Forum Replies Created
- AuthorPosts
Carl Russell
Moderator@Tim Harrigan 38429 wrote:
Carl, I wonder if there is a way that we could get more folks involved in that video discussion. Just thinking.
Not as live feed…. from my perspective….. my schedule is too much seat of the pants. However, I expect to record short episodes, ie 10 minute contractions of 1/2 – 2 hour sessions, and share them in a blog format with some accompanying text, so that you all can review, comment, and critique as we progress, rather than trying to have one film covering the whole project.
I just can’t resist mentioning that you won’t see any tape of me tying the horse to a post and throwing himself until he learns to stand….:p
Carl
Carl Russell
ModeratorSo, in the last week I have made a commitment to adopt a 7 year old Suffolk gelding that apparently has had no previous work experience. He was basically just neglected, starved, and kept in a small enclosure, but his disposition seems affable and accepting.
I am also working with a young novice to increase his knowledge of working with horses for his future ambitions to farm and log with horse power.
I was thinking that most of what I really know about communicating with horses, I learned from working with horses that knew nothing. As experienced teamsters we can offer a lot through example, but working with animals that have become refined in the working communication, while they set a great example, don’t really open the door on those complexities that we all know exist.
I know that a novice with an inexperienced horse is a difficult situation. I also know that novices working with my refined animals can get in trouble because they can’t quite grasp the subtle consistencies that I use.
So what I hope to do this winter after the Suffolk gets here is to put the foundation under the horse and novice together. My theory is that the concepts will have more pertinence when applied to a horse that is learning them for the first time than theoretical application to a horse that is already informed.
I will try to document the progress with video, covering our discussions and the results of our approach to the animal.
Carl
Carl Russell
ModeratorLog rules only measure top end diameter. If you get paid the same price for long and short logs, you will undoubtedly make better scale with shorter logs, however I suspect the premium for the longer logs is specifically designed to take that into consideration. On bigger logs the gain may be better than 6%, but sending them what they are looking for will have other benefits that will pay dividends down the road.
Time spent measuring will not be time wasted, even if you are in production mode. Remember, with animals we have to make up on the little efficiencies, so determining where they exist will be time well spent. Take a few sweepy logs, measure top ends,and see what kind of differential exists.
Carl
Carl Russell
Moderator@Does’ Leap 38395 wrote:
…. Scott mentioned 12-16″ in the contracts he writes out West, what is common in the northeast? …..
Common contractual language calls for 4 feet or less….. except that now some foresters are specifically asking that tops be left uncut so that hardwood regen can survive deer browse.
When I started logging professionally in 1983, we had USFS contracts that called for all material left in the woods to be cut to the ground and no pieces longer than 3 feet. That was a lot of work, but it is an old habit that dies hard. I find myself very often working right to the end of the tree slashing and lopping. Of course it has it’s operational advantages, but when I can save time by not doing that, I leave the tops uncut.
George, you may find that leaving uncut hemlock tops during winter logging will be a good way to provide browse fro deer.
Carl
Carl Russell
Moderator@Donn Hewes 38388 wrote:
…. What in the quote about “horsemanship” didn’t fit with your thoughts? My simple definition of horsemanship would be taking the time to understand what a horse truly is. …..
I didn’t disagree per se with the idea of horsemanship as you define it. I was mostly replying to subsequent posts that expand the concept of horsemanship into the broad artistic application of communication skills etc.
One thing we all can agree on is that we all have personal adaptations of horsemanship that work for us, and at least as I am concerned, that is what it is all about.
However when we all agree that what we practice has so many shades of gray, we also make it seem to the novice that they are headed into something that is undefined, with room for personal interpretations.
I wasn’t given that opportunity. I had older men in my life that told me outright how to address animals….. not unlike where you are headed with your new student.
I just wanted to point out that while we can be humble about the vagueries of our craft, I believe we can be direct, and, as I alluded to, we actually owe it it some way of respect to our animals, about how one addresses the process of communicating with a working animal.
Carl Russell
Moderator@grey 38329 wrote:
People who are going to be handling horses in any capacity really should have horsemanship training. The difference between a successful teamster and an unsuccessful one is horsemanship.
While there is some truth to this, I was thinking that allowing for the mysterious individuality of these relationships does not excuse us from being frank about some basic approaches to working with animals that are fundamental to success.
As we expand the exposure to working animals I have noticed more and more people who have tendency to look at the working horse as a product. Like it can be made. Like some series of events, or tests, can program an animal to be prepared for these situations.
Les Barden suggests that we should have more respect for the animal than that. A dignified approach to the horse recognizes them for what they are, and for what they are not. We needn’t try to show them respect by assigning capacities to them that we would expect from a human. In fact he holds this to be disrespectful, as well as foolhardy.
Expecting a horse to be able to process and react in a predictable way to the happenings such as Donn explains is not only dismissive of their true nature, it is also quite dangerous. The subtle complexity here is that by assigning more competency to the animal, we are abdicating the ultimate responsibility that falls on us as teamsters. We also ignore their incredible capacity for split second response to momentary communication, and we excuse ourselves from the responsibility of instigating that communication.
The working horse is not a product. It is a relationship, a communication. While certainly made beautiful by the cooperation of the animal, none-the-less begins and ends with the teamster. To work, the teamster must understand that the horse is not a human partner, so cooperation does not mean letting the horse have some say in the outcome. This abdication of leadership is what we are taught as a way of showing respect to other humans, “See, I can let you have some say in the outcome of our join venture”.. but to the horse it is seen as lack of intention, and opens the door for them to look out for themselves.
The hidden, personal, mysterious applications of communication are truly the art which is learned over time, but the way that we approach this situation CAN be taught, explained, demanded. It is the discipline, the responsibility, the culture.
I know it gets difficult to be frank with adults who are self-determining in the same way my mentors were to me as a child…. “Carl that cow doesn’t give a shit what you think, just put her through that gate”…… but it is part of being serious about what we are trying to share.
Carl
Carl Russell
ModeratorI tend to cut my slash down low, mostly to facilitate swamping trails if the need arises. When I know I am not going in an area I will drop a bunch of trees into the same place, and can pile it up pretty high.
Ecologically, high brush actually prevents browsing animals from reducing regeneration, particularly in hardwoods. There also are some beetles and other insect decomposers that take advantage of dry wood, but they generally can get enough material within a season to take advantage of wood on the ground as well.
Probably the greatest ecological value in high brush is cover for all sorts of fowl and fauna.
Strike a balance between leaving your woods in a functional state for regular harvest, and mimicking what it looks like after a wind storm, or when tops break out of standing trees.
Just leaving brush and coarse woody debris is important as a medium for fungus and invertibrates that interact at the soil level which in turn faciltate many other interactions throughout the web of forest life.
Carl
December 19, 2012 at 2:23 am in reply to: Survey of DAPNET use and implications as to potential member interest #76034Carl Russell
ModeratorAndy, I was just fooling around on the site and noticed that if you move the cursor over “Replies” on the thread index, you can click on it, and it will give you a list of all of the folks who posted on that thread. It might offer a “density” factor to compare member activity within different threads.
Also, if you haven’t noticed the google spiders were back, and more than doubled the last record for most user on the site at the same time….
Carl
Upon review, it seems that function only exists in the Quick Links for Todays Posts index…
Carl Russell
Moderator@Tim Harrigan 38297 wrote:
Yes, I was just wondering to what extend a management plan with inventory and valuation became part of property assessment.
Currently this is just a personal value, and we have not made much ground in helping folks to find a way to add this value to the resale of their land. The reality of the real estate market is that land with the timber cut off of it is equal in value to a property with significant timber resources. Even if some one was going to get a premium for enhanced timberland, the next owner may very well see that as a reason to capture that value in a harvest.
One mechanism to use is the Conservation Easement……. but that may narrow the resale market, making the land even more expensive even without the development assessment…..
The best solution is to develop a stewardship ethic…… Maybe that is what we are a part of here….:rolleyes:
Carl
Carl Russell
Moderator@Countymouse 38316 wrote:
…… Clearly, the industry fears this sort of simple “one of these things is not like the others” comparisons. Perhaps this the the greatest “bang for you buck,” but I am not sure as there will inevitably be differences between all groups. …..
I have always hard time with Organic farming that does not employ animal power to reduce the environmental affects of petroleum use.
I think draft animals are a significant aspect of what makes Draftwood “different” from the others. How we quantify, or qualify, that is going to be the secret to successful marketing.
Carl
Carl Russell
Moderator@Jen Judkins 38305 wrote:
….. Learning to provide leadership to your horses/mules is a learned process and a mentor is required.
This is so true, but one of the reasons I replied to Donn on this is to show that these situations occur even with seasoned teamster/mentors. I also want to encourage him, and others, to expand on this event, and the parts of it that made it only “a close call”, and not a fiasco.
In the last two weeks I have spoken with folks who have been working with “mentors”, people who have been described as very experienced trainers. Granted primarily riding horse experience, but none-the-less experienced enough to put themselves into a mentor situation with a novice teamster.
I tend to allow folks to make their own mistakes, rather than trying to disparage someone whom I have no experience with, but it seems clear to me in both of these situations, EVERYBODY involved is leaving way too much up to the horses to decide for themselves how to react, and in both cases little disturbances led to real run-aways. The take-home in both cases was more severe bits, and quicker and more powerful holding techniques.
Under the assistance of these trainers, the teamsters are not given guidance about being better leaders, and the emphasis is placed on how the horse needs more work with an experienced teamster to become more educated about the work, instead of how to develop effective communication skills in the novice…….
Carl
Carl Russell
Moderator@Rick Alger 38301 wrote:
….. Most of the land here is held in corporate ownership by groups like Yankee Forest, Twitchell Heirs, White Mountain Lumber or TR Dillon. A good chunk of what is left is either national forest or town owned wood lots. ……
Oh Yeah. Yankee Forest does the 30 % canopy removal via strip cuts. What a great data comparison it would provide with “surgical selective harvesting.”
Once in a while I do get work for individual landowners, but mostly my work has been for the larger landholding groups. As you have noted, the pay has never been for what the services are worth.
That differential is what prompts my interest in qualifying the value of animal powered logging.
I agree, Rick, the “marketplace” you work in offers difficult hurdles.
My only comment is that these large landowners are really not managing forests, they are money managers, even national and state lands, as the most politically and culturally accepted guidelines are financial.
However, these landholders are also under significant public scrutiny, and I think that pursuing them with the idea that finding sections that would lend themselves to the capabilities of horse-logging could be really good diversification of their portfolio. What they give up in stumpage to you, for the small volume in comparison to their typical harvests, could add to their bottom line of public opinion, more than it would detract from their financial bottom line.
Add to that a certified association with a regional group of similar operators could build validity, and increase demand for your services as a forestland portfolio greener-upper…..:cool:
Carl
Carl Russell
Moderator@Tim Harrigan 38293 wrote:
Carl, for this to work the increased value of the woodlot has to be transferable and valued by the next land owner. Some of the best long-term management gets short-circuited when the landowner decides to cash out with a hard harvest.
That is so true, but that doesn’t change the salient points. They don’t need to hire me if what I have to offer doesn’t fit into their formula.
I have seen several properties over the years that I feather brushed into nice woodlots, sold and immediately cut off. I don’t care how you slice it….. that is not forestry, but in our culture it is part of the acceptable continuum that passes for forestry.
I am not going to change the world, I can only control how I move through it. There is no doubt that a cultural shift is needed for a lot of the values I profess to have meaning to more people, but that doesn’t diminish the validity of those values.
Perhaps creating regional cooperative efforts between animal powered practitioners that support market awareness of these values (ie. Draft Wood) will offer a real possibility for these values to become more culturally understandable and acceptable. It just isn’t going to come from the mechanically dependent industry.
Carl
Carl Russell
Moderator@Rick Alger 38240 wrote:
…..My interest in comparative research is on a simple level. I would like data to show a landowner that would indicate, for example, that horses can do his prescribed 30% overstory removal with less ecological disruption and greater long-term payback than machines……
There are a few other aspects to economics that I thought might be pertinent. I am curious about why this landowner would be contacting a horse-logger? I don’t know very many landowners who are inclined toward large changes in their woodlots, even if money is to be made. One financial advantage of using horses is that this harvest can be done in stages, taking several years if the tract is large enough, without incurring moving charges and start-up costs associated with mechanical operations.
Another aspect to consider is why are they contacting you? I have found that the cost of keeping my horses averages out to be $5/day/horse year-round, shoes, harness, feed, vet, etc. My other fixed and variable costs associated with saw, truck, trailer, etc., comes out to another $20-$30/day, so I’m looking at an average of about $30/day to operate. If I make $250 in production (1.25 mbf @ $200/mbf) then almost 90% of the cost of my operation is attributed to my labor.
I have to bring something to that operation based on my experience and capability. With mechanical operations the numbers are nearly reversed, so the operators have very little room to differentiate themselves from their competitors if they intend to make enough money to cover the machinery and their personal needs.
When a landowner contacts me, I take full advantage of the fact that they have some interest in having horses on their land, and I put a hard sell on what I bring to the operation. If they really don’t appreciate these factors then I don’t work with them, but generally I don’t let them dwell on their misunderstandings. I educate them about the real comparisons of costs, both operational and external, and I am very clear about how my approach to forestry and timber harvesting is different, and that if they hire me, that is what they are going to get.
I have always paid competitive stumpage rates.
If we continue to look to stumpage rates as the guiding factor then we need to look at some other financial considerations. If I routinely leave the best trees in the woods to increase in volume and value, then the logs I cut during a harvest are generally not going to be worth as much in the marketplace, and the stumpage I pay will be less.
Cash-flow also affects how we look at relative income scenarios. Mechanical operators can run “red” hitches, even “red” days, or even “red” timber sales, because by the time the deficit hits the operation they are moved on to another site where they are operating in the black. Using the regionally standardized approach to stumpage allows operators to forecast how they will need to manage costs associated with certain species, log grades, and woodlots. Operational variances are made up by averaging their costs across the landscape. Unfortunately there are some landowners whose high value woodlots are actually subsidizing other lots where value is low, but in the long-run the cash-flow for the mechanical operator evens out.
However with animals the production is so low that nearly every hitch needs to be profitable, and I certainly don’t have the flexibility to pay more than what is profitable on one job with the expectation that the next job will give me more financial wiggle room. And given the slow nature of my harvesting cash-flow, and investment approach to building residual value on a woodlot, there rarely is the opportunity to pay high stumpage right off the bat.
There are so many angles to selling this approach effectively, but it just comes down to understanding what you have to offer in relation to an educated appraisal of how the industry works.
I also always come back to why I am using horses. I didn’t choose this purely as a way to sell my services, nor as a way to get rich. I truly believe in animal power. I believe that building operations that are resilient due to their (at least partial) independence from fossil fuels is a culturally prudent thing to do. I also believe that reducing air pollution in my small way is an important contribution. As Simon points out, while I have seen some pretty serious impacts from horses, by their nature the on-site impacts are much less than machinery, and not only do I appreciate that personally, but it has important ramifications throughout our environment.
But in the long-run I come down to the art, the craft, the pure personal expression of my own creativity. I am doing the kind of work I want to do, the way I want to do it, with inherent levels of personal satisfaction that make me a better father, a better partner, and better citizen, and a better human being than I know I would be if I weren’t doing this……….. And most days I take my profit in this understanding before I even hit the woods. This doesn’t help pay the grain bill, but it certainly takes the sting out of it.
Carl
Carl Russell
ModeratorThanks for sharing that Donn.
I knew a man, who I bought my first horse from, who had been working horses his whole life basically, who had a severe accident with his steady logging team because of neighbor’s dogs chasing him. That is one variable that is extremely hard to control.
I also appreciate your comment about the safety of the forecart. Just recently I spoke to someone who was trying to suggest that using a forecart to condition a learning animal was foolish and more dangerous. Obviously there is work to be done prior to hitching, but there are significant features, such as you describe, that make a forecart a very valuable and safe tool for this endeavor.
Also, I have found that some times these weird little rodeos offer some learning opportunities that you just can’t create any other way.
Carl
- AuthorPosts