[Carl Russell]

A few more pix from 1/26/11

Carl

[Carl Russell]

There is a local group of mechanical loggers who have joined their operations. I have not contacted them yet, but I know a few of them, and I think their model is probably a good way to go.

The County Forester told me that some of the time they work on their own, but as they began to cooperate on larger jobs, they found that they needed to form a formal partnership.

This is not an easy process, as each individual must account for their share of the assets, and the resulting income tax work is more complicated.

Obviously I have also been giving some thought to this. In the short term we have chosen to fly under the radar. The liability insurance is a good idea though, as when one operator has it, but others don’t then that one has increased exposure. It almost seems as though the first step would be for all operators to have individual commercial liability policies.

However that doesn’t address the Workman’s Comp, and as we have found out, everyone thinks they have found a way around it, but at least according to my insurance agent and those at the VT Agency of Employment and Training, if it isn’t a formal partnership then whomever is handling the money is the one in charge, and therefore is the employer.

One other way that I have thought this through would be to have separate areas where individuals work on their own section, with their own landing, marketing, and income stream. This doesn’t actually address the idea that several operators cooperating can augment each others’ production, thus making it desirable to work together to begin with.

Another option has to do with creating a legal entity that actually employs a broad group of regular, or rotating operators, paying hourly rates, covering liability insurance, and workman’s comp. This has been something I have talked over with some business people because of the lead-in to cooperative marketing, consistent forestry practices, and increased functionality of animal-powered timber harvest. This could also be a medium to integrate novices into a draft-animal powered forestry initiative.

Yada yada yada……. I ramble :o.

Gotta go work on something that I can actually affect….. my wood pile.:p

Carl

[Carl Russell]

sickle hocks;24212 wrote:

Clips take a lot of strain off of the nails. Usually toe clips on the fronts and side clips on the hinds. Useful on thin walls or broken up feet, you can get away with smaller nails and keep more strength in the wall…..
…. probably in a draft horse situation they might not make that much of a difference… do you guys ever have outside calks or more traction on one side of the shoe? the twisting might make a difference then…

I think the key is wall thickness and nail size. I use #8 Regular Header nails. They are pretty tough.

I agree that in certain situation of therapeutic shoeing, broken hoof wall, etc., the toe clip should add some stability that will be helpful.

Generally on a healthy solid draft hoof I find the clip to just be in the way.

My response last night was certainly minimized due to my lack of brain power, so it was specifically related to my general experience with clips. There are however many situations where they could offer advantage.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I cut all toe clip off of shoes that I get that have them. I have used them, and I have found no measurable difference in the shoe’s staying power. If the shoe fits well and the nails are well placed, there is no need for a toe clip……
IMHO

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Just a reminder that this is happening this weekend. I am planning to be there…. hope to see some of you also.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

They have been growing well. They are easy to handle, but not that handy yet. We expect that by spring they will be pulling out some small wood.

Bazel, not to be left out, had a chance to start a third bull calf, Happiless, and he has been doing really well also.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Jim Garvin;24107 wrote:

Mark;

I bought the aluminum channel that the plexiglass slides into from Townsend’s, in Pembrooke. I purchased the plexiglass from Beckett’s in Concord. I made them so that I could take them in and out. I simply used pop rivets to hold the aluminum onto the insides of the trailer, above and below the openings. I can get some pictures of them if my description is too vague.

Jim

Not too vague, but the pics would be great… I have been thinking on doing this for a while.

As far as cold travel Mark I haven’t made the highway trip like you describe, but I think that the horse will have very little exposure to wind in the front…. I would probably blanket him.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Yes Geoff, your cut is the more traditional. I used to use it too. In that case the front cut needs to be a lower angle to minimize impact on the butt log. The problem with that style is that the hinge wood breaks as soon as the mouth closes, which can affect the directional control.

With the high open face cut, the cut comes out of what would be the slab, and the hinge wood should hold all the way till the log hits the ground.

This is the method taught in GOL.

The face cut coming out of the stump was a solution in really large wood, when using the older style, the butt log would be impacted significantly…. more commonly known as the Humboldt Cut, for timber being cut in Humboldt County, such as redwoods.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

George et al., My comments were actually more general than directed at anyone in particular, although they came out more as a rambling manifesto than I had intended. 😮

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Not to be disrespectful, but a few loads and a few thousand feet is not enough experience to really get a feel for rolling logs on or off of sleds. The difficulties should lead to increased understanding of the little tricks that can make a huge difference. It requires a certain amount of resolve to get past the uncomfortable stage.

This also feeds for me into the discussion about the amount of wood gotten out in one day.

In this day and age we are definitely conditioned to think about production supporting the operation. As if the operation has some assumed authority and the production unit must live up to it.

It is one of my pet peeves that when using animal-power we need to think of the production capabilities first. Recognizing the limitations, and crafting the expectations to fit the reality of the situation.

I won’t pretend to be able to evaluate other’s budgets, but the beauty of using animals is the low cost. If there are other factors that increase personal need for income, they must be evaluated in terms of the capability of the horse, not the other way around.

Using hand tools such a peaveys falls into the same category. The inherent value of these systems is that the work can get done for very little outlay of cash. It is like apples and oranges to then superimpose personal modern expenditures onto these systems. They should be considered in their own lights.

When I started using horses in the woods, I had several years experience working with machinery. It was very difficult for me to justify the seemingly absurd amount of time it took me to get out a thousand board feet. I had the luxury of starting at a point in my life when I had very little invested, and therefore I chose to restrict my financial expenditures to the actual amount of income from my production.

I also found that efficiency is very different from proficiency, and that as I found those aspects of the work that I could improve on by shear craftiness, I could alter my impression of the limitations. Things like understanding the landscape, and knowing the tool I was using, so that I found the best place to work from, and using the tool that best utilized the energy from my horses, or finding the balance points of heavy objects so that I let physical factors influence how much energy I actually had to expend myself.

As far as the inefficiencies of loading and unloading the sled, one only has to look at the differential energy expended by the animals between dragging 150-200 bf 1500 feet and then walking back, versus 300-500 bf on a sled. The human may work less, but the animals, will be using much more energy. Not to mention the added expense of handling the resulting pile of material on the landing, which in so many cases demands another machine. Sleds, both scoot and bob, provide inherent advantages to assist in unloading…. facilitated by the way in which logs are oriented at the landing to the access from the harvesting area.

I have been watching Brad, and he is learning fast. He is pulling wood on the sled about 1500 feet, and skidding logs to the sled from within 2-300 feet. He did not choose the easiest place to start the job with the equipment he is using. I expect that the trees he will be cutting this week, and the chance he will be using will provide improved facility.

I have always worked alone in the woods, with a few limited exceptions. I have rarely exceeded an average of 1000 bf per day. This is not a lot of money on today’s income market place. I chose my commitment to using horses over my need to expand my debt-load. I also decided to integrate other efficiencies like raising my own food, building my own home, and taking care of my aging mother as a way of buying into the current farm.

This is all to say, I appreciate the misgivings that people express about this kind of work, but they should not see my adherence to them as evidence that somehow I have been able to make a lot of money at it. I make income in many different ways, one of which is piling up logs from forestry projects. I have found over the years that I can effectively harvest timber for very little expense, and using the bobsled and peavey is just one way.

I have put as much as 900 bf on a bobsled and hauled it 1/2 mile downhill. I would haul 500 bf that far or more, depending on terrain, long before I will consider buying a tractor. And if I was going to hire a forwarder again I would need to see 4 choppers and at least 2 teams pulling wood to it, which again adds levels of complication……

I have shod the horses, am cleaning harness today, and hope to get them out on the sled this week. Perhaps even on Brad’s job….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Hitch the choker so that the slip hook is on the back side of the log or tree, so that when you pull, the log has to roll toward you before it starts to slide.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Rick Alger;24056 wrote:

Yes, excellent photos.

😀

Ever have a professional photographer come with you into the woods??? Ever notice how many horse head shots, and broad landscapes with no useful information?

There obviously is an aesthetic that deserves capture, but I specifically tried to get shots that could tell the working story. I hope to get some more next week with frost lining the sides of those beasts…. Brrr.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

That sounds good to me George…. I can’t remember the specs on my ropes…. they may be similar to what you are talking about… I just remember getting the larger diameter rope for heavy loads, and the 1/2″ for climbing.

I like that set-up for the stump puller Andy.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I would also add that if I didn’t need these ropes for tree removal/arborist work I would not spend the money for using them in the woods.

I also have 250″ of 1″ braided nylon mooring rope that I used in the crane I made to lift logs onto our home.

The number of times I have used rope in the woods can be counted on one hand over 25 years.

There are very few hanging trees that I can’t justify a cut of 1-2′ off the bottom to facilitate pulling them…. or very few time that I have hung a tree in one that I couldn’t justify cutting down.(I know that is to be avoided at all costs:o)

Just like with Erika’s truck, I have found that by the time I went to get the ropes, strung them up, and made enough room for the run-out, I could have gotten the tree on the ground.

On the few trees that I have decided to use ropes, they worked slick, and there would have been no other way….. but I already had the ropes, and paid for them with tree work.

But there are very few tools or supplies that are more valuable than a good rope. Just beware of trying to justify the expense with their use in the woods.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

My ropes are 125 feet for climbing, and 150 feet for bull rope.

I keep them in a rope bag, and pack basket. Easier to handle.

No permanent hardware on the ropes.

[Author]

Posts