[Carl Russell]

Just an interesting link here to a facebook post this morning from Jason Rutledge…..

http://www.facebook.com/barbara.corson.9/posts/307121959405841?comment_id=10066807&notif_t=comment_mention

If the value of the forest products included consideration of the ecological services the forested conditions were providing for the public good then the management practices would be different. At that point the cost of enhancing those ecological services would be based upon the cost of a living wage for those providing the ground level skills of ecological enhancement – first (Eco-Social Justice). This is a much more complete and whole approach than supply and demand for who can produce it the cheapest as just logs or lumber. The job creation from this approach would be wonderful and could be a powerful basis for re-culturing rural parts of the world everywhere. Simon Anthony Lenihan understands this intimately, just like many of our peers do (Carl B. Russell,John Plowden,Jim Axtell,Chad Vogel,Chad Miano,Blane Chaffin, i.e., the list is growing) and they continue to prove the usefulness and in fact superiority of this cultural approach – often at a personal price for income generated for their families. These men are eco-warriors/heroes to me! A few others also live to prove that animal powered worst first single tree selection is the best management practice and we understand that it’s the hard way, because it is hard to be sensitive! Nobody can put a price on our sense of human dignity- but us!

:oCarl

[Carl Russell]

I humbled by the expressive description that Erik Jacobs uses to share his observations of me working with my horses. His blog is a beautiful collage of photos and prose…… beautiful.

Thanks for sharing Brad, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 38258 wrote:

…..I am curious to hear from others if they are modelling this green wood after organic foods and if they expect the two to be comparable. What are other important differences?

“Green Certified”, yes….. draftwood, no!
The important difference is that draftwood specifically describes a process that is associated with the practice of interaction with the land and the ecosystem, where as “Green” is mostly a marketing strategy associated with minor environmental adjustments in process that are adequate to attract customers. Large movements that require significant oversight, tend to end up with standards that are watered down. Draftwood by its nature must be local or regional, and under Jason’s model the certification is community based, presumably with emphasis on adhering to standards that are locally, or even personally important.

I have been focusing a lot on the ecological aspects of the model I follow. This is specifically because I know there is a public misconception that “Forestry” is about “The Environment”. I have tried to point out how factors in modern application do not support this assumption, and that given the capabilities of draft animals, and the limitation of the current mechanical model, there is an opportunity for draft animal loggers to secure this ground. I focus on this because I know that we cannot compete on volume production, so I believe we need to add value, craftsmanship, to the work we do with our animals.

I know that this work can be done with machines. I have known mechanical operators who have done a great job of it. Many of my clients are farmers, or forestland owners who own their own logging equipment, and under my guidance practice many of my methods. Although not a client of mine, one excellent example was Fred Hunt of Reading, VT. He was a Harvard educated forester, owned 800 acres, and a JD 440 skidder. His forest was an incredible array of diverse cover-types, age distributions, ecologically protected areas, with magnificent crop trees scattered all across the landscape.

I know many mechanical loggers who could work like this. I know some who want to, but they are not being asked to. They need to find work to cover the nut on their equipment, so they take the work that is out there. Similarly, consultant foresters need to make a living practicing there vocation, so they do the best they can given the circumstances of the modern economy.

I can get a little deeper into the economics. One of my advantages that I have explained, is not just my forestry knowledge and experience, but the fact that I can practice forestry out of my back pocket while logging. There is no need for a consultant forester to plan and administer my operations. While I do charge for writing management plans, I do not charge for those aspects directly related to the harvest. In general terms that is a 15% savings right off the top, which an average appraisal of what most foresters charge… based on stumpage income.

In the current marketplace most of the value that foresters bring to the operation is not related to silvicultural knowledge, but more specifically related to their knowledge of markets, operators, and administration of timber sales. I am not trying to diminish the value of forestry education, I am just pointing out that foresters are under a lot of pressure to act as agents to protect the landowners financial stake in the woodlot, and that requires more work, and attention to details then the actual forestry knowledge.

I believe, as does Jason Rutledge and other folks like Leon Minckler (author of “Woodland Ecology I quoted before), that there are common sense standards associated with the application of basic forestry principles that can be learned by laymen, loggers, and landowners alike. As I said before, Jason and I are two who firmly believe that there are aspects to working with horses that predispose the technician to appreciation, understanding, and sensitivity to these details that is different from other methods, namely the human scale, the craft, the slow process, and the personal exposure to ecological processes.

Standardizing some of the basic principles as a foundation to an educational process, such as Biological Woodsmen, backed-up with a certificate of completion will provide operators with credentials to provide services without the added cost of oversight by an agent. Draftwood is a certification process that verifies that the work being done by these individuals actually adheres to these standards, and in the current iteration is gaining another 15% market share from the sale of the end product. But this is entirely connected to the “back story” which in HHFF’s terminology is “Restorative Forestry”, in which draft animals play a necessary role, but ecological services are preeminent.

As pointed out before, while ecological integrity is high on the list of objectives, residual stand improvement is as well. If crop trees with high potential are released and grown to their highest potential, trees with defect and disease are removed by harvest and non-commercially, trees that have reached their marketable premium are harvested, access is improved or facilitated by cooperation with appropriate machinery to make animal power more applicable, and enacting moderate scale harvests frequently over longer periods to protect ecological services, then these methods will all add up to a more productive forest ecologically and financially.

We still come down to the current stumpage value as the measurable feature, but we have to bear in mind that if machines are used to perform this type of forestry, their costs would be much higher, making stumpage values decline. There are other factors, such as the economics of the modern harvest, that lead to removing trees that are marketable, “just because we are here now”, to help make the operation affordable in light of the expectation that so much low grade wood needs to be harvested, but which could be worth substantially more if they were allowed to grow unimpeded by competition, added volume and value, under the watchful eye of the resident local technically trained harvester.

(As an aside, I will say that I have come into many woodlots that have had several prior harvests where the stand structure clearly shows that the hide was taken with the tail, and there is very little increase in residual value…… under the administration of a professional forester, so I have serious doubts that the current model actually improves long-term return)

Again, I am not trying to solve some large societal problem, just trying to point out to animal loggers that this methodology offers a functional difference. I know we have a long way to go, but if we could find a way to come together around some common understanding, we could add substantiated validity to the work of each of us individually, so that we can show these landowners where their misconceptions exist, and that by hiring us, they will not be losing, but gaining on several fronts over the long run.

Of course there always will be the ones looking for short-term gain, and that will always be hard to address with animal power.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Then of course there is the point that I am talking about growing those high quality trees longer, instead of harvesting to offset the cost of harvesting large volumes of low-grade. Also maintaining a higher density of released crop trees, increased residual value per acre. Harvesting the worst first, and allowing the highest quality trees to grow adds volume, and value.

To accommodate animal power there needs to be improved access, but these roads are long-term assets that remain with the property into perpetuity, reducing future harvesting costs, and possibly adding resale value to the property.

So in the long run this method not only retains value in ecological services, but stands to create a more financially productive forest.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 38247 wrote:

…..
If I understand what you are talking about Carl a lot of those poor quality trees would be retained and slowly removed in order to maintain a higher stocking level. From a finance stand point we would be allowing the growth of poor quality trees hence reducing the growth of those high value crop trees…..

Here is the art thing. I am not talking about maintaining high stocking across the board. Stocking is reduced to increase tree growth, but that thinning is focused on crop trees, and areas where crop trees are to be cultivated. Some areas where stocking is high may have several crop trees isolated within, so surgical harvest would release them. Also, using non-commercial thinning to reduce low grade without having to create volumes to make harvesting cost effective would reduce low grade components. And then entering more often to keep the process active.

I agree that in most cases it comes down to people being able to feel that it is worth it for them. I truly am not trying to “change the face of forestry”, just trying to show how the capabilities of draft animals lend them to a legitimate method of forestry that can be more beneficial to the ecosystem, IF there are landowners who value that.

From my experience, I have much more success with landowners discussing these values than I have when trying to explain why hiring me with my horses is economically superior…… I just plain have not found that to be a legitimate argument. I have the advantage of being a forester and logger, so I can deal directly with the landowner, and I don’t have to convince a forester to entertain the thought of using me. But I also have found that I need much fewer landowners than my friends with machinery.

I would love to see figures that somehow show that draft animals are economically superior. I didn’t start this yesterday, and I have covered a lot of forestland, and have been involved in the industry for a long time, and I truly believe that even as a niche, we will be much more effective as harvesting operators if we don’t try to take on mechanical forestry on a purely economic level.

In this day and age, it is nearly impossible to get buy-in on large enviro-social values. I realize that. I just happen to have grown up in a time when my parents and teachers were admonishing us to be stewards of the ecosystem, to recognize the values that go beyond ourselves, and our checkbooks. What can I say we didn’t have x-boxes…….

I’ll keep trying to refine it, and maybe there is a way that our work can coincide to make some significant changes for the good.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I opened a can of worms, so I’ll just post some brief comments, and then try to flesh out more understanding by peeling away layers.

The 3rd party review is something that comes with the territory when you are making claims about some superior process, or product. The model that HHFF uses, and seems attractive to me, is a volunteer committee of “informed” community members, who are capable of appraising your standards, and checking on your work, to certify that you are in fact doing what you say you are doing. It accomplishes a few things that “Green Cert” does poorly, or outright fails at. First it adds no cost, and second it brings it home to the community, or region, so that there is a level of trust and communication that has to happen for everyone to be on the same page.

I have attached a Northern Hardwoods Stocking Guide. These graphs are developed by USFS for every cover-type in US. Cover-type is a species, or association of trees species that predominate in a region. Some trees typically grow in predominantly pure stands, or in consistent association with other species. The cover-type is not why I posted this, but I just threw that out for context.

These graphs show a range of factors relating to density and tree size. Based on accompanying evaluation, they also indicate how these factors effect rate of growth. The A-line delineates the place where a stand becomes overstocked, whether by many very small trees, or by fewer very large trees. The highest rate of growth is retained between the A & B-lines. Harvesting entry schedules, and harvest volume densities are calculated based on where a stand measures, and what prescriptions best meet the objective of increasing tree growth.

The convention is to keep a stand from becoming overstocked, and to also keep it from getting below the B-line, as below that it there will be a more significant recovery time as trees gain vigor. Harvests entries could be every 20-40 years if the stand is allowed to reach the A-line, and then thinned all the way to the B-line, or they could be every couple of years with a lighter thinning.

Using the current economic model, with the advantages of mechanical harvesting, and marking to facilitate economy of scale to gain high stumpage, we typically see harvests that are spaced further apart, and often reduce stocking significantly…… all supported soundly by the science that was used to develop these guides.

My qualitative review of these guides paints a different picture that is not supported in any of the accompanying literature for managing these cover-types. What I see is that these data clearly show that trees strive to an overstocked condition, backed-up with field observation. This overstocked condition is the foundation for many of the complex interrelationships that exist in a forest ecosystem. Although thinning to the B-line is appropriate to maintain vigorous tree growth, it ignores the value of high stocking to the overall ecosystem.

Some people believe that it is less impact on the site to enter every 20-40 years, but the significant reduction in stocking is a shock to the other factors of the ecosystem. However, regular, small volume harvests would clearly have less system-wide impact. Nobody even considers draft animals as a viable harvesting method, so they give little credence to the idea. The game in town is powerful machines that can produce timber products, so the application of forestry is geared toward that method, and substantiated by the current timber-based appraisal of these guides.

Creating standards of harvesting with horses to accomplish timber value improvement while using these very guides to substantiate them, combined with a qualitative evaluation of the result (everyone can see the impact resulting from harvest), will be a big step toward helping landowners find value in the ecological services of their woodland that are best protected by using draft animals.

Now, overstocking leads to reduced vigor, and compromises tress and stands when faced with environmental pressures, but by removing worst first, and releasing high quality trees, we can maintain a high level of ecological integrity while increasing value per acre. The overstocked forest also succumbs to challenges that create openings, species changes, naturally reduced stocking, and so on, but by mimicking these phenomena we can protect the timber assets, and the ecosystem at once.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

You should visit their website……

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Rick Alger 38225 wrote:

…..I think Andy’s idea of quantifying what animal power can do could result in powerful selling points for us folks who still log in the old dispensation.

So, I’ll go back to my original point……. If we use horses to apply the exact same forestry as is being applied by mechanical operators, then we will not be offering an alternative.

I really feel that the difference comes down to applying forestry in ways that suit the capability of draft animals,( ie. protecting ecological integrity), then measure how the ecosystem benefits from not having to recover from the impact, not only from machines, but from the economic withdrawal reflected by the short-cuts to minimize operational expense.

You can high-grade with horses. You can clear-cut with horses. Heck you can even practice ultra-utilization (modification on the term, whole tree harvesting). But the minimal difference in soil disturbance between the two methods will not add up to squat.

We need to truly and frankly evaluate the system-wide impacts of this modern application of forestry to get a real sense of how the money in the landowner’s pocket is reflected on the landscape. Then we need to show how draft animals can effectively apply a different method of timber harvest/forestry, and put a numeric value on what the ecosystem has in reserve, or more importantly what it doesn’t have to spend to recover.

My theory is that what the landowner earns the ecosystem has to spend to recover…..

On another note, Rick I apologize for the short incomplete answer, but I was headed out the door….. pulling 3-4 log pine….

I would really like to work on developing a northeast horseloggers association, or something like that, in the model of Healing Harvest’s Biological Woodsmen, so that we could develop some standards that we can all agree on. As members we would be certified to practice draft animal forestry that has some demonstrated measures, and similar to HHFF, we institute a 3rd party review that includes informed community members that can verify that we are doing what we say we will do.

Have some level of broader association, adhere to legitimate forestry principles, backed up by verifiable review, then actually have something to sell.

I realize that it comes down to the clientele. It is a hard nut to crack, but doing it alone is even more difficult.

BTW, I have been working closely with Jason to develop a NE Draftwood program, so I am neither stealing, nor trying to bypass him.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Rick Alger 38213 wrote:

Interesting discussion. It seems to me the crux is how to get paid for providing public goods such as ecological integrity, clean water, sequestered carbon, landscape aesthetics etc. The current marketplace is not going to do it. Maybe BIG GUBMENT should.

Stop paying the going stumpage rate, sell a realistic approach to providing those services, and charge what you deserve…..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 38193 wrote:

….. It was of moderate interest, but not a “superstar” thread. So I thought I would get involved partly because I was interested and had not shared thoughts on this subject yet, and partly because I wanted to test Carl’s theory (above) about what really makes “superstar” threads so attractive. Quickly, other thoughts were contributed by a host of people and the thread snowballed into something interesting to everyone. It’s over 6600 views and 52 posts now. In two days, the thread attracted more than twice the views as it was able to in a year and a half. I know I am not the only reason that this thread got popular, and there was active discussion before I joined in. My feeling is that my participation, as well as that of others, brought this thread past a “tipping point” where readers recognized that there was broad diversity in the thoughts presented, as well as an open and inclusive exchange of these ideas, and could see the passion that some people have….. .

So Andy, this also shows me another point I tried to make in an earlier post. By taking interest in this thread, and blowing on some of the coals, you were able to rekindle a fire.

I also have many other things to do, like put critters in the freezer, or earn some money to pay down the credit card, so I really had no need to reply. My “passion” about that issue is clear. I also replied in part because I appreciate the thoughtful criticism that encourages me to refine my message. However, I am also aware that several hundred people may see this, and rather than dropping it, I think by engaging in constructive discussion we set the tone for the ultimate value of this site, and drew people’s attention to the topic.

This is why I think that as you and DAPNet consider how to use this site to its fullest capacity, finding a person, or persons, who can become the face of this site will be the best first step. To thank people for posting, to ask critical questions without insulting, to take the initiative to share personal experience or understanding, possibly artificially, just to attract attention to posts, can be what takes a thread over the tipping point to gaining “superstar” status.

This raises the purpose for that person on this site, from content of posts and threads, to the overall value of the functionality, the connectivity, of the site. An MC, a Greeter, a facilitator………a networker, pulling strings that activate the community response.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Great job Erika….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Thanks for pointing this out Erika (and Andy in another thread).

Marking milestones is an important way for us to look backward and forward at the same time. (ouch)

This has been a wonderful experiment and experience.

Thank you all for making this what it has become.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@near horse 38192 wrote:

I think that is the crux of Carl’s point. We need to redefine what constitutes a forest resource. The old definition was too narrow and short-sighted. Unfortunately, just like our energy situation, when many of us have invested in the current system, change will be difficult.

Yes…..

In the video clip I posted I highlight a Lady Slipper plant next to my skid trail. This is a “marker” for the infinite minute details that indicate place holders in the forest ecosystem. If we were to seriously try to redefine the “forest resource”, and we accepted that it is the “communities” that populate the place where trees grow (the forest ecosystem), then we would have a huge rabbit hole to tunnel down into.

I understand that is one reason why our current definition is narrowed to trees. Not only are they the economically important component, they are a distinct, measurable, component, which is a prerequisite for scientific analysis. However, I am not sure, and I have questioned this for many years, that we actually have enough time to wait for scientific methods to quantify the complicated nature of an ecosystem.

That is why I argue that a qualitative approach may make more sense. Qualitative evaluation can bring a vast array of “values” together, and at the same time make room for values assigned to unknowns, in a way that science cannot. Breaking an ecosystem apart into measurables denies the existence of interrelationships that support the shared existence of each of those measurable components, which is actually what an ecosystem is.

That is why this is not an easy endeavor. Any success at changing cultural norms, or even success at the personal level of trying to apply draft animals to forestry, is probably going to have to rely on comparable evaluation, personal experience shared with landowners and other loggers and foresters.

Tag……. your it. Pass it on. 😉

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Baystatetom 38200 wrote:

……Like I have always said, I do the best possible job within the circumstances that I have to work with. …….~Tom

I know that you do Tom. While I do pass judgement on some of the assumptions in the philosophy that underlays our industry, I don’t take umbrage with the folks who are doing what they can to practice the best forestry they can.

There are realities that govern how we live in the culture we participate in. While I can set ideals, and obviously do, and I am fully aware of their lofty nature which gives me inspiration to raise my sight above the horizon, I work every day on what is right in front of me, and sometimes that is not so pure as my intentions.

I am just throwing out the arguments that I use to support the choices I have made, in case they make sense to others as they consider how to apply animal power to forestry.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Carl Russell 38129 wrote:

…..I agree that private landowners have personal objectives, and that is fine, but I think we need to be realistic. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t think we can just accept that some people are willing to make investments to protect ecological principles. If folks make a purely economical decision about timber management then they need to know that they are taking something that may not belong to them……

So in an attempt to get close to some measurable standards, a few months ago I made contact with Resource Economists at UVM to try to quantify the relative loss to the ecosystem by employing financially motivated timber harvesting to implement forestry. After the first of the year I will follow up, and I may be able to work with some of them at the UVM Research Forest to try to address this hypothesis.

Carl

[Author]

Posts