[Carl Russell]

Does’ Leap;13476 wrote:

…. I ended up cutting through it as best I could, but hit dirt and dulled my saw. …

OMG George, you dulled your saw??;)

Just kidding. That’s why they make files. I can’t tell you how many times I have done that. In the best scenario, we could do all sorts of things to prevent this, but sometimes it can’t be helped.

One trick I use is to drive a wedge in the top of the cut as I work downward. This won’t prevent you from hitting dirt, but it can give a little more room to work with.

As far as peavey vs. cant hook.

Peavey has a point, often longer handle, and a larger hook. They are made for moving logs.

Cant hook has a blunt end with a toothed edge, shorter handles (typically), and a smaller hook. They are made for turning cants (square edged) on a sawmill.

I use the peavey point far too often to every consider using a cant hook in the woods. A peavey is as valuable as a lever as it is as a roller.

An aside. I like to put a slight bend, or crook in the end of the peavey point. This can give advantage when using the tool as a lever. It will get better purchase in tree bark, dirt, ice, etc. I find that I typically roll the peavey so that the hook is away from my leg as I drive it under a log, so I put the bend in the point to match that.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

This is a general post to all of you. I am not against using bridles without blinders. The logic I referred to from the start had nothing to do with either using, or not using blinders.

I stated that the logic that somehow suggested that horses without blinders were more able to handle threatening situations was flawed because there have been many instances, mine included, where horses with blinders could overcome all kinds of issues.

(This is a quote of the stated logic I was reacting to) A horse, or team, trained to work without blinders, is a far safer horse, and you are doing your horses a favor by giving them every advantage to respond to the unknown occurrence.

Quote:

As always I respect your choices, but I just have to say your logic is flawed. Otherwise horses with blinders would always be un-nerved by noises behind them. I have had horses that (with blinders on) would stand for dogs yapping and nipping at their bellies. Sure they’d put their ears back, and raise a foot, but they didn’t need to see what was going on to know what I expected of them.

Somehow several people took personal offense (I mention no names) at this. Reading that I was suggesting that working without blinders makes no sense. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. My entire tirade here has been trying to clarify that point.

It has also turned into me trying to defend a stance that hardware changes are not the same as training to address behavior.

I have no problem with how any of you work your animals. I however adhere to my own standards. My defensive stance has only been to try to illustrate that by not changing hardware I have been able to address many of the same issues that folks have addressed by removing, or working horses without, blinders.

This is not to say that my horses are perfectly well behaved. In fact I have many frustrating experiences with them, from time to time. I just have a few basic rules that I try to stick with. This is my own approach. My mantras.

When I describe them, and use examples of what I don’t do, I don’t mean that any of you are doing those things. I realize that Jen took offense, as if I was suggesting that she was doing what I would never do. I am sorry for that. That was not my intention.

I just don’t understand why there is so much defensiveness around this. My original post was misinterpreted, causing unexpected responses, and the more I tried to allay those concerns the deeper the hole was dug. I was trying to be general in my statements so that they would not be taken personally, and yet there seems to be a sense that I was attacking people.
I am sorry for that as well.

My issue has never been about whether or not to use blinders, but whether there is some magic bullet to training behavior. Bridles without blinders seem to work for some, but that in no way defines the outcome for those who use bridles with blinders. So in my mind the issue is not about different hardware, but about how the teamster approaches the working relationship with the horse.

Seems simple enough to me. Sorry for the confusion. I’m done, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Jen, I just don’t understand why this is so super charged. Perhaps I was too direct. I meant nothing insulting. I thought I was just responding to points that you were making. Sorry.

Carl

p.s. and by the way, did you not read my post #28. I have spent a lot of time working with horses with “issues”, and my basic philosophy is the same. I see all undesirable behavior as being equal, regardless of the “issues”.

[Carl Russell]

Quote:

In general though you may be surprised what they will do for you and what they can see come and go without being startled. I wouldn’t have believed the difference if I hadn’t seen it myself. I could have trained these easy going colts without a problem with blinders and had a real good young team but with these two being open it seems way faster and easier. I would have to disagree and say the hardware does make a difference.

Dennis my comment about hardware is not about how well your horses do without blinders. In fact I have every reason to believe that if I took the blinders off my bridles, my horses would have no problem at all. What I meant is that the blinder is merely a piece of hardware, and the effect it has on the working ability of the horse is negligible compared to the consistency of the teamster. I see no reason to remove my blinders. They are just hardware, and I don’t believe that they can negatively affecting my working relationship with any horse.

Quote:

My logic is working fine. I did not say or mean to imply that every horse needs to see what’s behind them, to feel confident in harness. I simply feel that MY horse in MY situation seems to be better when he can. I meant to imply that horses, like people, are individuals…with different experience and agendas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Russell
This is truthfully another case of the teamster focusing on tack instead of the animal.

I respectfully disagree. The fact is, I don’t need another bridle in my tack room. It has been careful observation of this horse while working with him that has brought the issue to my attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Russell
I appreciate the interest of a teamster to try something different, as an exercise, a challenge, but I don’t agree that these changes can actually have significant benefit over any other design or habit choice.

Here I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

Jen, you have focused on changing the working gear on your horse to try to address a behavioral problem. What will be your next move if it doesn’t work, or he develops another problem. How many pieces of tack can you change? At what point do you just address the behavior and not the tack? When do you accept that the positive improvement of the horse in reaction to the distraction has to do with your leadership?

My point about the flawed logic was not directed at you personally, but toward the discussion that was started by Wes, that seemed to indicate that horses with blinders are less able to assimilate to unpredictable situations, and therefore horses that have no blinders on, and can see more, are more able to deal with these situations. This is faulty logic. There is too much evidence to suggest that it is different for every teamster and team to make such a generalized statement. Many horses have worked calmly, even worked through extremely frightening situations, with blinders on.

This does not mean that a choice based on your own logical appraisal of your relationship with your horse should not lead you to work him without blinders. If that is your initiative, so be it. Just beware of reading too much into the difference in hardware design.

Quote:

You may not have the time or resources to deal with a horse that has some issues…I fortunately do.

????? I am not distracted by a horse with issues, yes, but not deal with it?? I deal with issues by being an effective leader, not by going into the bushes looking for the saber toothed tiger. A horse that is demonstrating misbehavior needs to understand that it is not an effective way to take responsibility for their role in the working relationship, because they find that it works to their disadvantage, and they are rewarded when they demonstrate the desired behavior. They also need to know that my initiative should be as important to them as it is to me, and by not letting them lead me astray I demonstrate that.

I love ya too. Same goes for all you folks,
Carl

[Carl Russell]

Also thank you to Elke, Nonie, Howie and Betty, Bill, Tim, and Frank. I really appreciate how easily people step up to the plate.

Thank you very much, Carl

[Carl Russell]

jenjudkins;13422 wrote:

You haven’t rehabbed a horse from an injury…that much is clear. It is an art to re-teach trust to an animal who has been injured and has issues with its work. This is not about convenience or about an agenda….its about restoring dignity and trust.

And somehow you have a bead on what my experience has been like? Like the horse I bought in 1987!!! That had been driven into the brook on a sap sled that she couldn’t move, so they cut a two-hander and laid it to her till she fell over lathered in the stream? She who I brought home and tried to skid a stick of wood that I could drag, and she let both feet fly when the traces were tightened?? The mare that would lather up and hover with all four feet apparently off the ground?? Who I broke two colts with? Who was led by my daughter as a six year old? The mare I worked for 21 years? WITH BLINDERS!!??

I know about dignity and trust. These things don’t have to do with hardware.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I seem to be misinterpreted. I am not dismissing working horses without blinders.

What I am saying is that just because horses work fine, or even better in some eyes, without them, does not explain why so many other horses work excellently with them.

I embrace anybodies notion that they want to train or work their horses a certain way, but the jump in logic is bothersome to me.

I know from experience that there are many things about the training and working process that animals can react negatively to. To somehow ascertain that there is some correlation between the behavior and the equipment is a mistake.

In the case of the original post here by John, the dog attacking the horse, it was entirely natural for the horse to react with some anxiety. It was also extremely appropriate for John not to continue to work her in the public setting. However if he had been in a safer surrounding, especially as he found out later, he could have continued to work her an she would have overcome the fear and focused on his positive guidance, without removing the blinders.

These are two different issues. Work the horse, and train them to encounter uncertain conditions and follow the lead of the teamster is one, and what hardware you want to use on your harness is a different issue.

All I was reacting to was the assumption that with blinders on there is a higher incident of fearful uncertainty in working horses. All I said was that it is a faulty assumption.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

jenjudkins;13417 wrote:

You had to use that word…flawed! Its just not accurate, Carl:(.

…. Its not a flawed approach….its just different from yours.

….

I actually didn’t say your approach was flawed. I said the logic was flawed. That which assumed that if the horse could not see a distraction then they would be unnerved by it. My experience with horses with blinders suggests that they offer no impediment to the horses ability to work calmly, and to overcome frightening situations.

My point was that blinders are just a piece of leather attached to the harness that is on the horse. They are not the reason a horse does or doesn’t do something. It is the teamster that is the reason the horse does or doesn’t do a certain thing.

I absolutely agree with working outside the box. I work by the seat of my pants all the time, on behavior modification etc., but I guarantee you that even if you never changed a thing on your harness you could still modify the behavior.

My comments are directed at the motivation to look to some external item, or some other distraction, geraniums blowing in the wind, as the cause for the difficulty in effective guidance. When changing those external items,ie. removing the blinders, seems to work, I contend that it has less to do with the removal of the item, and more to do with the change in the comfort level demonstrated by the teamster because they now believe that they have solved a perceived problem. The horse picks up on the renewed confidence, and responds positively. It is really not the change in the item, but the change in the presentation of the teamster.

When teamsters allow themselve to get distracted by those extrenal items they, in the long term, are letting the horse lead them. My choice is to disregard the distractive behavior, and reiterate my intention that they follow the lead I have given to them.

That’s the way I see it. I have no problem with anybody wanting to try something different than I. I just think that it is important to point out that there is a tendancy to misread, or read too much into some things, and the mentoring I got was to “Drive the horse”, not the other way around.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

As always I respect your choices, but I just have to say your logic is flawed. Otherwise horses with blinders would always be un-nerved by noises behind them. I have had horses that (with blinders on) would stand for dogs yapping and nipping at their bellies. Sure they’d put their ears back, and raise a foot, but they didn’t need to see what was going on to know what I expected of them.

This is truthfully another case of the teamster focusing on tack instead of the animal. If you want blinders, or none, or even a blue nylon harness, those things are fine, but they don’t have nearly as much affect on the working ability of the horse as consistent guidance from the teamster. Sometimes making these changes are exactly what the teamster needs to make them feel more comfortable, and therefore better leaders.

I realize that my choice to use blinders is entirely because that is what I have always known. I appreciate the interest of a teamster to try something different, as an exercise, a challenge, but I don’t agree that these changes can actually have significant benefit over any other design or habit choice.

I, however still believe that the limited vision is in fact superior. Being animals that are incredibly aware of all of their surroundings, the blinders help the horses narrow their view shed, requiring them to be more dependent on the guidance of the teamster. When the teamster encounters a horse that is uncomfortable with that, I don’t think the answer is to give them an alternative. All of that extra information gained from increased vision is unnecessary for the task at hand. The challenge is to rise to the requirement of providing the desired guidance.

At least it is for me.

It is too simple to say that horses work better this way or that. Working with animals is an art. If working without blinders enhances the way you practice your art, awesome. Even though we need cooperation from the animals, it is not the animal’s art, it is the teamster’s art. The gain in effectiveness comes from the teamster not from the animal. Methods that try to inform the animal about the enterprise may have some effectiveness, but in my mind they are mostly distractions from the task at hand.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

George, I think you’re referring to a long chain that you use behind the cart to pull logs out of the brush, then disconnect and hitch to the choker..??

I use a similar chain. I think 3/8 is bigger than I use. I have used 5/16 with little problem. Hardened links will be pretty expensive. I usually find chains that long (soft steel) at yard sales and auctions, so I have a collection of them.

They do break from time to time. Last winter I was pulling tree length white pine (3-400bf/tree) and I broke one. Nothing a repair link can’t solve.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Welcome LF, I am too busy here to get around to other sites so its nice you are visiting here. I look forward to your posts.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Sorry I missed all this. I read the first couple of posts and agreed entirely with Dennis, and could see where he was going with this thread. Unbelievably, it took a turn into disarray.

I am banning Bumpus. I apologize for the distractions he has caused here. I try to give everyone the chance to participate constructively, but alas some just can’t seem to do that.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Thanks for the reminder about creating some other advertising capacity on here. But you know now there is nothing stopping you from doing that anyway. I am going to explore some more of those options, but please realize that all of those strategies require more time from me, and some of that income has to go to offset that added cost to me.

We are off to a great start. Thank you Joe, George and Kristan, Erik, Christine, and Scott. With these contributions we are already up to $320.

That is awesome.

Thank you so much, Carl

[Carl Russell]

blue80;13317 wrote:

… when I have tried to educate people in the past, they glass over and are disinterested. Some people don’t want to learn or be involved, just want the service performed. And then it is your option to select them as a client or not, knowing that not every job is a good job.

I think it has a lot to do with how you want to run your own business model.

…

This is a great point. When I see the eyes glaze over, I move on. I like to work with enthusiastic informed clients. I don’t like to work for people I have to hold their hand constantly.

Knowledgeable landowners become effective stewards. If they don’t want to do the work themselves then they will learn to count on you. And any work they will do themselves is work you don’t have to do.

My other comment is that you try to educate them about the costs associated with your services. It is one thing for them to know what a log is, or a cord, but they also need to understand why you need to make a living doing what you do.

Good luck, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Nice:rolleyes:

Carl

[Author]

Posts