought summers of 2017 and 2018 killed off about 80 percent of the appropriate sized trees on this particular hillside, including the ones I was interested in. Young trees and old. The very old ones have slightly lower mortality but still mostly kicked the bucket. Lots of dead large old trees too, many lost the upper crown but stay alive down low. Part of the reason I didn’t collect these earlier is that the collectibility was questionable. The kind of trees that appear probably collectible but a person really can’t know for sure until extraction starts. I wish I had tried now, mighta saved them. Of course you can never know how long they will continue to live out there.

Below is one of the trees, now and before

 

[Pitoon]

I think a more realistic approach is to list how long the tree has been in training. Unless you plant a seed and grow it from there or your past relatives planted a seed and then passed the tree down to you. No one would never know unless you take a sample.

But really does the age of a tree really matter?

I'll give everyone a question to debate about....... You have a tree that is say 50yrs old and then you decide to air layer one of it's branches (that branch is say 35yrs old based on counting the rings when you cut the branch) you then take that air layering and put it in the ground or a pot and grow it for 1yr.

Is the new tree....50yrs old because it came off a 50yr old tree? 35yrs old because you counted the rings when you cut? 1yr old because its now living on it's own roots as a separate tree?

 

[JudyB]

It is NOT always necessary to create the appearance of an old aged ancient tree. There is also beauty in displaying the image of young trees as well.

Counting the annual rings does not always indicate the age of a tree. Deciduous species often develop an additional annual ring “false annual ring” when defoliated or when there is a trauma in nature which causes leaf drop.

The beauty of a bonsai is more important than the actual age of a tree. View attachment 263300View attachment 263300View attachment 263301View attachment 263302

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Not that I am not in awe of the ancient old specimens, but beauty has just as much a place in bonsai.

 

[BobbyLane]

I think a more realistic approach is to list how long the tree has been in training. Unless you plant a seed and grow it from there or your past relatives planted a seed and then passed the tree down to you. No one would never know unless you take a sample.

But really does the age of a tree really matter?

I'll give everyone a question to debate about....... You have a tree that is say 50yrs old and then you decide to air layer one of it's branches (that branch is say 35yrs old based on counting the rings when you cut the branch) you then take that air layering and put it in the ground or a pot and grow it for 1yr.

Is the new tree....50yrs old because it came off a 50yr old tree? 35yrs old because you counted the rings when you cut? 1yr old because its now living on it's own roots as a separate tree?

it matters more to newbies. i remember my first bonsai, a Carmona with a spindly trunk.....i posted it on a forum and was eager to know how old it was. now i dont care.

 

[rockm]

Yes, fair enough. Sorry for the minefield.

Your point about the size of the US is a great one. It’s hard for me to quantify, other than from my solitary flight to Vancouver which took the best part of 5 hours to cross Canada alone. There are a lot of trees in that area!

It’s just the long death sentence of ancient trees I am wondering about. At the end of the day, it’s true about land development and logging and the amount of shits the people who are responsible for that give. It is also true that part of the idea of Bonsai is to preserve and even strengthen old trees rather than to kill them. I don’t know, I dived down a rabbit hole with this one.

Then again, as my original post was suggesting, how can you even tell the age of a tree in an unchartered area and when the line has even been crossed, if there even is one? Think Penumbra hit the nail on the head actually.

I don't collect trees for their age. It's difficult to do here in the eastern and southeastern U.S., most of the higher mountains are protected in national forests. Out west, land is held by the Bureau of Land Management - which issues "use" permits rather easily for collecting trees. In the east, permits are harder to come by.

most of the trees worth collecting in the eastern states are found in less than pristine areas, like coal mine slag heaps, vacant spare lots, broken down plantations, old orchards, household landscapes that are being ripped out, old farm lots, etc. and fence lines along pastures... The oak I posted was growing in a thick, prickly mess of Texas chaparral near Austin. You'd never know it was there that tangle was so dense, but the guy who dug it out knew how to look for good trees.

In the end, the age of a tree, as Bill Valavanis so aptly pointed out, isn't really the point. The point is --is it beautiful or does it have the potential to be made so...