[Carl Russell]

Donn Hewes;18939 wrote:

… Question about the roached mane. Is that just personal preference or is there another reason you do that?…

Personal preference because I can’t stand trying to keep the mane managed. I never liked a long mane, scraggly and always in the way. I was never good at trimming a mane so it didn’t look like a bowl cut. My mentors always roached their horses’ manes, and I liked the way it looked, and after trying natural manes, I agreed with their preferences.

Oh, and it really helps them pull better;)

Carl

[Carl Russell]

jenjudkins;18928 wrote:

…. Maybe he never goes downhill?

Britchen is basically useless when working with loose rigging anyway, and he may never use them on a wheeled rig so never snugs them up. Many loggers used to just have back pad and belly band and that was it. Just seems funny to have britchen on the harness and not have it adjusted to fit, especially seeing his apparent skill and savvyness.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I agree, he did a great job, but the britchen…WTF.. might as well not even have it on…

Team and teamster worked well together. I liked the way he applied the roller log. I have used roller logs many times. There is no doubt that a log on rollers will reacts differently than one just skidding on the ground, but in this case it was obvious that the teamster was well aware of how the log was moving. His team was very responsive, so I feel good about him making somewhat risky maneuvers.

Thanks for the link, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Matthew;18884 wrote:

….You dont need posts that close together but you do need some hight so they cant jump the fence. Orchards by me use electric fence on a inward slant so they can’t jump over….

I built a few of these when I was a work-study student in college, for genetic study plantations of tree species. Those were actually with outward slant so that the deer found themselves under the fence before they were close enough to jump. They are wicked expensive, but if the markets are strong for the produce, then maybe it makes sense.

I personally know a lot of people who like to eat venison, and I know the pop is high in PA, so I still think popping them off would be most cost effective.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I would be cautious about trusting urine alone. Deer are pretty clever, and they know when there is nothing there to chase them. You can by all types of predator urine from trapping suppliers.

As an alternative to the dead deer on a fence post you can get road kill and have blood meal made. Like whole deer sausage. When hung in muslin bags from branches and fence posts it will provide that alarming odor of dead brethren.

Either way, letting them know that a predator is on premises will be most effective. Scaring them away with dogs, or by shooting at them. Otherwise I know in VT there are folks who make some portion of their livelihood killing crop destroying deer. It is legal here, and it could be the simplest solution…hire a predator.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Let’s have a DAP deer weekend at Andy’s.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Pioneer has many. I just brought home 2 pair, and had them used before I knew it. Sorry I didn’t know you needed some. I wonder about getting a shipment for local redistribution….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

dlskidmore;18845 wrote:

….. I still have the tendency to separate the layers of knowledge. I see book learning and hands-on time as equally important, and I would prefer to learn theory before practice. My quest for book learning does not seem very welcome here.

Don’t take it that way. We all need to learn our own way. I have a couple of dog-eared work horse books that I read before I bought my first horse, and have referred to many time over the years. Everyone is built differently, needing to know things in different ways.

Just be aware that when you do start learning from a mentor, that you don’t keep saying, “I know, I read that in a book”:D

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Matthew;18835 wrote:

Never under estamate the intelligence of a animal. A well broke team will teach you more in a day than you could learn in a year reading books and talking to people. Working animals does not require a PH.D, more important than learning what to do with animals is learning what not to do. You need to think how that animal is thinking and as a teamster see a situation before it is a problem. A horse I use to drive was a good horse he was not a horse for a green teamster but most of the things that would excite him were predictable crossing a muddy spot in a field a catch bason on the road the key to keeping him quiet was to see something that got him excited be for he did and get him up on the bit. If you drove with a slacked line and he got a few steps ahead of you you might have a run away. I have also met a teamster that loved horses but horses didn’t love him he had no sence and it showed. He could not get horses to do anything he wanted and he would blame the horse not himself.

While I agree with a lot of what Matthew wrote I do take some issue with the well-worn assumption that experienced animals can “teach” us anything.

I agree that we should never underestimate the intelligence of an animal. When we reduce our expectations for their capabilities, then we are asking for under-performing animals. However, animals while extremely perceptive, will not lead in the work that is expected of them. If the best broke team was in the hands of a complete novice, it would only be a matter of time before they were only performing at the capability of the novice teamster.

I whole-heartedly endorse the self-learning process. I bought a horse and went logging. I learned a lot. I learned a lot because I was working with the horse, but I was not taught by the animal.

The teamster must take full responsibility for leading the process. Working with other experienced people is an extremely valuable expenditure of time. Learning how an effective teamster leads his or her animals is huge.

I would spend time with a couple of mentors, then go back in the woods and struggle to do what they did. Learn how the animals think, but learn how people lead them into working environments, and you will never have to be on the look out for possible problems.

The worst trap you can run into with working animals is trying to second guess what they are going to do. The next worse trap is thinking that your animals know what they are doing better than you do.

Know your work, know what you expect from your animals, and know that they look to you for guidance and you will work through every unexpected situation as if it didn’t exist.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

dlskidmore;18833 wrote:

… I don’t get how it would be a good idea to touch a plow even under a master’s guidance when I have only a rudimentary understanding of the creature pulling that plow. Shouldn’t the learning process start on the other end?….

I couldn’t agree more.

However, the point about learning how to use the plow is that you also need to have an understanding about the work that you will be training the animals to perform. Working with any animal is about conditioning, but it is also about leadership.

Using draft animals that whoa, back, stand, etc. is important, but if you lead them into work that you are un-experienced with, or nervous about, then your leadership will be compromised, and they will not perform as well. They will only work as well ans the handler.

The other part about spending time with those that are doing what you want to do, is that you become conditioned. You will learn to see the response and demeanor that you should expect.

Certainly find a way to learn as much as you can about the animals, but don’t dismiss the value of learning the work at the same time.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

He’s not really close, but it will be well worth the trip to visit Howie Van Ord in Russell PA. He visits here from time to time, and may respond. You may be able to PM him, @ Howie (member name). From the map it looks like about a 3 hour drive.

Even if you don’t visit, he can tell you who else may be in your area.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

near horse;18791 wrote:

……
Also, renewable and sustainable are not interchangeable terms. We can eventually harvest a renewable resource into oblivion by unsustainable practices. Timber is a great example. It is renewable because it can be replanted or regrown etc. The sustainability part comes in how we manage the renewable resource (and ourselves for that matter!)…..

This is the key. I have said for years,” I don’t manage the forest, I manage my impact on it.”

The only way that Biomass, or any other energy will be sustainable is through conservation. We, as a society, have a huge readily available energy source just waiting for us to tap into. Turn off your lights, air conditioners, street lamps, neon signs, etc. and when we reduce our consumption then we will hold the key to using these sources in a sustainable manner.

carl

[Carl Russell]

Matthew;18766 wrote:

This one’s for you mitch. 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyZXnpO8Jew

That is way too much. Fickin’ Awesome.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Scott, I appreciate your perspective, but honestly man, you are one is very few who are working to establish scale appropriate systems. Around here in the media, and the Dept of Forestry, they are not talking about biomass in such terms. They are using terms that would lead you to believe that biomass can be developed on a state wide basis, and that it will not just be schools or municipal buildings, but power generation etc., that using biomass is environmentally friendly, with no explanations about the way the forest is managed to supply the wood, and the emphasis would lead you to believe that the new markets will bring the forest industry back.

There is no doubt biomass has some value, but there is a lot more energy and technology used in biomass production than there is in a typical Vermont home heated by fuelwood. Biomass production in the form of chips and pellets requires a lot of energy and equipment, and there is the typical modern assumption that we will be able to keep it all working. If we replace oil with biomass, then we should really be looking at ways that make us more energy independent, not just as dependent on large capital outlays on equipment specialized equipment that require a secure source of energy to run them.

And this doesn’t come close to the foolishness that they are calling forestry that is required to facilitate these large volume harvests of low grade material.

Scott, hopefully you are in a position where you can have some affect on the development of the industry, but from my perspective, it is a freght-train with a new fuel source, and there are a lot of faulty assumptions that are keeping it moving.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

jac;18728 wrote:

…. How much diesel is used? …..

This point is missed by most. There is very little profit margin in this low grade and most of the value of the product goes to machinery that harvests , processes, and transports it to market. It is not as bad as ethanol, but there is a lot of diesel used to make the wood into a product that can be used to make energy.

Furthermore the economy of scale required to make harvesting this type of wood creates a lot of impact through traffic on the land, removal of coarse woody debris, and density reduction. There is very little sustainable about this “new” energy source. In our region the forest soils are in the preliminary stages of recovery from being over-pastured, compacted, and eroded, and now we are poised to rob them of any future productivity.

DUH!!! Forestry my ass:mad:

Carl

[Author]

Posts