[Scott G]

Just catching up while I’m at Eddie & Jane’s before we had to head up north; couldn’t resist on passing this opportunity to poke on Carl a bit:
“There is obviously some degree of surplus production in any ecosystem”
In a truly functioning ecosystem…there is no surplus, by definition. Only the ebb & flow of other organisms/components that are responsive to the dynamics of that ecosystem.
A Rocky Mtn foresters observations/perspective…WAYAFI…??!! You’ll have to make a trip to the White Mtns to discuss this sooner rather than later. 80P

[Scott G]

So here is a little survey to follow up on the points brought forth in this thread.

Definitions:

“Ecological Integrity”

&

“Low-Impact”

There are no right/wrong answers here. Just your personal interpretation of what those terms, defined, mean to you. This is somewhat in line with pinning down the definition of “sustainable” & “organic”.

[Scott G]

@Carl Russell 38975 wrote:

You can choose to see it as a service that you charge for, therefore it is economic, but it really comes down to how much you care about the way you do your work, and has very little to do with what you use to do it with. If it were purely an economic activity for you, you would be cutting as many corners in harvesting as you could…… disregarding impact….. just using horses to do it.

Spot on. That is why I prefer forestry services or forestry contractor as opposed to strictly logger. If you limit your scope when bidding on a job for a private landowner to strictly logging for maximum stumpage and return, you’ll be beating your head in perpetuity. To try to run a job where the landowner’s primary concerns are to maximize stumpage payments & volume, you will not be taking your business to a level where it should be. Ecological services, with a clear definition as it applies to the job, is truly our niche. Being able to effectively enter SMZs to manage timber while adhereing to BMP standards for your specific region is but one example of that. As a forester who administers forestry contracts (no stumpage) for a public agency I can tell you that normally I don’t award to low bid. I’m looking at the big picture as to value, the financial component only being a piece of the pie, and how the applied harvesting system will not only accomplish, but prove superior, for the objectives I have that are particular to that project. Ecological integrity will always trump “financial” cost but it still does have to be somewhat competitive since our constituents are ultimately footing the bill.

Do what we do well, showcase it, demonstrate that it is not only feasible but provides the best value. Not only maintaining the ecological integrity of the stand(s) you’re working in, but enhancing them. If we as a niche harvesting system can do that, the work will sell itself.

Remember that, realistically, we are only shooting for the 2% of the customer base, not the whole. That 2% not only “gets it”, they are going to be the ones who are appreciative of the value gained for possibly more financial outlay on their part.

Rather than jumping out of the truck and immediately letting your mind start performing a mental timber inventory, question the landowner on what their primary objectives are for their forested property. Dependent upon the answer, you might be jumping back in your truck after a 5 minute conversation or opening the first page of a story involving you and the landowner in a long-term relationship.

[Scott G]

Talk to your State DNR or State Forest Service. They will usually have all kinds of free literature on the best regional species for out planting.

[Scott G]

If you were to really drill down you would probably discover, not surprisingly, that the CE aspect is an integral part of their revenue stream. Good chance that their CE tax credits have/will be sold off to a very close affiliate, or subsidiary with enough of a veil, to limit tax liability. Smart, albeit slimy, business move… These days, large corporate forestry is more about managing real estate assets than timber. If you were to thoroughly review the conditions of the typical CE for these types of properties they usually don’t eliminate all development. An example would be rather than a cabin on every 40 acres, you would have a cluster of 10 cabins on 100 acres with 300 acres of ‘green space’ that is collectively owned by the 10 cabin owners. Which scenario is more valuable? It is probably a wash and the developer still gets to develop large tracts, realize a phenomenal long term return on investment, and cash in on the tax credit from the CE which can be sold just like a commodity. BTW, you are still permitted to ‘wack it & grow it back’. CEs’ are great tools in the right application but unfortunately, like many well founded resource management ideas, when big money gets involved it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

[Scott G]

Kudos Jay for sponsoring this. Great training program that folks should take advantage of whenever they have the opportunity.
-S

[Scott G]

Thanks Charly. I really enjoy these older vids. We can all learn much from them…

[Scott G]

Peyton, talk to Taylor. Great guy who has got it dialed in over the past few years. He’d be your best bet depending on where you are located. All loggers, regardless of how they log, ALWAYS need a good welder on the job. :rolleyes:

[Scott G]

Jim, I don’t believe that the spreadsheet is housed on the forum anywhere other than the archives. It would be good, however, to have it somewhere that is prominent & easily accessible. I’ll try to bump it up in Google search for “horse mule oxen loggers for hire” once it is revised. Also pitching it out to State & Extension foresters would be a plus as well. I’ll take care of the State Foresters group since I have a fair relationship with them. Like I mentioned earlier, this is a tool for everyone so we should put it out there as such.

[Scott G]

There you go, an unsolicited testimonial! Now, let’s work on keeping it current. Glad you found a situation local that will worlk well for you, Saxon.

[Scott G]

Bucking for grade & scale is often what makes the job a win or lose proposition. If you have excessive taper, you will be ahead on scale if you buck it. If you have significant sweep, your’e going to want to buck it or you’ll get dinked for degrade. Significant scars, defects, cankers, etc… will all count against you. It’s all about eye and knowing what your local mills/markets want. Out here we use Scribner C while you folks back east use Doyle or International. Longer material is always premium but you have to make sure your longer material is premium or you’ll get docked/scaled-back for it. George, I would get a scale stick and keep your mill’s cut-list close at hand. it won’t take long for you to know exactly where you need to be bucking your logs.

[Scott G]

The biggest difference between slash management back east and out here is that your slash rots without ground contact. If we left tops without slashing them down they would stand like skeletons for decades. We do, and I spec, large diameter coarse woody debris (aka logs); usually expressed as linear feet per acre. Where fuels management isn’t a primary concern and ecological function is, I cannot stress enough how important it is to leave some big stuff on the ground.

Deer/elk/moose browsing out here isn’t an issue for conifer regen. Where it is a problem is in my aspen restoration cuts. Unfortunately, excessive slash cover inhibits aspen regen because of the shading and barrrier to radiant heat from the sun. So the only viable solution, in my mind, is to pack the freezer with elk… :p

Mastication is the process of utilizing a tracked or wheeled carrier with a high-flow hydraulic circuit powering a head that has several large carbide teeth, mounted on a drum for horizontal shaft machines and on what is basically a hot-saw disc for vertical shaft heads. Horizontal shafts produce much finer material, and a more aesthetic result, than vertical shaft heads.

[Scott G]

Check with Jim Axtell in PA. He’s the real deal and a true gentleman to boot.

[Scott G]

My short answer, most contracts I deal with/write are 12″-16″. In addition to a slash residual, I’m a firm believer of more coarse woody debris than less for a variety of ecological reasons. If fuels mitigation/restoration is the primary objective, however, we’ll broadcast burn ,pile burn, chip, or masticate.

[Scott G]

Hope you folks have a blast! Wish I could make it, but alas it’s not in the cards this year.

[Author]

Posts