[Carl Russell]

I get them every year, and I never reply…….. then I get a phone call, and a very sweet voice goes through the questions for me…… I think I just got one last week, but I am not sure where it is:rolleyes:

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Here is a pic of a page from the book that Andy just posted about logging

http://www.draftanimalpower.com/showthread.php?6120-Logging-The-Principles-and-General-Methods-of-Operation-in-the-United-States

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Nice find….:o

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 39281 wrote:

… I don’t think it builds the habit of moving quickly over long distances with light loads simply b/c I expect them to shift gears when they are under a load. The habit I cultivate in my horses is that they look to me for direction under all conditions of changing terrain, loads, conditions and gaits…..

I can see that point, and when put that way, makes sense. I was taught that a working horse is a walking horse, and I stick to that. The main thing is, to do as you do, and lead them into your desired exertion.

I guess I just misinterpreted your comment

However, my main yarding road was mostly dirt with some snow and the horses were really having to dig deep – something I like to avoid.

When cutting wood to sell on trucks, most folks want 20-24′ wood, so that can be problematic with a sled, but it still gives that advantage we have been pointing out. I guess if I was faced with having to move long wood, and having to deal with limiting factors in my road way I would just load accordingly.

For my own wood I figure anything 12-16 feet. I usually have a good header so I can go up with the load instead of long. Short logs piled high give much better advantage than the same weight in long logs. That goes back to skid-trail lay-out. Finding the best loading area will pay dividends.

Part of successfully using animal power is being realistic about the production. The costs of the animals are so low that we can make up for short-comings by working around them. For example, I wonder how much you gain or lose by skidding, loading, burning horse calories, and then whatever system you choose to go back and pick up your blocked off wood. My instinct would be that you would do better to put on loads that they can get all the way home. That may mean smaller loads. It could mean loading shorter logs, and finding an area where you have better uphill advantage for rolling logs on. Having an area where you can skid in long logs, and cut them in half to load without moving them again can really be advantageous. It could also mean shoeing during the winter to improve traction. There are so many factors to pull together, that no combination is right or wrong.

One of my mentors used to say, “It’s not the size of the load they haul, it’s how many loads made it to the landing”. Improving handling and improving loading will have more positive affect on this than just about anything. If it is easy and quick to load, then there is less tendency to freight it.

A lot of these decisions come after a challenge or two. I bet the load moves better when those areas of dirt are frozen later this week.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

It is clear that many people have their own idea of what is ecologically sound. The forestry we are taught in school is much different than the forestry we see practiced across the landscape. This is because the discipline was created in reaction to decades upon decades of wholesale harvest and disturbance. The habits were so hard to change that many of the applied principles of forestry associated with the harvesting end have made accommodations for economic realities of the logging process .

Primarily modern forestry comes from the perspective that logs are going to be harvested, and therefore some degree of forest manipulation should modify that impact to improve future growth of trees to be harvested, and if done with some understanding of how the components of the forest work, then the art is ecologically sound. There is nothing “wrong” with this, it is the cultural habit that we have.

Most people operate under this set of assumptions, foresters, loggers, and landowners alike allowing for ecological compromises as the cost of doing business. The truth is that ecology costs money. We see it in every resource-based industry, fished-out and oceans, polluted air and water, degraded soils, etc…… We make excuses and accommodations across the board for the economic drivers of our society.

However, someone could go into the forest with an eye to the ecology, and could easily see that something else is clearly going on.

There is nothing in the ecology of the forest that substantiates the harvest of any tree. When an operator harvests 3000 cords/per year, there are no ecological principles that support that. There are no ecological principles that support the soil impact and disturbance to the site that the traffic on the land creates. There are no ecological principles that support the change in cover across the landscape that these operations cause. And when you throw in 5-10 more such operations in a region you are off the ecological map.

When comparing horses vs. machines, assuming that all forestry (use the above scenario of the logger who believes he doing the right thing… in fact is being led to believe he is by the forest industry) is ecologically sound, or at east acceptably so, then you will have to face cost and production factors. You cannot pull wood far enough. You cannot handle enough low grade. You cannot harvest enough material in an allotted amount of time. Your operation is too costly to provide high enough stumpage value. Well….. none of these factors are substantiated by any ecological principles in forestry.

In my operation I do not let these apparent inadequacies of my horses deter me from practicing forestry. I leave large volumes of low grade material in the woods, a sound ecological principle. I use non-commercial means to kill competitors, releasing crop trees, leaving standing dead, and downed coarse woody debris, a sound ecological principle. I maintain high stocking, sound ecologically. I harvest small annual volumes, ecologically sound. I minimize vehicular traffic across the stand, ecologically sound. I harvest material using surgical access protecting regeneration and other residual trees, sound ecologically and economically. I have LO invest in building permanent multi-purpose access roads with drainage systems that minimize soil erosion and protect water quality, sound ecologically. They are also sound economically because these investments are affixed to the land permanently, and are amortized into perpetuity, and reduce future harvesting costs, while making animal-powered and low impact harvesting more feasible. I reduce re-entry cycles, harvesting trees at their ultimate market value because my set-up and transport costs are lower, sound ecologically and economically.

No one can call my work into question. My work is held in high regard, for the application of ecological and economic factors of forestry improvement. The ONLY criticism I get is that my work is too costly. There is no ecological principle in forestry that validates that evaluation.

I am not saying that my work is better. I am not telling anyone that if they cared they would support me. I am saying that if you want to use horses in the woods you will have to face the reality that you cannot compete on economics, but you can still practice legitimate forestry. IF you want to take it to the next level, which I do, and say that because I know that my methods are ecologically, and economically (in terms of improving the forest asset) sound, I would like to see machinery operators adopt the same principles and compete financially with me…… they cannot do it.

When I use the term moral compass I am not taking a “moral” stance, I am referring to our innate abilities to make decisions on what we each know is right…. for us personally.

We can argue all day about whether or not it makes sense to stand on sound ecological principles in the work we do on the land……. but to me there is no argument……. and I am in the company of some amazingly intelligent and insightful people, current and past, studies or not.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I have used a bunk-cart, but mine had 17″ wheels and I mostly used it for large diameter tree length wood.

John Plowden’s small woods-rig is designed with wheels and runners. It is a common Scandinavian design feature.

I usually figure I move loads on snow and ice that are 1.5-3X as large as I move on dirt. Moving a snow-based load onto dirt can be a real bummer, but generally I find that for short distances of dirt in the mix of snow and ice are not that bad, and can be planned for.

It sounds like the load you had on was probably too big for them given the conditions, but a cord of logs is equal to about about 500 bf….. about 5-6,000 #, probably 2x the horses’ weight. It is also important to realize that long logs on a bobsled put much more weight on the dragging end of the logs, and on dirt it is magnified by extra friction at that point, some 20’+ feet behind the horses. This alone can change the effectiveness of the bobsled, regardless of overall weight. I generally stick with 12-16 foot wood when I am on dirt, placing the long logs as far forward as possible.

It is important to use all of the mechanical advantages that the equipment can provide. While moving long fuelwood logs may help some in production, it is somewhat self-defeating. Taking time to place the weight as far forward as possible, sometimes almost within reach of the rump of the horse, will pay huge dividends. Finding places where starting is easy, and planning ahead for challenging work areas will also pay off.

I have a certain philosophy about having the horses work hard for moving loads. It really is the basis for my competency in logging with horses. It may, or may not, apply to this situation, but I will add it here as your comment about them digging deep made me think of it.

While the idea of going light and often is sound, it doesn’t always address the issue of distance, or challenging terrain. There is no doubt value in having horses that can maintain an easy gait over some distance, but working this way builds a habit in the horses.

I have a landing in my woods that is at the top of a slight rise after a very long and steep downhill. The trail levels out, goes through a waterbar, then rises gently for about 100 feet up to the landing. Given the great advantage of the downhill, I usually arrive at the level with some pretty good sized loads. In this case I have been pinned several times due to mud, or whatever, and have had to unload some to finish….. and by all means it is better to unload than to take the 2-hander to them…… but my objective is to get the wood to the landing.

To do this however, takes reinforcement time and time again. I stop my horses often, where-ever, and when-ever I am working them. I load them heavy, and work them hard for short distances, resting them many times between loading and the landing (ultimately alternating between heavy and light lighter loads). This builds confidence in my asking, and it builds confidence for them that they can start the load, and it builds trust that I will not ask them to wear themselves out. This way when I get into a situation where I need more than they can possibly give, they give it to me…..

Just for example, and I know we all have our own perspectives and objectives, but I never trot my horses into the woods. It may warm them up, and they may seem to enjoy it, but it also builds a sense of habit that they are expected to move quickly, with a light load, over long distances, without rest.

I always stop my horses on an uphill…… never trying to have them make it all the way in one movement. This is true for light and heavy loads. If they can pull it, they can start it, but starting the load is what they need practice with. It is a natural reaction to try to keep them going once they are underway, but it truly is counterproductive to the challenges of moving weight with horses on varying terrain.

The biggest factor, other than conditioning, to moving heavy loads, is air. It has been shown that horses working hard, whether lifting heavy weights or running hard in races, will often exert their fiercest energy without breathing. This is a natural instinct, but the person asking them to work like that must be aware of it, and reward them for it. Stopping them may break momentum, but it gains by reinforcing trust, and allowing the horses to prepare for another blast……

In this way, those places in the skid-trail where an anomaly can create a challenge can be planned for, working relatively easily for most of the trip, but digging into the depths of their asses for that short section.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@fogish 39223 wrote:

…… Will you be rotating ads in from the existing DAPNet.org Sponsorship Circle and Business Directory or will advertising be separate, with the forum ads being much more narrow in scope?
…..

Excellent question, and one that speak directly to the concept of a Network…… deepening commitment by sponsors, broadening their exposure, increasing access for members making membership more meaningful, and tying everyone together in one place…..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Abso-frickin’-lutely awesome…….:o Can’t wait to see it.

You have my support, Carl

[Carl Russell]

We need to remember that all long logs are harder to pull than short ones. The advantage that the bobsled gives, reducing friction by lifting the log, has the same relative value for long logs as for short ones. An additional advantage of the bobsled is control, and that has significance for heavy loads, as well as for long logs.

I have moved many long logs, 32′, 38′, 42′, and 50′ ers, and the biggest complication is in uneven ground where the log can belly up on a knob 30 feet behind the team, but this would happen with a log this long without the sled. Really long timbers also usually require parbuckling as well.

2 – 38’ers, and 1 – 42’er

This was a 50′ ridge pole for a custom log home, rolled on by parbuckle with the cattle.

This was a parbuckle we used to roll a huge Red Oak log back up a slope so that we could then parbuckle it onto the bobsled.

You can see that we broke the end of the bunk loading this log….. the first time….. it rolled right off the other side, so we had to “re-parbuckle” it back up…..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@mitchmaine 39187 wrote:

…..and your text made me wish i had got a chance to meet and know him a little. thanks carl.

Mitch, about 8-9 years ago he came with me to LIF. We brought my bobsled, and demonstrated it with Donny Webb’s team. He was a very large man.. 350# & 6′ 5″…. with a bit of a toothless grin, and dressed in work clothes that were not done with their shift…. if you know what I mean.

I don’t recall if you were there, but the first time I read your name on here, I thought it was familiar, figuring I had met you there that year. I know I met Elmin, and Pete Stratton, and most of the others that year.

Anyway, I just thought you may actually have crossed paths with him.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@cousin jack 39188 wrote:

…..”That’ll be me then,” said Paddy.

About sums it up…..:D

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@mitchmaine 39183 wrote:

it sounds like he made a good life for himself after his early years. any more stories you can remember about him would be greatly appreciated.

He is the only horse-logger I know who actually rode a “sluiced” sled. It ended with horses straddling saplings, broken harnesses, and him with a broken tooth. He would always point to the tooth and proclaim the responsibility of the teamster to “give it all you got” in the interest of the partnership with your horses…..

There was no easy way for him. If it was too steep for stones to rest, he would work it. If there was some way to make the trip twice as long as necessary, he would take that route. If it was too heavy for a man to lift, it was all he would focus on, until he got it moved.

One time he visited an acquaintance who had a vicious German Shepherd. The dog lunged at him growling and snarling. Benji roared back, and the dog turned, tail between its legs, and ran into the woods, not returning until he left…..

We were hunting for partridge one day, walking along a woods road through a stand of popple saplings. A bird rose on his side, and flew across in front of us toward my side of the road. From the hip he let fly, boom, boom, boom….. branches busting loose in all directions, but the bird flew on unscathed. He howled a great HA>>>HA>>>>HA>>>>>HA>>>. Full of the joy of the challenge, and the release of power. But there was something else there in his eye too. A twinge of desperation, a barely visible inability to even consider holding back for a better shot. He turned and said to me ” Shotgun was my favorite weapon in Vietnam.”…….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@mitchmaine 39168 wrote:

….in the end, your work has to speak for itself. all the words in the world can’t help a botched job.

Amen to that!!!

I just want to revisit the Qualitative vs. Quantitative discussion.

I think it is important to distinguish between making claims that need to be verified to substantiate an economic transaction, or business model, or regulatory policy, etc., and those that support individual lifestyle choices and personal commitments.

I realize that many people need to have numerical data to substantiate commitment to cultural changes, but things can to get way out of hand….

For example now in Vermont Legislators are realizing we will be facing substantial financial short-falls in a few years because we are driving less, and using fuel-efficient cars, so fuel tax revenues are declining……. Imagine that? Now we have arguments that green policies actually degrade our economy, so we should look very closely at those types of decisions as we move forward…..:mad: No…. I’m serious.

I made a comment on a conservative talk show a few weeks ago in regard to arguments about the merits of renewable vs. nuclear energy. My comment was we need to consider conservation as our first source of renewable energy…..stop using so much electricity, stop buying appliances that provide outcomes that are discretionary…..turn off street lights, xmas lights, etc…… make a stand as communities to reduce frivolous energy expenditures. I was told these are admirable goals, but they stifle the economy, stop buying coffee makers, and someone loses a job……

I have made a commitment in my life, not just to come up with a business model that can be replicated, but to practice these principles of ecological integrity and low impact as a wholesome solution toward a sustainable dependency on my environment, and as a set of habits, skills, and related techniques attached to a land management program so that my descendents will have something to work with in the future. Granted, I came from a lifetime exposure, including formal education, that helped me to validate the choices I made nearly 30 years ago, but I just knew (felt) that it was what I HAD to do, and I had to do it then.

At this point, partly because of my choosing, but mostly in response to outside interest, I have come into a lime-light where folks, (as many as 10/month) contact me looking for guidance. Some of the fall-out is represented in the concerns expressed by others in this thread, because it seems like there is a doctrine that I am professing. Part of me wants to find ways to substantiate these choices, because I realize those needs are legitimate for many people, but a bigger part of me just doesn’t believe “we” have time.

Like Scott says, the actual percentage of potential clients is miniscule. I have felt for years that it was more important for me to practice what I preach, than to try to sell it. As much as I want to see folks who own land make better choices, what I really want to see is better stewardship from folks who work their own land. Yesterday I walked a woodlot with a father and son who want to do just that. They may not do everything the way I would do it, but the mistakes they make will be investments in how they will improve as they go forward.

At the same time, I spent time at the State House 2 days ago and had the fortune to speak with one of the wealthiest people in Vermont. She is a strong funder of environmental and land-use programs, and is on the Board of Advisers for the school of Environment and Natural Resources at UVM…… where I go on the 31st to discuss these issues.

While there, I also spoke at length with another forester who has over 20 years of experience with FSC and Smartwood certification. We shared concerns about the disconnect between ecological forestry principles, and the economic realities of modern timber harvest, and I passed along a link to Draftwood for him to review.

I feel pressure building. Landowners want to know more, horseloggers want work, foresters want to find horseloggers or to get into themselves, schools are teaching these concepts and skills, but the pieces are not pulled together yet. Right now there is more interest from each direction then there is ability to respond. This is frustrating. People lose interst when they can’t find a horselogger who has skills to practice low-impact forestry. People lose interest when they can’t find a horselogger to train with, or to get experience using horses. People lose interest when they start horselogging and find that no foresters can give them work that makes economic sense.

Something has go to give. I feel like this is the time. I feel like we need to bridge these gaps in ways that best approximate what we are trying to achieve. This is what I want to be working on; finding people who understand the importance of this cultural growth, who are willing to take a stand, make a financial stake, work toward organization, support further study, and get us on to the next level of changing the way we relate to our environment.

I think we have enough people with enough common understanding that we can get under steam using what we already have available to us.

Remember what Minckler wrote in his book, Woodland Ecology, Environmental Forestry for the Small Owner, in 1975..

…..We must take action to save our Earth of life and beauty, and we must do it soon.
“Soon” is not quite too late. We can still save much of the beauty and usefulness of forests, wildlife, and waters so characteristic of this Earth. Judged by past experience, however, Man will wait until his back is against the wall. ……. The younger generations and all concerned people will have to make the choice and take the action. ……. We must understand that the old methods no longer work in this present world. If we fight for ever-increasing material abundance we will destroy our uniquely beautiful environment and, eventually, our species. The choice is ours. The goal is vital. With total dedication the attainment is barely possible…..

He isn’t calling for study and quantification….. he calls on us to look at our moral compasses, and to take action.

The goal is vital, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 39164 wrote:

I like the term “restorative.” Do you dislike this term, Carl? I think you can understand why some people (including myself) think it more directly expresses the concept.

No, I am totally on-board with it. I just use low-impact also, especially in discussions with others, because it seems to be the more commonly used term.

As you can probably tell, I don’t go far with definitions……:rolleyes: I know a lot about what I do, and I feel comfortable with that. I’ll do it all day, for the rest of my life, and not care how anyone defines it.

I see these discussions less about refining defining terms, and more about closing in on shared understanding.

Jason is a master at slogan-izing; Draftwood, worst-first, restorative forestry.

These are all important things to differentiate, but I am, personally, much more focused on the process, the act, the art……

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Carl Russell 39118 wrote:

I’ll bite…….. Geez Scott, you couldn’t offer your own choices first?:p

“Ecological Integrity” – A free association of biological constituents of any ecological community, interacting without humanistic oriented impacts.

“Low-Impact” – Big change, high impact….. little change, low impact.

I see these things as principles, ideals to aim toward. Just because we cannot clearly define these things does not excuse us from keeping them in our sights.

Carl

There are significant subtleties in all of these terms. Andy you are right about the positive aspects of what we hope to accomplish, I think that is why Jason uses “Restorative” forestry, because it indicates an “increasing” or “additive” process.

Also in “low-impact” I don’t look so much at the activity to determine impact. I look more at the processes of the forest. There are many instances in our northern forest where natural events cause extreme impact, such as high wind, ice storms, floods, and insect infestations. I see these events, even though measured as high impact, as being part of the ecological integrity of the northern forest.

Low impact to me means managing my additional impact in a way that does not interfere with the ecosystem’s ability to accommodate these natural occurrences. It also means that I can mimic some of these events, evidently causing high impact, but in the context of what is naturally occurring, not a big impact.

This is compared to clear-cutting, or significant stocking reduction as a landscape-wide application. Another example is maintaining even-aged distributions in species and on landscapes where there are very few naturally occurring examples. Or mono-culturing. Or whole-tree harvest.

I see this last list as causing high impact because they inherently ignore basic components of the forest ecosystem. Trees still grow, deer still run through the woods, berries still grow on bushes, but the ecosystem is held at bay, unable to express itself in natural terms.

Low-impact forestry to me, is managing my impact on the forest to allow the ecosystem the best opportunity that I can provide for it to express itself in natural terms.

Carl

[Author]

Posts