[Andy Carson]

It is good to have more numbers. According to compete site analytics, draftanimalpower.com gets an average of 4,011 unique visitors per month. Counting unique visits is one of the most established ways to determine impact. This 4011 visitors is far in excess of the 358 active members. My conclusion is simple, 90+% of visitors do not register or log on when they visit.

How does 4,011 unique visits stack up? MOFGA.org gets 13,921 unique visitors per month, so we are about 29% of this impact. Perhaps this seems poor, but given the broader focus of a MOFGA.org, ~30% is great. Compare this stat to any other stats between MOFGA and DAPNet, and you will see DAPNet is a vastly smaller organization. MOFGA.org has 5000+ members, 2000+ volunteers, 31 paid staff of various types, hosts 20 small educational events per year, and thier large event attracts more than 50,000 people annually. Taken together, the number of visits we get is much LARGER than the number of visits one would predict based on the size of our organization. I think this is something especially good that our organization does.

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 37876 wrote:

the thoughtful discussion, and inclusive nature of evaluating differing views or criticisms, make for very attractive reading and a welcoming participatory environment.

A couple days ago, I start monitoring activity around a specific thread as an experiment and I want to share the results before they get convulted by the present of video content.

Tom posted an update to an old thread about draft logging research. It had about 2000 views and 22 posts at the time. It had been up for almost a year and a half (first post was 7-10-11), but that last post (before Tom’s) was over a year ago (8-02-11). This gives a year to see how many “views” the subject matter itself gets. 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. I think this is proof that it is open exchange coupled with diverse backgrounds and opinions, that elevates threads to “jackpot” status. It is not the subject matter itself, but rather the format and the diversity of viewpoints.

Oh, by the way, in case anyone thinks that I was “making up” opinions in order to get a conversation started, rest assured I was not. I will admit I occasionally do this, but it rarely actually starts useful discussions, and there are plenty of honest differences I have with others that it is unneccesssary to make additional ones up. We probably all have different ways of thinking, and this experiment is good proof that contributing your personal thoughts to the open discussions facilitated by this website is interesting to wide audience.

So, you were right, Carl. It is not the information itself that is attractive, but our diversity of viewpoints and our open, thoughtful, and passionate intellectual exchange. I just had to experiment a little myself to verify this. It’s my way…

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 38190 wrote:

Andy – I understand your frustration with not being able to measure or quantify the benefits of draft logging v conventional but I don’t think it’s in ability to measure that’s the fly in the ointment. It’s inability to know (or agree?) what things we desire as outcomes so we can then determine how to measure/collect data etc…. the question we’re confronted with is: How do we define forest resource? Until we can define it, we can’t really measure or manage it.

Well said, Geoff, this is the question indeed… Does anyone have a good answer to this? I don’t…

[Andy Carson]

Here’s a link to a youtube video with many images from old growth forests in vermont. I also think that the speaker has interesting points, but he does mention balancing economic and ecological values. It this offends, turn the volume off and just look at the forest. Compare and contrast this with the forest before and after Carls logging video. Science begins with observation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIYmTFZTt3s

Now, compare and contrast these two videos to the conventional logging video posted below. This was also from vermont. Take special note of the “action” that starts at about 1:50, and the wide angle shot at 3:32. How does this forest (before and after) compare to the forests in the other videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKhkV9IFh4

By eye, these are dramatic, obvious differences. It is easy to see which two are most alike. I find it impossible that we cannot find scientific parameters that measure these easy to see differences!

[Andy Carson]

@Baystatetom 38179 wrote:

This also reminds me of one time at my Uncles place when I returned home across the field and my wife asked who was fighting. I replied nobody. She then asked why we were all yelling. I just laughed and said we were all agreeing about an issue but for some reason were still compelled to yell about it.

Ha! So true. This made me laugh too.

[Andy Carson]

I am not debating if economics was or is an important part of past or current fire policy. This missed the point entirely. I am debating that fire exclusion was seen as ecology at one time in history. The statement “”In the context of the ecological theory of the time, fire exclusion was believed to promote ecological stability” makes the point clearly. This is not disproven by pointing out that there are economic concerns. This is a potential source of bias, but has nothing to do with the idea in an of itself. What could disprove this statement is a statement (from early in the 19th century) that “fire exclusion was practiced despite established ecological principles.” You make my second point when you for me when you can that when you took your classes, “It was made very clear by those instructors and researchers that there is, was and always will be an economic component to fire policy ….. sometimes in direct conflict with ecological principles.” The definition and/or practice of ecology changed! That’s my entire point. Do you honestly believe that the idea of waht ecology is has not changed in the past 100 years??? Really??? This is only one example of hundreds…

I fiund it interesting that there is so much distrust of research in forestry. I am getting the feeling like this science and research was not performed correctly or was not presented properly. Real science should be understandable to everyone. It shold make conclusions that everyone can understand and these conclusions should be defendable to anyone who encounters them. If they don’t make sense to you, yell “Bullshit”!, and explain why. Keep and open mind, listen to arguments, and make counterpoints. This open participation is true science. Science is not an inaccessable tool practiced by snobs and elites and is used primarily to justify big buisness practices. If it was, than “ecology” would still include fire exclusion. We all have the ability to participate. In short, I do not believe that ecology is anti-intellectual and we do ourselves a disservice presenting it as such. Disreguarding research and the scientific process feels anti-intellectual to me.

[Andy Carson]

I think I see. So ecology, to you, means being “hands off” and let nature go where it will in our modern mixed up world. If it goes to diseased trees and multifloral rose, so be it. Ecology, to you, does not mean trying to recapitulate a system that would be similar to what the system would be like if man had not interferred. I can see how this could be unmeasureable as it is not really goal oriented, but rather seeks to let things be as they will be. I would say that everything is always as it will be, but this is getting very philosophical. In truth, I was more interested in understanding the logic of your position than challenging it. This lets me understand, I think, a lot.

[Andy Carson]

With reguard to the role of fire in western forests, I say “hats off” to the scientists and researchers who proved that the ‘fire is bad” hypothesis is wrong. This ended the possibility that economic minded foresters could say that they were truly interested in fire prevention as an ecological tool. Where they lying? I don’t know how we would ever know… I will leave this point/argument behind for now, because it speculates that people who are long dead believe one thing but say another. This is more than speculative and it is unneccessary because there are more modern examples all around us.

Take PA for example. Many who live in PA are suprized to find out that the state tree of PA is the eastern hemlock. It may also suprize many pennsylvannians that hemlock was once one of the most common trees in PA, and was found in many old growth forests thoughout PA. In 1896 alone over 1.3 BILLION board feet of hemlock was harvested from PA, and by 1923 most had been logged. A drive around here today (especially in winter) quickly demonstrates that this once common tree (and any other evergreens) is conspicuously absent. What grew in it’s place is a complex mix of cherry, maple, oak, and other trees. With these trees, deer and turkey bear and other wildlife thrive. Is it “natural” -not really!

Giving that this is the natural history and evolution of trees in PA, what is an ecological conservationist to do with former old growth forest in PA??? Does one simply “let it go,” knowing full well that the cherry, and maples that regrow do not represent the true historical makup of trees in PA? Does one ignore that this is actually a manmade secondary growth forest ecosystem, take those cherries to the bank, and call it “ecology”? Or does one try to emulate the distant past by encouraging the growth of eastern hemlock, even though it is a economic “trash tree,” grows slowly, and you know deep down that future heirs will cut it down before it’s a true “old growth” forest? Add to this the introduction of hemlock woolly adelgid, and big tracks of eastern hemlock look even less sustainable. I can see how both and neither practices are truly “ecology.” The most “ecological” path forward is certainly not clear to me. To me, it seems that everyone seems to want a piece of this forest “pie,” and has reasons to support this or that scientific statement. I think it is more useful to address the merits of the argument, rather than sink to defaming the messager of this or that statement.

ref: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/allegheny/about-forest
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/pubs/proceedings/1999_proceedings/p161.pdf

To get back to the origional point. I am not looking for an argument that draft animals have to be economically better. I think most landowners would appreciate that. I am looking for an argument that draft animals are better in some documentable, verifiable way. I feel that this factor is out there and would carry weight with many landowners, especially if they dont really need to money that a mechanical harvest of thier trees would bring.

[Andy Carson]

I am not sure I understand your argument, Geoff. Are you saying that when the forest service instituted thier zero tolerance policy for fire, but few of the foresters believed in it? I have a reliable referance saying it was part of “the ecological theory of the time.” Do you have a reliable referance saying otherwise, or is this pure speculation?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/docs/chp1.pdf

[Andy Carson]

I would argue that the basic tenants of what a natural ecosystem is was and continues to be established by science, which is (or at least ought to be) rooted in careful observation and measurements taken over time or representative of time. I do not believe that “the true state of undisturbed nature” is either obvious or easily observed. The first thing that comes to my mind was the forest service policies reguarding fire in the western US that were followed before the middle of the 20th century, when most forest managers believed fires should be suppressed at all times. Perhaps they were following mental models of eastern forests, where fires are much more rare? No matter what mental models they were following, careful observation and measurement shows that they were clearly wrong, and that fire has played in important role in the ecosystem in the west for millenia. Some trees, namely giant sequoia, are even dependant upon fire as an essential part of thier lifecycle and cannot reproduce without it. These policies where changed in the 60’s after careful consideration of measurable and observable facts. The moral of the story is that years of time spent in the forest (forest managers in the western US from the late 1800’s to the mid 1960’s) does not truly let one know what is natural. I believe one must look beyond the obvious and easily observed to truly understand that system. I think this is why it takes time and education to be a forester. What is natural is simply not obvious. It is a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven by observation and data.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppression_in_the_United_States

[Andy Carson]

Thanks Tom, this is very detailed and gives me a lot to think about and numbers to work with for greater understanding in “my way.” I can see, with these numbers, that this is an economic challenge.

PS. I have added and deleted several thoughts, as I can see they don’t make sense with Toms numbers. At these timber prices, it just seems tough. An increase in timber prices changes the picture immensely.

PPS. Is white pine the most valuable species that you would encourage/select in your area?

[Andy Carson]

I wonder if you all could comment on the impact of the landowners wishes in this comparison of animals vs machines. I can see the short term economic argument for machinery and high volume production when the wood quality is low. I think Tom’s example was 5-7 mbf of wood that was worth $180/mbf… It strikes me that this is not a lot of money no matter how you cut it… Perhaps because there is little additional money that is made by a mechanical harvest, the landowner would be more attracted to a draft animal based harvest that would more closely reflect his/her ecological or aesthetic values, or his/her long term economic goals.

I do not know much about forestry, but I think if one was clever about taking less valuable trees, and only taking as many as could be taken by a simply application of animal power, then it could set up a staggered harvest of high value trees in the future. This staggered future harvest might be especially well suited to draft animal because trees might mature and be harvested in phases. Perhaps a long sighted landowner might be interested in taking a short term loss (or lower gain) by using animal power on trashier trees in order to kickstart a biological system where moderate returns on the investment can be made over a long time period, as opposed to having one huge payday when most trees are cut down. I can see how this type of return on investment would be much more attractive to a landowner from a purely economic standpoint, and might be something to think about.

This gets me to another point that I wanted to make in response to Tom earlier statement that “if I marked a stand of timber and had a skidder on half and a horse on half, after 20 years there should be no difference.” I am skeptical that this can be true on a large scale. I know that on my farm it is not true, and this is partly because the use of draft animals limits how much land I can work in a year. The power is not unlimited. So, I have small areas of cropland, small areas of pasture, small woodlots, etc. The evidence of diverse system will last 20 years for sure. Similarly, I would speculate that if the logged area was large enough, you would see a gradual harvest of timber over years from the “horse half” vs a complete harvest on the “skidder half.” I think you would see that difference 20 years later. I suppose you could harvest less trees to the same effect using a skidder, but I do not think economics support the use of a quarter or less of the capacity of expensive peices of equipment like skidders. Again, this is far outside my area of expertise, but it makes sense to me…

I also realize after I write this that I live in PA and am used to being able to select pretty high value trees (cherry, walnut, etc) where “trashy” trees have been removed. I suspect this model works less well when only low value trees can grow. Is this the case in Maine?

[Andy Carson]

I have some ideas about how we might be able to have open engaging discussion in video threads. Open to public or members only we can discuss later, but its probably smart to do demos in a more open forum. I need to talk to someone familiar with video editing and website content, etc. (A computer person) to see what is possible. When I understand options better I will present them again. If anyone might be able to discuss options with me, please PM me and I’ll call you. Its not a commitment to actually do this thing, I just want to talk about what could be done.

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 38022 wrote:

What I meant to say was, is the information you found here more valuable than the fact that you were able to find it?

Which is more important, the information, or the fact that it was here to find, and that you had easy access to it, and that you were welcomed to critique it, and to add to it, and to improve it??

Carl

They are all important and critical, but i will make this difficult choice. I think the most important thing to me is that I am welcome to critique add to and improve content. If this is what you mean by connectivity, I am on board. I would call this “openness,” but i don’t want to debate semantics…

I would measure this, by the way, in looking at the “jackpot threads” and see if this type of discussion was present in many. Of the ones I was involved in, I am sure this was an important part. Everything real can be measured!

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 38012 wrote:

Think about it, is it more important that you found information here, or is it more important that you were able to find that information here?

If I was not able to get the information, I would not have gotten it.

I got information, therefore, I was able to get it.

I think I might be able to get other information, but this is only speculation until I actually get that information.

The only proof of being able is in the getting, and the getting is proof of being able.

How can these two things be seperated???

Why am I having such a hard time understanding this??? It feels like connectivity is socializing or community building, but somehow this concept only includes the parts of socializing that each individual likes and none of the parts that each individual doesn’t like. I am sketical of concepts that are all things to all people and don’t have any negative aspects to anyone.

I am a great believer in careful observation and testing of ideas and concepts. Is connectivity as you describe it observable, testable, or measurable? What would a test to measure “connectivity” look like? If the idea/concept can’t be tested, the idea/concept can never be right or wrong. I am not interested in pursuing ideas/concepts and that cannot be observed, tested, and measured. I like talking over the fence. It is observable, testable, measureable, and can be explained to everyone in one sentence. I think we do this well, but could be wrong. I also like the example of making a freidnly and comfortable place to express ideas. I also think we do this well, but could easily make a survey or some other tool to test this idea. If this is all, haven’t we already completed this task? What is still lacking and how do we measure or test this so as to improve? How do we know that this aspect is anything anyone cares about?

[Author]

Posts