[Carl Russell]

This is the aftermath. The clump of birches were right in front, and you can see the right front tire track over the bank near the fence-line.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I think it was applicable as a way to capture that surge, both as comfort, and peak load. With the chain, they came to an abrupt stop, like hitting a brick wall. It was clearly upsetting to them. When we used the strap it was less of a shock. This increased the comfort, reducing their anxiety, making their effort more purposeful, but it also was clearly more affective at converting the power into forward motion.

There obviously isn’t a huge amount of elastic motion, but I think there was some stretching that the horses were able to capture and hold for a moment while the truck moved to catch up with them. I also know that from watching them, the fact that they can feel the stretching allows them to feel as though they are not hitched to a rock, making them THINK they can move it, so they try harder next pull.

This is exactly why I chose to use the strap. I’m kind of bummed right now that I didn’t think of the pulley, because it would have been a really good example of the mechanical advantage.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

That would have been a good idea:o…. clearly beyond my thought process last night. We could have pulled downhill too:(. I’ll have to keep that in mind for next time:rolleyes:.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I have 13 forestry plans that need updating by 4/1/11… at about 10 hours/plan average. This has been kind of distracting from the logging work I have lined up. I am also overseeing three other jobs, two skidder operations, and one horse job (Brad Johnson), including marking trees and inspections.

Putting new shoes on this week, breaking trails, and starting to cut red pine poles, and fuelwood. Conditions are just about perfect right now.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Thanks you guys…. we had a very productive meeting. Sorry Geoff, Erik, Kevin, and Louis for the problems with our phone. We’ll have the minutes out soon.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Over the years I have known the ES as “Collie”. They were not used like a BC to herd, but rather to assist with order, protection, and were more likely to “go get the cows” before milking. One older farmer friend of mine remembers his uncle’s dog Brownie, from command, wandering down to the back pasture and returning behind a long line of cows…. no so much herding like a BC, but just a chore dog that will stand in the way, or get behind as directed to assist.

Our dog is not entirely there…. but we don’t have a lot of call for her either. She has learned to take responsibility for the poultry though, and is really good at working them, with or without a human. She only attacked one turkey that got away from her when she was quite young, but she was immediately aware that was not appreciated by us. She is great now.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

near horse;23713 wrote:

Ya, but Carl, you’re a wood beast! We’re all only mere mortals.

…………

now I kind of think that Taylor Johnson could put a pretty nasty twist on a big piece of wood……:eek:

[Carl Russell]

Also she is not a big dog. I know of two of her brothers and they are a bit larger than she. She’s probably 35-40 lbs!???

Lisa bought her from a breeder in NY State….. I’ll have to get her to post about that including links, etc.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

We have an English Shepard. She is a good dog. Alert, and protective…. A little narrow on the handler thing, whereas our Lab will love anybody who approaches him, the Shepard is pretty much Lisa’s dog. She is good around the kids, and tolerates me, but really only takes direction from Lisa, or possibly Tuli.

I particularly like the fact that she is more interested in maintaining order than herding all the time. She just cruises the perimeter, and if she find a bird out she will work on getting it back into the pen. She is a little yappy around the horses, and not very aggressive about the cows, but certainly is not a trouble maker, pestering animals all the time.

Just basically a good farm dog. Watchful, helpful, loyal, and fairly laid back.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Tim Harrigan;23723 wrote:

But I don’t think you typically make a plunge cut through the face?

Right…. rarely….. sometimes on very big tree so that I can get an even hinge and cut out the center.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Nice Scott.

Mitch, I always bore in to set the hinge, and cut backwards out of the tree. I also always leave trigger wood. It really shouldn’t take all that much time. There are some trees that I do take pretty lightly, but I have learned to use the bore-cut-trigger method nearly 100% of the time.

Ok, You have all confirmed my thoughts as to “what the heck is he doing that for?” I don’t personally do any logging but have taken down a few trees and have found the latch and hinge to work very well. I do have to agree with Scott, that might be the most entertaining way to take down a tree!! Gordon

Gordon, the technique was basically appropriate, it was mostly his execution that was seriously lacking.

[Carl Russell]

mitchmaine;23702 wrote:

they used to scale hardwood pulp at 5100 lbs. per cord. a cord of wood is about 600′. so 350mbf would weigh in at 2975 lb. at that rate, and when you figure the pulp mills are trying to screw you anyways, sounds like carls estimate is pretty close.

Not saying I’m right….. just basing it on numbers we used when I was a log buyer/scaler….. 2 cords/MBF and 2.5 tons/cd, makes an average weight of most woods at about 10,000 Lbs/ MBF… We used to scale hemlock onto trailers to meet but not exceed road weight limits…. we scaled and weighed and found it to be about 9500#/MBF…. and from a USFS manual I remember red oak being about 11,000#/MBF

325BF x 11 #/BF =3575# ….. So I gave you a few pounds 😀

Really I don’t know what it weighed, but it weighed more than I could roll with a peavey…. and that rarely happens. Truly the actual weight has little to do with it…. The diameter is so great that it had to be lifted off of the ground to skid. I have a cart that could have probably been outfitted with a cradle hitch, but I prefer to use a sled as the log is quite high off of the ground, most of the weight is on the runners, and the log is secure and not flopping or rolling around.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I have to agree Mitch….. what was this supposed to demonstrate??? There wasn’t two cuts that lined up. There was no reason to take that much time making all the different felling cuts. The face cut didn’t even line up so the hinge broke so the tree didn’t even go where he wanted.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

TaylorJohnson;23678 wrote:

Do any of you guys have a pic of some steal sleds like that ? Taylor Johnson

The problem with steel is that the sled will tend to be too ridged because of the welded joins, which will have some negative effect of the function of the sled. Also the welds will have to withstand a lot of pressure.

What was the footage on that log 250 feet?

This tree measured 41″ across the butt, 31″ across the top, and 10′ long, scaling about 325 bf, weighing around 3500#.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

lancek;23656 wrote:

Hey Carl that one didn’t go out with too much ease isn’t that the one that broke the upright off? LOL:D

Wellllll….. it went on pretty easy, but it went off the other side even easier, taking part of the sled with it….:eek:

But once it was on again it went out easier than if it had been skidded on the ground.:p

Carl

[Author]

Posts