Draft Logging Research?

There are some articles on the HHFF site. Scott Golden has posted some others, but there is still a lot to be done. I hope young folks like you will find a way to do more research to validate and quantify what we are capable of doing. There are only so many green yuppie woodlots to go around, but there are millions of acres of state, federal and timber company lands that could provide long-term full time employment if we could convince the powers that be that we offer measurable, bottom-line benefits.

Ethan, I also think that the most important comparison is the difference between the type of forestry that MUST be practiced to facilitate mechanization vs. the type of forestry that CAN be practiced using draft animal power. There are so many culturally accepted assumptions about the way that logging MUST be done that are all based on the economic realities of machines, that forestry in practice reflects this narrow interpretation. With draft animals we can blow this out of the water, but we need to break down the reflex to out-compete machines at their own game. Thank you for your youthful enthusiasm. I am pleased to think about where you are headed.

Carl

hey tom, i’m no forester, but i have cut some wood. i owned skidders and horses both and used them. i think if you compared a really good skidder operator with a poor horselogger you might find a comparison, but an average skidder operator against an average horselogger has to be back about the tools. no way can a man running a 7 ton tractor pulling 3 ton of tree length wood up out of gullies and across wet runs and bending and scarring his way down out of a woodlot compete fairly with the same guy with a scoot and a team.
no matter how conscientious your logger is, he will have to try and push both sides of mud season as far as he can cause he has too. mud season never stopped horses. you can pile wood up to your hearts content and truck it next month. money in the bank.
sorry. i ain’t ticked off, i just see it different. mitch

Tom, first let me say that I agree there are good skidder operators and bad horse loggers. The operator does make a huge difference.

Your comments however point out the very crux of the issue. The real difference comes down to the forestry.

If the comparison is about felling technique, ground disturbance, and the amount of wood moved to the landing, I agree, the differences will come down to the skill and commitment of the operators. In these comparisons that Ethan is looking for, there is an acceptance of the way that logging is done with machines. If we let skidders work to their greatest advantage, driving to/or near the stump, pulling tree length from group selection, in b-line cuts, under guidance from foresters who see their job as marketing agent with an eye toward the future of the forested asset, then friggin-A there is no way that any animal operation will even come close.

However if the forester sees access as an investment in long-term multiple-use infrastructure, manages for crop trees through single tree selection, and protects ecological factors through high residual stocking (short harvesting intervals), then the story shifts. If the skid distance is shortened, marking done to protect residuals, off trail impact minimized, and surgical removal required, then skidder operators will have to pull 150′ of cable to the stump, pull short-wood, and take off their chains to skid 500-1000 feet, their costs will sky-rocket. However, the animal operator will find this situation highly favorable.

This is not to say that we can’t get reasonable forestry done using skidders. I manage several operations every year with skidder operators, but I find I need to make allowances for the way they need to operate.

However, if the comparison is made between a good horse-logger with an insightful forester against any mechanical operation there will be no comparison in the application of good forestry. That comes from 25 years of providing forest management and harvesting with draft animals.

Carl

Tom,
Monster skidder working around regenaration?, ground scarification with a skidder?. It is very rare to see a skidder working this side of the pond now. Horses skidding to a purpose built forwarder is the preferred method, the horses skid to a hard track for secondary extraction by forwarder. This minimises the amount of ground compaction and allows for single tree [ worst first ] removal using horses.
simon lenihan, http://www.celtichorselogging.com

What I should have done to start with was to reread Carl’s earlier post and take time to let it sink in before I opened my big mouth.
Alternatively what I really should have said is that under the situations in which I usually work a horse is not a superior tool. Meaning 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.
A horse would be superior to a skidder if it came to pulling 150 ft of cable to retrieve a single tree, but I wouldn’t mark timber that way to start with. I make sure the loggers have a full hitch within reach of the cable. ( the wiseguy in me wonders what if we used a horse to pull the skidder cable)
So why wouldn’t I mark timber that way. Simple, supply and demand. In some parts of the world there is a limited timber resource, therefor every acre of forest must be managed to reach its fullest potential. Frequent thinnings and perpetual single tree selections would let a draft animal system really shine. But here in north America we have such a great volume of forest that the value is lower. Rather then marking lite thinnings I just wait longer between harvests and then do heavier cuts. Supply and demand is behind the economics which control timber markets and forestry.
I do think there will be a time when draft animals are more common in the woods, but I really hope its not because we run out of timber and supply and demand shifts the other way. I think it will come because eventually the cost of oil and fuel will get high enough that the local horse logger will have a lower production cost then big timber business. Thats not going to happen right away so lets keep passing on our skills to our kids and grandkids so they can take advantage when its time.
In the mean time if you all can do that kind of harvesting now and make a living doing what you love, great I am envious.
~Tom

Back when I made the leap from horses to skidder, the machine was still just a mechanical horse. Even though yarding was so much easier, the logger still had to cut, pile and do his yardwork. Pulp was still four feet and boltwood 51”, and pallet and sawlogs. But you could still expect to cut 3 or 4 times as much wood in the same time. That said it would be expected that you would make 3 or 4 times the money, and you did, but you wouldn’t keep that money. A skidder cost lots of money to buy, fuel, run and maintain. Way more than the horses. Animals were still a viable choice . there were two pulpmills, three sawmills, two trapstock mills and dozens of firewood dealers within twelve miles of the house.
One sawmill remains. The rest are gone, and the wood around here gets chipped or shipped treelength to mills and sorting yards north of here. The horse is now expected to be the machine (like horse progress days pulling corn choppers and balers) and yard tree length wood. So we try to invent methods of moving long wood to accommodate the wood industry and compete for pulp and log prices designed around whole tree chippers. That’s how I see it from my perspective. And I don’t know how or if it fits in well with our discussion here, but I think it goes to ethans first question. There is a lot of good wood growing here in this state, and we chip it, ship it and give it away in the process.
There were once two or three wooden boatbuilders in everytown on the coast. Now you can count them on ten fingers. Horselogging would be a good living if there was someone out there who wanted to buy wood.
Sorry, Just rambling away here, but I feel better already. Thanks for listening. mitch