[Carl Russell]

Just moved this thread into the Web-links category, seeing as there are so many links posted here.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

The most important advice has already been written (work with someone, or a few someones).

I have also worked with several very experienced riders, and my only extra feed back is that it takes a bit of intellectual effort to change the habits of body contact that riders are accustom to. Work with someone who is working horses so that you can get exposed to the ways that drivers “connect” to the horse.

I know that not all people are the same, but I have noticed that “riders” tend to have a hard time learning to direct and connect to the horse when they are not in the seat.

It really is none of my business, but I think that riders do themselves a disservice when starting out learning to drive, and riding instead. I appreciate the desire to have a horse that is dual purpose. I also understand the need to do something with the horse that one is comfortable with, but the two exercises are very different.

I’m not saying that training a horse to ride is wrong, just learn to separate the two perspectives in your mind, and work on them in their own contexts.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I have also used U-bolts to attach a pole to the tongue. This is a good way to prevent splitting that can occur from single bolts through the pole.

On my wagon I have a permanent pole, and then U-bolt on a wagon tongue when I want to move it to a job, or somewhere using the truck.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Meader Supply Corp.
23 Meaderboro Rd.
Rochester, NH 03867
1-800-446-7737

http://www.meadersupply.com/

[Carl Russell]

Jason, Is this the one I spent time with at the LIF weekend?

[Carl Russell]

We’d be glad to let you display for just one day. Get it there Friday evening, and take it out Sat pm when you leave.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Geez! Just a week after he posted here last. We never got much of a sense of what Karl was up to, or thinking.

Sorry for your loss.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Rod, Consider getting a swap meet space at NEAPFD?

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Personal preference is always the most important factor in the choice as far as I am concerned, but this has nothing to do with workability.

As far as agility, I mean that horses are typically lighter footed, and carry their weight in a more athletic way. Since running is their first line of defense horses are more fleet of foot, which is an excellent trait for working in the woods.

Cattle on the other hand are more inclined to stable, purposeful movement. This also is extremely valuable working in the woods.

As far as workability goes, I have found horses and cattle to be very similar. This must be because I have an affinity for both. I have used them both interchangeably, working horses in the morning, and cattle in the afternoon, doing the exact same work, and have found the particular differences to be part of what makes working each interesting.

Sometimes people hold the slowness of cattle against them, but I have found them to be powerful enough to pull heavy loads long distances maintaining stamina.

Some horses can be pretty fast, and require a lot of work to keep up with, but I have found that to be of great advantage in certain situations in the woods.

People who compare horses and oxen, trying to figure out which is better, should realize that these animals are not machines. A teamster will get out of their chosen beast what they put into them. The limitations have much more to do with the human than they do with the particular species.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Howie;11240 wrote:

Oxen are more manueverable. They have less equipment to get in the way and if things get in their way they will slow down and feel their way.

Absolutely agree. Oxen when used loose, are extremely maneuverable. They are not as agile though. Even when hitched to a cart or sled they are quite handy.

On another note, that is one of my pet peeves. I think most people who have used both horses and oxen don’t waste their time comparing the two. They are quite different, and yet the same in many ways.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Scott, I don’t have any problem with any of your points. Most of what I was reacting to is the standard that is set for the most part by the larger more mainstream enterprises. When loggers have to work backwards from the landing price to try to determine the feasibility of a job, it is because of the effect that these other operations have on the market.

In general in this area, fuelwood is considered an asset to the landowner, and sold for $5-10/cd stumpage. The going rate for low-grade is determined by prices controlled by the secondary processors.

That is all well and good, but in order to facilitate timber sales, which is how consulting foresters get paid, these foresters will mark timber that is attractive to the harvesters getting them to swallow the low landing value of the fuel/pulp/bio/wood. This creates the image that these foresters are actually getting something done that is assumed to be beneficial, but in the long run actually does nothing to improve the residual growing stock.

I believe that landowners should be bearing the cost of improvement work, such as the swap of stumpage from sawlogs to cover the deficit for harvesting wood, but hidden this way it does a double disservice. First by oftentimes swapping out enough quality timber so that the residual stumpage value really never increases from one harvest to the next. And second by artificially keeping the market value of low-grade low, by never putting pressure on the secondary processors to have to pay what it actually costs to produce.

As far as the processing of wood, if you are covering your costs at any point in the process then it should be worth it. I have split and delivered, and I have sold log length off the landing. In both cases I have found it reasonable, within limits. What some people try to do is make up for the low landing value of log length wood by the processing it, trying to make another profit center by capitalizing the required machinery.

This can work, for a while, and generally leads to greater investment in more efficient infrastructure for economy of scale, which often leads to separate operations. All of that capital investment requires that the value of the raw product stay low, because one has to use the equipment to pay for it, which forces one to use it regardless of the market.

My basic premise is that low-grade material removal is extremely important to value-added forestry. Reducing low-grade increases average residual stumpage immediately, and allows for the increase in that value through improved growth. Because of this, the product from this work should have value that reflects the value of the work.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Oh I agree with you Taylor. Used to be able to buy food right from the farmer too. We will not make it as long as we’re afraid to work together, or interact in a free manner. What ever happened to personal responsibility???

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I have also sold wood for many years as a bi-product of forest improvement harvesting operations. I have found that although the money seems better when split and delivered, it has to be, for up-keep of truck and equipment, and it is time away from the horses and the woodlot.

Cutting and selling fuelwood log length is hard enough when it comes from a job that has logs, but when it is purely wood, it can be trying.

If I put out 3-4 cords per day and get $50/cd on the landing, I figure I am doing the minimum that I need. The truth of the matter is that we should be getting the same value for puling wood as we can get for pulling sawlogs. Same time, same labor, same expenses.

It is one of my pet peeves with the forestry community. Sawlogs always pay for low-grade harvest. Landowners are footing the bills to keep the big mechanical operations alive pulling huge quantities of low-grade in the name of utilization. There is a lot of good timber that is cut before its time to “sweeten the pot” so that fuelwood can be affordably removed.

As horse-loggers we have an opportunity to break from this model, and market fuelwood harvest as forest improvement. Get paid what we are worth (as Michael pointed out), and really show how being patient and purposeful in the forest will pay off better in the long run.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Good. Ask away. Welcome, Carl

[Carl Russell]

This site is awesome!! You guys rock. What a conversation this has become.

Thanx, Carl

[Author]

Posts