[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 29047 wrote:

Here is an old photo of a large load being belayed off the hill. A book I recently purchased titled “Woodsmen, Horses, & Dynamite” has a detailed sketch of a sophisticated belay device mounted on a mobile platform. I don’t have the book with me now but once I get my hands on it again I’ll scan the image and post it on here.

This is one of my favorite “back in the day” photos. The gentleman on the load seems quite contemplative. I would be too if I was trusting my & my team’s lives on that piece of well worn hemp/wire rope. Might even need to change my woolens’ during the course of the day… 😮

This was called a “Snub Line”, and was basically a rope wrapped around a stump, like a capstan. There was a “Snub Man” that would manage the tension of the snub line as the team descended. It was his job to make sure that the line was tight enough to slow down the team, while keeping it free enough so that the line wouldn’t grab and break. This was one of the most stressful jobs in the camp, as if the line were to break, the sled would be sluiced and both team and driver would be seriously injured or killed. There is one tale from northern NH where such an accident occurred. By the time the team came to a stop, hanging from their harnesses halfway up a bent over spruce tree, the snub man was already gone, and running for the Canadian border.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 29045 wrote:

Andy,

If you are working ground in excess of 50%, you are well out of the realm of a ground-based harvesting system.

I hope we all are in agreement in how we are measuring % slope.

Mathematically 100% slope is equal to a 45º slope. Rise of 100 feet over the run of 100 feet = 1.00, or 100%

A 60% slope has a rise of 60 feet in 100 feet, and is equal to about a 30º slope.

I realize there are some conventions that refer to a 45º slope as 50%, 1/2 way between straight up and level, but it is not accurately represented mathematically when using measurable features on the ground.

I know that if we multiply 75% x 90º we can get a number of 67.5º, which many would consider to be how to calculate % slope.

When I used the figure 60-70% slope I was referring to a rise of 60-70 feet over a 100 foot distance. In this case it is a rise of about 35 feet in about 50 feet level distance, or a 30-35º slope.

My methods are based on what I was taught in forestry school, and plane surveying. I also use a Suunto Clinometer that is calibrated to % slope with a conversion table showing 100% = 45º.

To calculate º slope from % use Tangent = Opposite/Adjacent
60% = 60′ rise (opposite) over 100′ run (adjacent) = .60
The inverse Tangent of .60 = 30.98º

With this in mind a 50% slope, while pretty good uphill is not as excessive as a 45º slope.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Jim Ostergard 29024 wrote:

….. wondering how long an electric drive winch would last before having to put a charge on the battery. ….

Not very long if it is just a 12-volt car battery. The larger the amperage storage, the longer the operational capacity. Without the numbers I can’t give you an estimate, but based on the Yard Hitch for example, a single deep cell 6-volt golf cart battery could probably run the winch for 1/2 the day. Have two on board to switch from one to the other, or incorporate a charger, but I think it would require a longer recharge period, as without a charge controller, more cost etc., the amount of charging needed per amount of available charging time from the turning wheel during work would not be sufficient to recoup the deficit.

Just brainstorming, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@near horse 29016 wrote:

Remember that video link on here somewhere showing that guy making a bobsled (seemed he was at an old mill in Maine/VT maybe). He made his shoe bolts out of carriage bolts I thought – heated and reshaped/flattened the head as I recall? Awesome.

Worth a look Brad if you haven’t seen it.

Just to clarify, he does make a sled, and basically ALL of the methods and techniques are applicable, but the sled is not a bobsled. More like a “pung”, or general work/wood sled. The difference is there is not just one bunk, but a series of cross members upon which logs, pulp are stacked. This style sled was very common, as decks and side boards could be attached and then used for a huge variety of farm and forest chores.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Finally found these plans and scanned them. The only dimension left out is that the runners are 6′ from end to bolt hole.

[Carl Russell]

I have a client who owns 1500 acres in central VT. They logged with horses, and ran a small Kubota with a winch and a JD 4×4 with a forwarder on bio-diesel. They owned their own sawmill and dry-kiln, and had a long-term track record for ecological forest management.

At one point they decided to get SFC certified. It was very costly, and the audit process was onerous. They quickly became disenchanted with the whole process because they could easily see that other certified LO’s were getting away with practices that fell short of the advertised “Sustainable Forestry”.

The problem as I see it is that SFI and FSC need large LO, and they need the cooperation of large enterprises for the effort to have critical mass to gain market share. Due to this there is clearly an effort to look the other way, or to bend over backwards to allow continued enrollment by companies like Irving Oil, whose practices have been documented as being on the verge of destructive.

There is a huge problem in this country related to the input the forest industry has in the way that forestry is practiced. I think that sometimes it is very difficult for us to swallow extreme views, especially when they are expressed through protest. Agreed, protest rarely feels like it is a two-way conversation, but in the face of the industrial corporate image projection and market control, it seems like it is allowable in this instance.

I personally have no patience for large corporations attempt at greenwashing. I also think it is well advertised I have a much different personal approach to forestry, so I am not going to come to the defense of SFI nor FSC.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I am 100% behind Ronnie on this in general, but for the sake of discussion, I see these points as being about ways to increase participation. Upping production by bringing more operators into the woods at one time. Spreading the knowledge, skills, methods, and culture.

As far as Payday’s comments, I find quite the opposite. I work half as hard as I did at 26, and get twice as much done. I still roll logs every day, and find that I am no more stiff than I ever was. The more logs I roll by hand, the more tricks I find….. I have a tendency to respond to resistance by trying to find an easier way…… without resorting to high cost, and outside power sources. That being said, I appreciate your comments (Payday) and I can totally see how such equipment may give you just what you need.

As far as electrical motors. I have no doubt that there is enough power spent hauling a load, particularly on downhills that a generator could be installed to charge a battery bank. I worry about the housing of such though as I am wicked hard on logging equipment. My experience with electrical motors is that they are very inefficient ways to use electricity…. a lot on entropy… as seen by sparking and heat escaping from the internal mechanism. With this in mind I see quite a large battery bank… probably 4 deep cells.

I think the best solution to power assist is a motor with an accelerator so that as the assist is needed the teamster merely pushes harder on the pedal to get the trailer to keep up with the forward motion of the horses. The last thing we want is for the gearing mechanism to add drag. The power assist that seems to be common on Scandanavian equipment is an extra wheel positioned between the two wagon wheel. It is obviously smaller diameter, but it is on a tension arm used to lower the wheel into place when needed. By rotating in between the two wheels it can push the forward wheel, and pull the rear wheel. If connected to a variable speed regulator then the operator can drop the wheel into place at the needed location and step on the accelerator to accomplish the needed assistance. It probably could be set up to work backwards and collect electricity.

The other thing about generating electricity on the downhill is that the resistance could be used as a partial brake.

In terms on Robert’s questions about braking, the trigged wheel does work, but also compromises steering control, even when applied to rear wheels as the skidding wheel can slide downslope on sidling trails.

Using the power to run an electric winch will work, but I have found these winches to have very little lifting power. This may be directly related to the available amperage from a single 12 volt car battery. With more amperage, in a larger battery bank combined with a power booster, an electrical winch may be very effective in a crane to lift logs, but will undoubtedly use a lot of electricity. I have no experience with electrical motors running hydraulics, but it may be a more efficient way to covert the power.

Thinking about Ronnie’s comments, and Payday’s, I feel it is important to add a few more. One of the reasons I continue to use horses is the same reason I find I get more and more work done. I continue to improve my ability to use the animals’ power to my advantage. In this discussion about hybridized approaches to working animals and machines, I feel it is important to focus on the extreme value of the interplay between human intellect and trained animal-power. I very much feel like the craft of using horses in the woods plays a huge part in the final forestry product that I can deliver to my clients. It also plays significantly in the production formula, getting lore work done with less input.

As craftspeople evaluating potential tools to augment our performance, we need to find that cross-over point where the use of animals is compounding inefficiencies, and where the use of equipment can justify its cost. And as Scott so aptly put…. it depends. Each of us applies our craft in subtly different ways, each in different environments, in different economic realities, but somewhere in the mix there is a point where the qualitative and quantitative meet. Looking forward to seeing you all when we get there….

So to broaden the discussion, I am considering (seriously) getting a small crawler. After 25 years I am finally thinking I can justify this expense. Not for logging per se, but for trail building, landing work, and winter trail clearing for the horses in deep snow, and also for basic land infrastructure improvements here on the farm. I’m thinking JD 350 – 450 $10,000 range….. nothing firm yet, just thinking and looking. I have always relied on hiring friends in the dirt business, but I’m thinking I can make the thing pay for itself.

….. The funny thing is that in 1986 I all but had the papers signed on a JD 450 when I stopped to meet an old horse-logger I had been buying logs from as a procurement forester at a large softwood mill. He was dancing with his single horse, twitching logs out of a ledgy hole on the side of a mountain near here….. I bought a horse from him and never went back to the machinery dealer. You know the rest of the story…..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I agree that this discussion has brought a bunch of different aspects together, but it’s the reality of this work. I started this thread to cover some of the components of the operation we are working out. No doubt productivity plays into it so the discussions about payload and skid distance are as appropriate as the discussion about using grant funds to augment the forestry.

I personally don’t have any problem sorting through it all…… I actually enjoy it, because it shows that this is a multidimensional enterprise, and there is no one answer, but many heads, questions, and suggestions make it all better.

Tim thank you for putting your comments into that form. I don’t think we actually think of the “loss”, and I know you don’t either, because we are committed to paying it forward, but there is a cost to the education and convention-breaking, and sometimes the effectiveness is directly related to how well we can afford our particular personal participation in the effort. In that regard, I have taken your previous suggestion about exploring a SARE grant to develop a delivery system through woodlot tours, funded internships, and other forms of increased outreach (which kind of speaks to what you were asking about Geoff). When I get a chance I am going to rough out some proposals and run them past this group.

As far as optimal skid distances, I agree with Scott…… non-committal as he was..:) Obviously there are many ways to work out the details. Generally I don’t like to ground-skid much more than 300′, team or single. With a cart, I will skid 1000-1500′, and sometimes up hill. On snow, I have yarded to a scoot, then pulled the scoot loaded uphill 1500′. If we were to work the current job in the winter I would have no problem doing the whole thing with horses and a bobsled. Twitching short wood into small yards from up to 300′, loading the bob with 800-1000 bf, and going downhill using bridle chains to hold back. In winter the walk back up the 3/4 x 350′ elev. would be much easier to manage.

As Scott said…. it depends.

Andy I really like the idea of the gear reduction for holding back….. I wonder if there are any examples of that on the market….. It makes me think about the truck rear-end that I have sitting here. I wonder about the idea of making electricity with that to run a winch off of a battery bank…….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 28913 wrote:

Can alone give me a general idea of what kind of slopes we are talking about here? Both the percent grade and the length would be wonderful info to have, if anyone knows… Also, does anyone know what a minimum load might be for the forward to be practical? I might have some creative ideas about these hills, but want to run some numbers to see if any are actually feasable…

And yes, I know there probably greater challanges in terms of manpower and logistics here, but I like to think about the technology aspect.

Andy, the lot we are working on is located on a hillside that is located along a narrow valley with steep slopes. We are landing logs beside the town road at the bottom of the valley next to the brook. We are cutting logs at the height of land nearly 3/4 mile away. There is about a 300-350 foot rise in elevation. There are a few places where the trail cuts along the contour with pretty reasonable slope, which means in other areas it can be 20-30%, with one very steep pitch of 60-70% for about 50 feet. This is all empty going back into the woods.

There is no doubt that a good team can handle hauling a load, especially on wheels, up a trail like that. It just takes time to manage that kind of exertion, which impacts the work flow in the woods. I was hauling logs earlier this summer from a section about .4 miles from the landing with my bobsled. We had one chopper, a team twitching, and my team bobbing. I could haul out about 6 loads a day, 3-400bf each, but in 80º weather it knocked them pretty hard. If it had just been a chopper with a skid horse, I think the cadence would have been a bit easier.

As far as hauling a forwarder, I think the ones you and Simon have posted, would be pretty easy, and if they had brakes would work well. I’m not sure that horses forwarding wood that distance and slope, even with the light forwarder, would want to be taking wood from more than a chopper and a skid horse. If there was a third person to chop, swamp, and help load, they could probably find stuff to do when the wood started to bottleneck in the woods.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@near horse 28910 wrote:

Yes – I haven’t signed yet either. Where’s the Post Master General’s phone number?! :{

I think the Secretary forgot to get a tracking number…..:p

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Where are we with the Bylaws? We should probably make sure that we have them with all the signatures before the annual meeting.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@PhilG 28901 wrote:

Why is there government intervention into the free market of forest management ? I would rather my tax dollars go to paying for education, dept or any number of things other than a small percent of a rich land owners management bill. …..

Phil, as a rule I stay away from Gpv’t programs. I know that at their root there is some stimulus directed at economy, and supposedly at stewardship as well. I believe that stewardship that is handed out by the Gov’t falls very short of stewardship that is the foundation of a personal objective of land ownership.

The current situation is that, as George says, the money is there. NRCS is pushing the money, because if it doesn’t get spent, they won’t get any more. The funds are truly directed at land-use issues that are typically considered secondary for folks who are trying to make money from their land. For example if the LO is having logging done because they want to help pay taxes, then in most cases they are less inclined to see some of that income directed toward conservation measures.

In this case the LO was so concerned about finding ways to offset our costs (last summer we worked at reduced rates as log prices were down, and we were just trying to figure out some of the value issues of our operation). These funds are dedicated to creating large patch-cut openings in the woodlands to benefit birds. During the harvest last year I had created a patch-work of small openings, 1/10 – 1/4 acre in size ( my own aesthetic ecological take on this type of habitat) and the LO thought that these funds would be easy to get, and would bring in some extra income for us. There is no question about her personal commitment to stewardship.

I have mixed feeling about it. I was already on the track toward developing the prescribed habitat, but it did require a lot of non-commercial work to take it the rest of the way. I’m not sure I would actually want to replicate that size opening in my typical management… 2 acres is a big hole, but the wildlife specialists say this is important. There is no doubt that the compensation is more than it cost us/LO, but in this case I think it went to the purpose it was intended.

This is a huge issue really though. The cost of maintaining ecological services is something that we are all going to have to deal with somehow. If the market continues to put the squeeze the forestry product, it will be a perpetual problem for LO’s to be able to afford to implement conservation measures. In that regard, I am not totally opposed to the NRCS programs.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Does’ Leap 28898 wrote:

Hi Carl:

Have any of your clients signed up for EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Program) through NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service)? They have several forest-based programs that may help take the economic stress off the LO and focus on forest quality. With that shift in focus, I imagine horse loggers would be increasingly attractive.
—-George

In this particular case the LO applied for WHIP funds to establish 2 two acre patch-cuts at $895/acre…… It certainly has been an extra bit of cash to help out with forest improvement work.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Robert, there is a box when you login that says something like “Keep me logged in” or Remember Me” or “Stay Logged In”. Maybe if you check that it will help.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 28884 wrote:

…. As far as the cultural change you allude to, perhaps the fact that you can get this many operators together on one job is a testimate to how much cultural change there has been. Congratulations to you and everyone else who is a part of this cultural change. …

A few notes of importance here.

I know he is busy with his Draft Animal Days, so has been absent from this discussion, but Jason Rutledge has been a leader on this front for years, and I don’t intend to portray that I have completely new and different ideas.

Also I know that folks such as Scott, Tristan, Taylor, and others have also been working hard at similar efforts.

I’m feeling inspired right now to push the envelope, to take advantage of this network. In fact this whole thing that has happened here over the last few years was started because of this objective of mine (that I share with many of you).

In 2005 Lisa and I held a Horse-logging weekend here at Earthwise Farm & Forest. The intention was to bring together folks with skills, and those looking for the skills, with an emphasis of the land management strategies I espouse.

For many reasons beyond my own personal initiative it blossomed into NEAPFD, DAP.com, and now DAPNet. Now that we have successfully stepped back from our organizational roles, Lisa and I are taking up some of the work we already had on our plates. For me it is back to the forest, trying to share my perspective, and trying to engage more folks in the development of some strategies to enact some of this cultural change (which, by the way, began for me back in the late 70’s at UVM forestry school…… right from the beginning, I just couldn’t stomach the industrial impregnation of the entire curriculum).

As you (Andy) hint at, the change may be exponential. Part of that is because we have knit together a community over miles of territory that would otherwise prevent us from interacting. Through this network I know of so many folks who would love to work their animal in the woods, but don’t know where/how to start, or don’t have foresters or LO’s in their area who will give them a chance, and I am getting contacted all of the time by forestry students who want to understand how draft animals can be used to enable a more holistic approach to forestry. I know lumber wholesalers and specialty builders who want lumber with a back-story. I know landowners who want more out of their land than skidder scars and a large pay check.

It seems to me this network is a tool waiting to be used. Thanks to everyone for contributing, reading, questioning, and commenting.

Carl

[Author]

Posts