[Carl Russell]

jenjudkins;12843 wrote:

…… it would be even nicer to get some feedback back to Meaders and its suppliers, so we wouldn’t have to:eek:.

Good luck with that. You wouldn’t be the first. Les Barden lives a little over 3 miles from there. They just sell whatever people keep buying. I have gotten every pair of traces I have ever bought custom made. I get 3 layers of seat belt nylon continuously wrapped covered by leather. Stronger that leather, more comfortable than nylon. The only thing I buy from Meaders is bits and shoes. They buy all their harnesses from one-size-fits-all Amish manufacturers. I even tried to talk with one of their suppliers, and they just don’t know the D-Ring harness and I couldn’t get what I asked for, and had to send it back….twice.

[Carl Russell]

Now some may not agree, but from my perspective I’m pretty young at 49, seeing as my mentors are in their eighties. I also grew up around people using draft animals. Most of them were still in the transition from animals to tractors, so mostly used them in the woods, and most of my early exposure was to farming with tractors.

Like several of you I got started in earnest at 26, buying my first horse in 1986. One of the biggest differences for me is that there are so many of you YOUNGER folks around now. I was pretty much alone, as the credit business, computers, and electronic communication were just blossoming, and most people my age were far from thinking about using draft animals.

I am very pleased to see your stories, and hope you find what you need to continue.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I agree with Josh. The first thing I saw was the corky bark, which is more like Honey Locust, but not being there puts me at a disadvantage, and more apt to take the word of the one skidding it out of the woods.

However regional common names can certainly confuse the situation. According to Donald Culross Peattie in A Natural History of Trees of Eastern and Central North America,

Sweet Locust, Gliditsia triacanthos can also be known as Thorny, Honey, or Black Locust. ….Bark is iron gray, thick, and divided by deep fissure into long narrow longitudinal ridges roughened with tough scales; somtimes very thorny. … Wood is very durable, very hard, medium heavy, with red or bright red-brown heartwood having a thick yellow ring of sapwood around it…..True that Honey Locust is the name given it almost throughout our horticultural, botanical, and forestry literature, but as country people usually apply “Honey Locust” to Robinia Psuedo-Acacia (Commonly known as black locust) because of its showy as well as fragrant flowers, both trees lay nearly equal claim to this as a name.

He also says Black Locust Robinia Pseudo-Acacia is also called Yellow, White, Red, Green, Post, or Honey Locust. …Bark is very thick and dark-brown or tinged with red, furrowed and sometimes cross-checked. …Wood is medium-heavy, very hard, very strong and stiff, the heartwood brown, the sapwood paler and very thin. …..But country people today, almost everywhere in the northern states, call this tree Honey Locust because of the sweet breath of the blossoms. Yet the botanical and horticultural works all try to confine the name Honey Locust to G. triacanthos. This confusion, which has persisted a century or so and promises to continue, is best circumvented here by designating our tree as the Black Locust, a name in good standing with the foresters.

This however does not speak to the variation of the bark on the tree that LanceK posted. This has definitle got me thinking.
Carl

[Carl Russell]

I can appreciate the comments by Kevin about longevity and affordability, but I have a slightly different twist on that.

I find wood, round log and timber frame to be my most preferred method of structural construction from the stand point of accessibility. I did use concrete in my foundation, and I had to buy that, but 75-90% of my home, barn, sugar house, and wood shed are made from material that I grew on my land, harvested with horses and cattle, sawed myself on my WM, and put together with my own design and skills.

I realize that my lifestyle is uncommon these days, but 100 years ago it was state of the art, and I believe that in 100 years it will be again.

Designing and building a structure with accessible materials, and utilizing skills allows, and perhaps requires, one to be prepared for the eventual repairs and upkeep. This is also a part of the past that has been throw away in modern culture.

I happen to loathe the thought of working to earn money to pay someone else to do the work that I require to survive. It just doesn’t make sense to me. On the same hand I am intrigued by the challenge to respond personally to my families needs, maintaining all manner of systems within our home, including septic, water, electrical, and structural, not to mention food, warmth, and motive power.

Seeing structural construction as only a component of our livelihood, it only makes sense to me to use material that is easily available, with methods and techniques that are relatively simple to master, and supported by a land-based lifestyle where the management of the forest resource not only delivers the necessary material but also many ecological and cultural benefits besides.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Just moved this thread to a more suitable location.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Geoff, the article was not about the difference between conventional forestry and horse logging. These are myths about forestry in general.

Although I do agree that it is unfortunate that many people perpetuate these myths, my comments were mostly oriented toward the fact that the pervasive nature of cultural beliefs, those passed from neighbor to neighbor etc., is almost impossible to compete with. It is not a factor of me, or anybody else, trying to promote an alternative, but just realizing that this is the nature of culture, and the fact is that many many people do get it. It’s just that there are some who (like my client) don’t want to admit that they need guidance and just try to make decisions based on bits and pieces of what they have picked up here and there, listening to the BS at the bar or wherever.

It isn’t a matter of some people passing around bad information, rather it is just cultural habits, and the necessity to believe that you can be a part of what others are doing if you do it a certain way. I’m not blaming anybody, it is an innate behavior choice.

The point that was being made in this article is that these myths are not part of conventional forestry either, they are just plain misinformation. And believe me I spend a huge portion of my life discussing these things with practically everybody I come into contact with.

It is ok to be confused, and it is great to ask for clarification, just people need to be prepared to open their minds to understanding new things, and most people just want it quick and simple. If it is going to cost them money to pay for my guidance then they often opt for the cheaper hearsay version, which usually leads them back to me, just at a higher end cost.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I didn’t levi any blame. It’s just that the ultimate decision is left up to the LO, and when there are these common misconceptions floating around then the one good idea is lost among them.

Quote:

Seems that you’ve got to sell the landowner on a less aggressive/drastic harvesting program AND have them be willing to commit to and pay for it. Is that correct? Otherwise, how can you compete or make a living cutting the same timber as the commercial guys and selling it at the same mill? Do I sound confused yet?

This is another example of a myth. I don’t think “WE” have to “SELL” anybody anything, nor does less aggressive harvest have to be anything but profitable. I in fact don’t have to compete with the hackers. I have turned away more work than I have been able to complete.

The problem is that we all tend to try to get an idea about things we are interested in. It just comes down to how hard we work at “understanding” the issue, and how much “legend” do we accept as gospel. This article is trying to point out that our modern culture is awash in myths about how to make forestry decisions, and many of them are based on belief that are unfounded. My point is that LO’s have all the responsibility. They either choose right, or they don’t. I can’t lose sleep over that.

I wrote a management plan for a local LO. He hired me because of my ecological and low impact perspective. I could not perform the work on his land because of my schedule (building my home), so I agreed to find someone to work for him. We were in a period where condition were limiting everybody, so the choices were limited. Because of a major up hill skid we were looking for a mechanized operator. His neighbor (now this guy knew it all, and allowed an atrocious operation on his land, and had actually called me up (cold) midstream to help because he was all of a sudden worried about the affect on his standing in the State’s Forest Taxation Program) recommended the guy who was working on his place. My LO had to drive by this mess every day, and complained about it, but the operator was a “nice” guy, so he spoke with him. I was called in to walk the woods, and lay out the job. LO really wants to work with this guy. I say, I didn’t mark this job to be cut with a shear, and look what he did next door. His call. He can see the work!!! I say lets get a contract together, and provide it for the LO. Too much! LO and operator want to work on a hand shake. 2 weeks later frantic phone calls. I have nothing to work with. No contract, no teeth. Because he was such a “nice” guy we were able to coax him off the property before he completely destroyed this particularly nice stand of sugar maple poles, but it ended up costing LO $1000 more for my time then he got in stumpage because I had to practically hold everybody’s hands.

I still work for this guy, and he is starting to listen a little harder to me, but I respect the LO’s right to make mistakes on their own property, but just because the guy next door thinks it’s a good idea, doesn’t mean that it is good forestry. And yes there is a bit of irony and frustration in my comments, but I have been having these conversations for nearly 30 years now, and there are some people who get it, and some who like the blinders they are wearing, and it is not my job to try to wrestle them off.

There is no guarantee that any of our work will have any lasting effect. Several of the lots that I groomed in the 1980-90’s have been sold and then smacked, so as much as that disappoints me, I just have to focus on trying to do the best job I know how to do.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Just to clarify, what Thom is writing about are cultural myths that are held by landowners. These are rationales that are often used to prop up uninformed decisions. The type of decisions made by some one who doesn’t want to look like they don’t know what they are doing. Both harvesters and landowners often fall into this classification.

I’m sure there are foresters who perpetuate these misconceptions, but as a rule most foresters understand things in similar terms to what Mr. McEvoy writes.

The problem that we often run into is that LO’s don’t want to hear long winded descriptions of ecological integrity, and how a larger tree is not necessarily an older tree, so not all the big trees should be cut…..blah..blah…blah. I have had several who couldn’t be bothered with all the overthinking, only to call me up in the middle of the catastrophy occurring on their land to ask for my guidance. As if ……..

As with much of Thom McEvoy’s stuff, this article is more of an intellectual exercise, with very little potential to actually educate very many people. To the professional practicing silviculure every day, this is rudimentary, and to the know-it-all LO this is just gobble-di-gook.

And by the way, Thom steps in it too, by insinuating that silviculture is the same as forest management. Silviculture is just the bundle of activities that affect or regulate tree growth, and in fact as a rule, do not include ecological concerns. Management is a bundle of activities that encompass a potentially wide range of perspectives and objectives, including ecology, aethetics, and personal interests of LO. Because the money in forestry comes from timber harvest, which is the result of silvicultural activities, it is a common misconception that silviculture is the turnstone of forestry. Good forest managers realize that silviculture is modified in it’s application to address the broader objectives of the management plan.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

On one hand I agree, that I would like there to be more commitment to actually respond, but at the same time we have invited a broad group of people to be a part of this, and not every one will have the same availability.

The time that we are taking is not about analysis, but to allow the discussion to take form from an adequate discussion in a strange medium (on-line meeting) by a group of people who have mostly never met, and who also have many different interests and obligations. We can discuss ways to grease the skids, but I think we have to make sure that we get as much input as we can.

As far as the views, if 7 of us visit the site to read the latest post then there will be 8 views for each post. So 7 votes could equal 64 views. So those numbers are inconclusive.

I think we have a name, mission statement, and goals, so as we move forward we should develop a protocol for how this medium will work to our best advantage.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

This looks awesome. I hope it goes well. Carl

[Carl Russell]

Robert MoonShadow;12695 wrote:

Katherine; That’s exactly what I’m talking about…and I’d like to see that type of competition again. A competition showcasing the abilities of draft animals.
It’d be one heck of an enticement to come all the way to Vermont next fall.

*hint, hint*

😀

We’ve definitely had it on the table. Maybe next year is the year to do it. I think we’d need a one eyed announcer though!!:eek:

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Josh,
I used one quite a bit years ago.

They do work, but you don’t get as good cover, as the mouldboards are short, and curve back instead of out.

If it’s all you got, I’d use it. It’s pretty easy to just turn back into the last furrow and work your way across the field without having to cover all the land between furrows as with a one way.

It is also good for the horses because they both learn to work on the furrow.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

#1 Ayuh
#2 Nope

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Taylor, this seems like a great thing to be working on, but the effort right now is to pull together the organization around the name, mission statement, and goals. When we have those things in place, we will be able to break off into the details of how we deliver the value to the membership.

Thanks for the good thoughts, Carl

[Carl Russell]

grey;12621 wrote:

It’s the point off another plow. A middle-buster or lister plow, as they are called. Good for trenching and planting potatoes……

It also looks a lot like the point off a “Side-hill”, or reverse-able plow. These were wood beamed plows with a double-sided point and share with a rounded mouldboard. One could turn at the end of the furrow, flip the whole thing over, put the other horse in the furrow and plow back the other way. Called “side-hill” because on sidling land one would want to lay the furrow down hill.

Rod, you may feel that your project is pretty simple, but I was only suggesting that you replace that wood because plowing can be more stressful on the equipment than you may be aware. I am sure that that beam is not “rotten”, but being as old and dry as it is, I would just throw on a new one. Looks like a pretty simple repair, and it will make things more successful. Otherwise, if you want to protect the historical nature of the piece, I would suggest not using it.

Carl

[Author]

Posts