DAPNET Forums Archive › Forums › Draft Animal Power › Horses › horse logging under attack!
- This topic has 28 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by Dan Buczala.
- AuthorPosts
- January 17, 2011 at 4:08 pm #42329lancekParticipant
Hey there is a pretty hot thread going on about Rick Angler and horse logging on Aborist site .com I think here is a chance for the community too get solid info out about our industrie , check it out Tim
January 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm #64933near horseParticipantI read that story that Mark posted and, as he said, other than some “colorful journalism” like the line about “rip-starting his saw”, I thought the article was pretty decent for the uneducated animal powered public.
I’ll need to look at the arborist site – I sure hope they’re not slamming Rick over there!
Thanks for the heads up.
January 18, 2011 at 10:34 pm #64930Mark CowdreyParticipantInteresting thread going on over there. Mostly positive though there is one guy from Maine with a wild hair across his ass.
The point of soil compaction from hooves was brought up as a possible negative. I first heard of this as an issue in Positive Impact Forestry, T. McEvoy, Island Press, (2004. p. 143). In a generally positive comment about horse logging as low impact, he writes “… Properly done, this method is considered low impact, although the weight displacement of a horse over four hooves is many times that of a skidder tire, and the hooves are sharp. Multiple passes of a draft horse over some wet forest soils can cause more damage to roots than machines because of the sharp edges on hooves and weight displacement.”
(Does anyone run a skidder w/o chains?)
I find this “fact” to be a red herring when taken out of the context of an overall comparison of horse and mechanized logging. However, this book, in someways seems to me to be a successor/extension of Working With Your Woodland, A Landowner’s Guide, Beattie, Thompson and Levine, revised edition, University Press of New England, 1993. I may be wrong but I suspect that it may be a “go to” referenced by the “uninitiated potential client” community.
McEvoy cites no reference for his claim and I wonder if it is based on any actual research.
Thoughts? I may be jousting at windmills.
MarkJanuary 18, 2011 at 10:48 pm #64932Rick AlgerParticipantThree or four years ago during that rainy summer, I worked my horses on moist soils within sight of the Dead Diamond River. Three mechanized crews were working in the general vicinity but on higher and normally drier ground.
They were shut down by the forester for around two weeks because of erosion. I didn’t miss a day.
McEvoy wrote a good book, but he didn’t get the soil damage comparison right. I wonder if this misperception is what was behind the negativity in the UNH report on good forestry in the granite state.
January 18, 2011 at 11:47 pm #64944mitchmaineParticipanti think the damage comes from the fact that wheeled tractors make ruts and when momentarily stuck, spin their wheels. the ruts become waterways and then the erosion.
animals punch up the same ground. it settles out, grasses over, and you seldom know they were there.January 19, 2011 at 12:55 am #64925Carl RussellModeratorAlso, it is over-simplification to see Low Impact in terms of soil disturbance. The real impact is on the ecosystem from cutting cycles and marking/harvesting methods that are designed to facilitate the operation of machinery.
If the forestry/silviculture is guided by principles that protect, enhance, and accommodate ecological factors, there is absolutely no comparison between machinery and horses. Not that using machinery is inherently destructive, or bad forestry, but there is no way to assert that any machinery operation is low impact…. That is why McEvoy chose toe coy title of Positive Impact, because the forestry industry needs to try to make excuses for the impact they can’t seem to avoid making.
😡 It irks me when foresters make those kinds of ignorant statements. They are entitled to their opinions, but when they dress their opinions up as if they are absolute facts, it is absurd.
Sorry, I just have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about Thom, and the ilk of modern foresters who promote their views in Northern Woodlands Magazine. They’re not bad folks, kind of likeable actually, and not ill-intentioned, just too firmly rooted in assumptions based on a predisposed notion that machinery is king in forestry.
Carl
January 19, 2011 at 1:25 am #64952Dan BuczalaMemberI’m surprised no one has mentioned this document. It’s the result of a study comparing soil damage using animal powered harvesting vs mechanized harvesting (it’s on Jason Rutlege’s site, but I found it via a link from Scott Golden’s site).
http://healingharvestforestfoundation.org/docs/Joshua%20Deal%20Abstract.doc
January 19, 2011 at 6:36 am #64934near horseParticipantI’ll admit that I stepped in over on the arborist site and added my 2 cents – for what it’s worth. I think Mitch added the component that they don’t discuss – wheel slippage. Our forest soils here are pretty thin as it is and a rooster of mud/topsoil can leave a bare spot for quite a while.
They cite a “Weyco study” of seedling growth or root growth in skidding trails but I have a hard time with Weyerhauser telling me that, according to their research, what they do has little to no impact on root growth etc. Give me an independent source and I might believe it.
Another “point to ponder” is a horse’s hoof may place more weight on a given spot but that spot is – duh – the size of a horse’s hoof while the skidder has compacted a continuous line (actually 2 – one for each side of the rig) from the start to the end of the skid. So for a given skid, who compacted more of the soil – the discrete hoof prints or the continuous skidder tire trails? Also, hoof prints are like discrete puddles when it rains – the tire tracks can easily become the new route for runoff leading to erosion …..
My biggest beef w/ the “horse logging nay sayer” was why does he have an issue with a system that will never threaten big commercial loggers. Unless it’s the underlying feeling that what they’re doing can’t last so lash out at someone.
BTW – I notice that there was a guy looking for someone to log his place in MI – fired the last guys for being too destructive to his woodlot. If you’re in that neck of the woods, you might check out this job.
January 19, 2011 at 7:54 am #64948jacParticipantRegards the compaction of horses versus tractors… the recovery time of animal tracked areas is a whole lot quicker than tractor tracks.. in fact a lot of areas never recover from tractors. I find it a pointless exercise to argue with folks in that mind set and I tend to carry on with what I do..
JohnJanuary 19, 2011 at 11:28 am #64940lancekParticipantWell the point that I had tried too make was that the compaction was not as big of a deal as the amount of regeneration that was destroyed in the process of moving the machine! And that high grading the woods was more deter mental than anything! I would also like too see a study between mechanical operation and a high end horse logging operation if two horses can move 2000 bf per day then four teams should move eight, factor in your cost and labor and I’m sure that the profit mar gen would be higher with the teams than it would be mechanical! That is if one had enough teamsters lol
January 19, 2011 at 12:02 pm #64931Mark CowdreyParticipant“I find it a pointless exercise to argue with folks in that mind set and I tend to carry on with what I do.”-Jac
This is where I am a good deal of the time, unless I’m blowing my stack.
Mark
(How do you guys do the “quote from other posts” thing??)January 19, 2011 at 1:58 pm #64926Carl RussellModeratorMark Cowdrey;23969 wrote:….
(How do you guys do the “quote from other posts” thing??)There are two ways.
1) Click the quote button at the bottom right of the post. That will provide a quote like the one above.
2) Highlight the text in the post, copy, then click on the insert quote box at the top right center of the dialogue box (the icon that looks like a cartoon comment bubble) then insert the copied text between the
s, which will make the style as below.
(How do you guys do the “quote from other posts” thing??)
You can scroll down below the dialogue box to see all previous posts in the thread.
Carl
January 19, 2011 at 5:18 pm #64935near horseParticipantI agree that you can’t change some people’s minds but a lot of people come to read these public forums and formulate an opinion from what they read. So, I thought it might be worth wading in on the horse logging issue to try and add another perspective (although I might have done it badly).
With regard to posting quotes – Carl, how does the multi-quote work? Does that mean “quotes from multiple posters” or “one posting but can break it up into multiple segments”?
Thanks.
January 19, 2011 at 6:04 pm #64949jacParticipantHey Geoff what were you posting under over on the arborist site. If you only joined in Jan then I thot you made a damn good job of your post. . It does seem that the machine boys are a bit more agressive with their opinions than the horse loggers… but I suppose we who work horses need to be a bit more laid back generaly:cool:…
JohnJanuary 19, 2011 at 7:13 pm #64936near horseParticipantHi John,
My other “name” is bunchgrass – name of our farm Bunchgrass Farm. I only was tipped off to the arborist site when Lance (I think) started this thread. Hopped on over, read the posts and spoke what I felt (of course, I had to register first) – glad you thought it didn’t stick out too much.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.