It's interesting how much of a difference there is between the growth of trees and shrubs in the different areas of the BWCA. For example this year we finally made it out to South arm knife, an area I'd been wanting to get to for a long time, and the area of young growth was much bigger than I had anticipated. Lots of young pines intermixed with shrubs that haven't been overcrowded by the trees yet. Made for some stuffy campsites with wall-like vegetation. I knew there have been fires recently (10-20 years?) in that area, amazing how slow (to us) that stuff can be to recover.

On the other end (literally I guess) there's Lac La Croix, it was very impressive how many old trees there were. It seemed like every campsite was well covered by towering trees that didn't have many low branches anymore which was always great for tarps, and pine needle'y covered campsites.

I'm really curious, what have been your observations?

I am glad that the South Arm is beginning to regenerate. I was there about 5 years ago, and the area was pretty immature yet. My concern is that young white and red pine might not be as represented as all of these fires have been too hot and intense and these species regenerate better when there are low grade ground fires.

LLC has always been a favorite for me for the whites and reds. I read that Bud Heinselman, the late U of M Forestry researcher, was also captivated by the area. Certain birds, particularly some species of warblers depend on this old growth to nest. Sad that according to The White Pine Society, only 2% of acreage of original coverage of white pine in MN, is left.

White pines are special trees. By sheer luck, my property has some of the biggest white pines in these parts. One recently lost a limb to wind and that limb is the size of a good-sized tree. BTW, white pines in Maine were the first conflict in the Revolutionary War, predating tea, for George claimed Maine's white pines for his ships' masts and Mainers claimed they had dibs.

As far as regeneration following a fire, it's a thickety mess, a WWE cageless brawl with chemical folding chairs being swung upside heads and more shadowed losers than sunlighted winners. In short, it's not pretty. I was walking a portage trail once with another outdoor writer and the land had been logged about 25 years prior. It was so thick with tussling life that I said, "Go in there and you die." He agreed.

BTW, "trees" in the title is my flare. For some, it's "bears." For other, it's "mines." For me, it's "trees."

There was a scholarly article written in the Minnesota Conservation Volunteer magazine a few years back in which the premise is that there is an absolute limit in how high a white pine can grow, and the limit is somewhere about 130 ft. The premise was based on physics of hydrology and the force a plant like a white pine can exert to pump the water to the highest branches. But one thing about it bugged me. What if the tree was rooted near an artesian upwelling or other place where water would be forced upward. Would that explain why there were many historical observations both in Maine and the St. Croix valley of WI/MN of pines exceeding 200 ft?

quote emptynest56: "LLC has always been a favorite for me for the whites and reds. I read that Bud Heinselman, the late U of M Forestry researcher, was also captivated by the area. Certain birds, particularly some species of warblers depend on this old growth to nest. Sad that according to The White Pine Society, only 2% of acreage of original coverage of white pine in MN, is left."

It's really interesting you say that about the birds. My last 2 trips have been on out of EP 16 and and EP 14 accordingly, and there were a TON of birds. Seemed like every campsite had it's own barred owl, even heard a whippoorwill on one sight. I may have hyped the birds up a bit to my friends cause we didn't hear/see squat on SAK aside from a lonely Seagull visitor and a Bald eagle passing overhead. I think we were just unlucky.

What other areas would you say are like LLC with respect to the older trees?