[Carl Russell]

@mink 39152 wrote:

george i was wondering about going in empty, maybe you sit in the space next to your saw? i see carl in his videos standing on top the logs going out but never see anybody going in the woods.

I stand on the bunk, and drive with both hands…… balance is improved with practice….

In this video clip you can see me riding on the empty sled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZSZS-YnbM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZSZS-YnbM

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Kewl George……. you need to get another battery….. I wanted to see that load pull away.

You and Ed both seem to have some wicked good coffee. I never saw anybody move that fast in the woods……:p

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 39095 wrote:

So here is a little survey to follow up on the points brought forth in this thread.

Definitions:

“Ecological Integrity”

&

“Low-Impact”

There are no right/wrong answers here. Just your personal interpretation of what those terms, defined, mean to you. This is somewhat in line with pinning down the definition of “sustainable” & “organic”.

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

[Carl Russell]

@Tim Harrigan 39040 wrote:

To me this really demonstrates the extent to which forests have been narrowly defined in terms of timber production. If the conventional thinking had valued any ecosystems functions at all there would not be much insight in this report. It takes a long time to change peoples thinking about systems like this, particularly if they have a vested interest in things the way they are. It will take several of these reports to turn the tide.

This is exactly what we are up against. Many of us have an intuitive sense about this, even to some degree backed up by scientific knowledge, but we need to understand the bubbles we live in. Just because this stuff seems obvious to us, doesn’t mean that the label of Forestry, or Forester, actually gives credence to this.

Not only does this report move in the direction of quantifying these factors, but is points out how remedial the effort to require quantification is. Can we actually believe that this basic ecology has to be demonstrated in scientifically significant measures before it can be taken seriously by the forest industry?

The truth of the matter is that there are great researchers, and professors, who have been sharing this stuff with foresters and resource managers for generations, but it has been relegated to academicians, research botanists, and ecologists, and industrial foresters have been allowed to refer back to it, as though it applies to what they are doing, while basically ignoring it.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

This doesn’t speak to horselogging, but covers some interesting aspects of ecological services of the natural forest. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109081141.htm

Mixed Forests More Productive Than Monocultures Jan. 9, 2013 — Forestry and nature conservation can benefit from promoting a diversity of tree species, new study finds.
[HR][/HR]

Modern forestry is largely based on monocultures — in Sweden usually pine or spruce — mainly because it is considered more rational. However a forest contributes more ecosystem services than timber production, such as biological diversity, carbon storage, and berries. A new study from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and Future Forests shows that mixed forests, in comparison with monocultures, have positive effects on several different areas, including production.
“Many people have suggested that high diversity of tree species has a favorable impact on processes in the ecosystem, but until now this connection has primarily been studied in terms of one process or ecosystem service at a time,” says Lars Gamfeldt from University of Gothenburg, who directed the new study.
The study, performed by an international research group, is based on material from the Swedish National Forest Inventory and the Swedish Forest Soil Inventory. By examining the role played by the occurrence of diverse tree species for six different ecosystem services (tree growth, carbon storage, berry production, food for wildlife, occurrence of dead wood, and biological diversity), the study demonstrates that all six services were positively related to the number of tree species.
Different trees contribute to different services. For example, the amount of spruce is related to high tree growth and the amount of pine to berry production, while carbon storage was found in plots with more birch. In order to attain more of all services, forestry may thus need to make use of different tree species. Other studies of forests in Central Europe, the Mediterranean region, and Canada support these findings.
The study also investigated the relationship between the various ecosystem services. For example, high tree growth appears to be negatively related to the production of both berries and food for wildlife and to the occurrence of dead wood. On the other hand, food for wildlife was positively associated with both berry production and biological diversity in ground vegetation.
“It’s not so simple that you can always get more of everything. Sometimes you have to consider trade-offs between different ecosystem services,” says Jon Moen from Umeå University.
The new study, which is published in the scientific journal Nature Communications, runs partly counter to conventional thinking in forestry in Sweden. According to 2011 data from the Swedish National Forest Inventory, only about 7.5 percent of the productive forest land has mixed forests.
“Our findings show that both forestry and nature conservation stand to gain by promoting a greater variety of tree types, thereby providing more diverse ecosystem services,” says Jan Bengtsson, from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

This is the published study;

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2328.html

Not until recently, however, have scientists begun to explicitly investigate how species diversity might be important for the simultaneous provision of multiple functions or services^{13, 14, 15, 26, 27}. Our results from boreal and temperate production forests show that the relationships between tree species richness and multiple ecosystem services were positive to positively hump-shaped, and that all services attained higher levels with five tree species than with one species.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Sorry Jen, I know about sore knees too.

I offer this observation for what it’s worth.

I notice in one picture you hold the extra reins clasped in your hand in kind of a bundle, and I know you prefer to hold the reins in your fist, the live end coming out of the bottom.

I like to hold my lines between pointer and index finger. Then I can hold a coil of lines between thumb and pointer, so that I can uncoil them easily if the horse starts to move faster than I can, and let the lines slide through my hands.

I have found that positioning yourself so that your feet need to move as soon as the horse moves can be a problem. I also like to move myself up alongside the horse, and out of the way, and start the horse while standing still letting the lines slide through my hands, sometimes for as many as 10 feet.

It may be more than expected to change your preferred hold, but think about practicing letting the lines slide while standing still, especially starting the load. In some conditions it is the only way to keep from getting tangled up.

Slack-line whoa is a good way to assist in those situations where the lines drop. I have dropped the lines many times, but the slack being my signal for whoa has saved me almost :eek:every time.

But of course, as has been said, shit happens, to even the best prepared. I’m sorry you are in pain, but I’m glad you could recover the day, and your knee will recover too.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@irish 38997 wrote:

Carl it has been shown that horse logging is economically viable ….

This has never been disputed. The original premise was

I was wondering if anyone was aware of any studies that have been done pitting draft powered logging against mechanized operations/hand crews, either in terms of nutrient output, sedimentation, water output or residual stand damage from logged areas. Learning about horse logging, it seems clear to me that draft powered forestry operations touch the forest more lightly than just about any other method of timber extraction… But has anybody done any research to this effect?

I have been logging with horses for many years and I totally agree that the work I do could not be done with machines for the same cost.

The contested point here is whether using horses by themselves give us an ecological advantage. I contend that the only way they do is in the way they are applied, which has more to do with principles of forestry and the commitment of the operators than with the equipment.

The advantage we have is that mechanical operations are hamstrung by the economics of conventional timber harvest, preventing them from applying the same forestry that we can… if we choose.

By addressing basic principles of ecological forestry, and inserting horses into a harvesting system that supports them, we CAN create a process-based product that can truly provide “a lighter touch” that is more economically viable.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Rick Alger 38973 wrote:

I tend to side with Andy and Geoff on this issue. To me horselogging is more economic activity than art form.

If as a group we are trying to restore horselogging as a profession, we have got to get beyond the idiosyncratic. We should strive to measure the “economic value of the product.”

The way I try to “document what I can deliver” to private landowners is through informal bid specs. I tell them I will make four-foot wide trails, leave no bole scaring, and no rutting. The residual stocking level will remain high and undamaged, and species composition will shift in a positive direction.

These “specs” don’t go deeply into the ecological integrity issue, but they are a start. I believe they are measurable, invite comparison to other harvesting methods, and are capable of being measured economically.

You are absolutely correct Rick, but these aspects have nothing to do with horses, and everything to do with the way you apply your “craft”. You can choose to see it as a service that you charge for, therefore it is economic, but it really comes down to how much you care about the way you do your work, and has very little to do with what you use to do it with. If it were purely an economic activity for you, you would be cutting as many corners in harvesting as you could…… disregarding impact….. just using horses to do it.

Your choice to use horses has great value to you, and that enhances the care that you can bring to the work you do, but that is your choice, and it is the choice of the landowner to decide if that matters to them. The truth is, you could do the same work using an ATV, Kubota, small crawler, or some such thing. Unless you can show that the actual work has some distinct ecological significance to the woodland, and that horses actually facilitate that, then it just comes down to preference.

I have a meeting scheduled for 1/31/13 with Jon Erickson, a Natural Resource Economist Professor and Interim Dean at the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at UVM. We share the same concerns about how forestry is/isn’t being applied through conventional harvesting practices, and we are going to be discussing these issues, and what we may be able to do at the UVM Research Forest to address them.

My feeling is that we need to establish that significant aspects of conventional harvesting are done with economics in mind, and that there are no ecological forestry principles that actually support those practices. Then we need to evaluate the degree of ecological compromise that is accepted to facilitate economic forestry, ie., is reduced stocking having effect on ecological integrity?. Next would be a choice, do we expend lots of money and time measuring what ecological ecological impacts are and HOW significant they are? Or, do we establish studies that show how the use of draft animals, and possibly small machinery (not my priority, as I think the inherent “Green-ness” of animals adds a level of ecological integrity that cannot be attained by any machine), can effectively deliver forestry practices that both address issues of forest improvement for timber production, and protect ecologically important features of the natural forest.

I’ll keep you all posted, Carl

[Carl Russell]

That sounds like a good idea.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@boulami 38892 wrote:

Carl did your build your cart?
Just thought about this, do you think that Dapnet members would be able to purchase Les’s plans through Dapnet? Would he
consider doing something like that? Just wondering.

Mike

No I didn’t, I worked for Les back in the ’90’s, off and on, and traded labor for this cart.

Yes I’m sure he would…… I’ll ask him.

Also the piggy-back arch design is based on this, and is a great piece of equipment, especially because it modifies a piece of equipment that one may already have.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I don’t sell any wood from home. Right now I have all I can do to get what I need, but I have acres of wood that must be cut, and I do plan on selling; log length, blocked, split to pick up here…. what ever and how ever.

On jobs I usually sell log length. It is hard to justify the market value, especially with horses. Most mechanical operators I know are willing to pay $5-10/cd, because there is a lot less handling, and because they want the job. Sometimes I let it go for free because I always mark a lot, using worst first. I also use a lot of non-commercial methods on my own jobs, often just girdling some of the least useful stems, and leaving anything smaller than 5-6″ and shorter than 12 feet.

Because I don’t pay stumpage, I use basically the same price structure that you are faced with. The stumpage value and productive efficiency of the hemlock subsidizes the harvest and sale of your fuelwood. I usually charge the same per volume for cutting wood as I do for cutting sawlogs, so the loss due to the wood, is borne by the profit made by cutting logs. Because of this I tend to minimize the cost of harvesting fuelwood by the non-commercial methods I described above.

I have seen so many woodlots that have been managed by foresters that maintain a certain percentage of poor quality trees, harvest after harvest. This is entirely because the realistic appraisal of harvesting cost versus market value does not sell timber sales. They usually throw in a little tail with the hide, but not so much that the logger can’t afford to pay the highest possible stumpage for the good logs. Stocking is reduced significantly to increase harvestable volume to increase economy of scale, and many codominant sawlogs, that could benefit from 10-20 years additional growth, are thrown in to sweeten the pot.

Landowners like yourself who can see the long term value of reducing low quality stocking, and are willing to see that investment come out of the profit from the sale of better products will have a much improved resource down the road…… and set an excellent example of real stewardship.

Keep up the good work.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

https://maps.google.com/maps/place?q=Falmouth,+ME&hl=en&ftid=0x4cb284fae246bf31:0x61a3349efdde142

Here is the link to the google map for Falmouth, ME

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Bill, it is the cart I was using in Athol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eko8TVTAKVg

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@back-forty 38872 wrote:

What size of link is typically used in the bridle chains? …..

…the team actually had to pull the load downhill …….

Very large links, like 3/4 chain with 3″ long links. Smaller chain will become useless in deep snow.

The team should have to pull the load down the hill.

If folks are trying to use bridle chains instead of using a pole, then that is different. With a pole a team should be able to hokd back a pretty good load. I have used a bridle chain on a scoot with no pole when it was empty going downhill and it was intermittently effective because there was very little weigh to set the chains into the frozen ground. Other than that I haven’t any experience.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Components vs. communication……

The equipment should be safe, adjusted properly, and appropriate, but we cannot concentrate effectively on communication if we keep looking to components as possible reasons for difficulty. The horse can accommodate a significant amount of discomfort (not desirable) and distraction if they are secure in the leadership of your communication.

Carl

[Author]

Posts