[Carl Russell]

Hey Dan, I really like your management system. I bet those pigs just love that set up. Do you just turn them loose on the whole thing, or do you open up sections and close off others to concentrate their rooting etc.? I bet hey grow good on it.

[Carl Russell]

I’m not sure that I can add anything to this discussion other than to reiterate that line pressure is the crux of this craft. It is what makes working with animals different than using machinery. I tend to use line pressure as an extension of my own physical intention. For me, driving horses is more than chauffeuring, directing them this way or that, it is a physical and intuitive activity that facilitates communication, allowing me to grow two huge 1700 lb muscles that I can direct as much by thought as I do my own fingers. When one of my horses is unconvinced about this, I just keep focusing on the work and utilizing as much subtle sensitivity as possible to reinforce for the horse that they are entirely capable of working within the narrow limits of power and precision that I require to complete the job successfully.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

There is a talk show host here on one of our local stations that sometimes will fill in with excerpts from that show, and I find it to be thought provoking most of the time. Thanks for posting that Geoff.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

For the significant majority of the last 22 years I have worked alone in the woods. There have been a couple of times where I cooperate with friends of mine to get a larger job done quicker(pic in other thread), and one rare situation where I had a young woman working with me for nearly a year.

For the most part I feel that I am safer when alone because I am not stressed with keeping that person busy, or watching to make sure they don’t make a mistake.

I have found however that when I work with friends who are also used to working alone, or as it turned out with that young woman, that working with another person can be enjoyable, and more productive.

I’m not completely sure that having another person in the woods actually make the risk any less, just gives you a second chance to get help.

Although I tend toward extroverted, I also thoroughly enjoy working all by myself. I find a great deal of reward in taking on a project that requires physical and intellectual challenges, and I can be completely entertained by my own thoughts and efforts.

That being said, I know that having another person in the woods can be advantageous both in terms of production and in the case of emergency. I just don’t think that it is always a viable option in this day and age, and in rural communities. I would never hire just anybody to work just to have another person there.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Well I don’t have too much more to add either. I will try to tie it all back together though as I was just following strings that were thrown out in discussion.

I realize the effectiveness of the Fisher style arch, as I have one as well. I have pulled hundreds of thousands of feet with it.

I also realize that there are regional differences in cultural exposure to certain equipment, like sleds.

My intent is only to promote an understanding of the working horse, and how that applies to equipment design and methodology, not to argue with people’s understanding based on their exposure.

Making allowances for difficult mounting, or needing more animals in the woods and the skills to employ them, or regularly taking risk, or differences in regional animal power culture , are points that may be personally important, but are not necessarily valid in a discussion comparing the applicability of equipment.

My intent was to highlight the advanced design of the Barden style cart, and to illuminate the rational behind not needing a heavier and higher log arch as a solution to big timber where using sleds to address that are more in line with the efficient use of animal power.

I like the idea of the woodland equipment demonstrations, and that is a big part of what we are doing at NEAPFD. It is just that we are not limiting ourselves to the use of arches, nor are we turning it into a competition.

When the rubber hits the road, it really comes down to what works for you. I tend to see this forum as an excellent way to have a theoretical discussion of factors that transcend all of our individual experiences. It is much different than face to face, and is really only good as food for thought.

Thanks, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Donn, there is a link to the home page at the bottom of the page, Draft Animal Power, and there is also a Top link to go back to the top, and under quick links at the top of the page where one can click Today’s Posts, and get direct access to new posts.
Also the I use the back arrow to go right back to home if I haven’t posted.

I’m not sure it can get any better than that with this version of v-Bulletin.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Traveling Woodsman;8639 wrote:

…..
The “safety” I refer to is more about functional design and less about learned habits. I too understand that safety is a matter of the degree of risk I am willing to take, but in the context of giving advice to someone new to the experience/equipment, my comments are meant to be broad.

My point was that everybody’s thought style about the way they attack a job is based on the type of methods and equipment they have. ….

I understand that, my comments about the inclusion of the sled as a regular component to my logging enterprise are specifically directed at what I see as common misinterpretations about the limitations of harvesting timber with animals, which are often based on a dependency on one type, or a narrow set of choices, of harvesting/equipment system.

… from the time I’ve spent with them, my impression has been that by the time you fiddle around with loading a log, you could already have been to the landing and back. You are not alone. I learned these methods from an older man who was much smaller than me, and there is a lot more brain than back that goes into effect use of sleds.

The more logs you load, the more skids you could make. I realize this would diminish the longer the skid distance, which is why I am mainly referring to shorter distances (maybe under 300′). I definitely agree that to go light and go often is the best approach, and yes I would typically not use a sled on a 300′ skid, unless the log was bigger than I could pull easily with the cart.

If the log is to big for a team, I just hook another team (or single) out front and go, … I don’t have this option as I work alone, and it takes me a lot less time to roll a log onto a sled than to say, bring my oxen into the woods with the horses.

Longer skids (over a 1/4 mile) are not viable in my experience. Maybe you don’t use sleds on short skids? Maybe in your view longer skids become viable with sleds? The longer skid are definitely where the sled becomes more viable than the cart. I have skidded regularly up to a 1/2 mile down hill on snow, mostly because I save those kind of skids for snow, but on dry ground the increased power efficiency is the same, and the use of the sled not only allows the movement of large logs, but does open up woodlots with longer skid lengths.

I am interested in how you integrate sleds and scoots into the big picture of a harvest. I open main skid trails where I can park the sled near a natural incline or hummock, where rolling the logs becomes easier, and then I ground skid from the stump to the sled. There is some disturbance from ground skidding, but I rarely skid repeatedly over the same ground, and I move the sled so that I skid distances less than 100′. I will use the scoot for uphill skidding, and for dry ground work, and the bobsled for downhill and on snow. The scoot is easier and faster to load, but typically I can load much more onto a bobsled. In some instances I will bring the sled to really big logs and roll them on where they fell.

I guess you hand load smaller logs and cross load larger logs? Any way that gets the log on. If the setting is right I prefer to roll them by hand because it takes less time. I only cross load logs that I can’t roll by hand, but I always take the peavey to them first. I have rolled some massive sticks by hand.

Also, you don’t have any trouble getting sleds over rocky ground? By rocky I mean rocks over maybe 15″ on the smallest dimension. …These kinds of obstacles are very hard to describe accurately, but all I can say is that if there is an obstacle in the way of performing an important silvicultural prescription, then I find a way around, or over it. When using the sleds I am typically ground skidding to it, so these types of obstacles can be reduced or eliminated. I will sometimes bring in machinery to build roads, and or landings, especially as these types of improvements are important to the long-term management. Also I have built/improved truck roads and landings to facilitate downhill skids.

While there is definitely validity to following time tested methods and techniques, we have to remember that at one time all these techniques were new and unproven. I have no reason to believe that there are not new, creative, and efficient ideas that have not been discovered yet. …

My comments are not pointed against new ideas, but rather at the practice of not taking seriously the power advantage that animals have, which is not pushing, but lifting. Moving farm equipment and transport wagons require much less lift, because the weight is born entirely on wheels, but when moving dead weight like logs the push power has limitations. Logging equipment that is designed like farm equipment is a result of the culture that has kept the working animal alive, but takes for granted the basic physics of the draft.

And another issue, the draft efficiency that you talk about. …. I am defining efficiency as the ratio of input to output. I have the same input whether I’m skidding on the ground or on the arch, but the output is greater with an arch. It is the efficiency of the animal to turn their energy into power to move a load, not the efficiency of the operation that I am referring to. Your ability to produce more is a viable consideration, but it is based more on the ease with which you can perform your expected tasks, not the return on draft efficiency.

So how much efficiency are you referring to when you talk about one arch being more efficient than the other? …The most efficient draft line for horses is 90 degrees off the shoulder, which puts the draft point just above the hind feet. As they straighten out the angle from foot through hip to shoulder they lift their weight up off the ground in the front. When they are connected to a weight behind them by a straight line from shoulder to hind foot, the weight is lifted off the ground. When the draft point is raised to above the hock, or higher, the animal is resisting full power to keep their front end down. This may not be a big amount of power inefficiency, but my point is that I see my effort in the woods as finding ways to give the horses the best advantage against the load. Because I know how to use sleds, they are an easy solution for me. By giving the animals reasonable working loads, facilitated by maximizing the draft angle, I find that I can get the best use out of them over the long haul. In some ways this is just personal preference, but to me these details make the craft even more subtle and enhance the working relationship for me.

There’s many considerations when deciding on a style of arch, and I’m interested to put this in perspective to other considerations of arch design. In other words, if it is a big difference, then treat it a such, but if not, then maybe other considerations outweigh it. …
What you are talking about is what I was referring to in another post. There is an acceptance of certain inefficiencies because of cultural habit. I know what you are getting at, and yes, I can see that if you stick with what works you can get the work done. What I am presenting is the theory and philosophy that I was taught about how to use horses and oxen. Although I ‘m sure it isn’t the kind of inefficiency that will break the bank, it is the most basic fundamental physical law that makes using draft animals practical, and I believe, and have found, that by adhering to it, by using the appropriate equipment when needed, that animal power is made more effective, and therefore more practical.
… But you were talking about this style of arch having less draft efficiency, which is specifically what I’m wondering about.

So if I haven’t made it clear by now, I will just reiterate that as the hitch point gets higher, the horses are pushing, not lifting, and although they have muscles that allow them to do that, the high hitch is not the best way to take advantage of the power they have available. Where that comes into play for me is when discussing these plans, I think there has to be a point where the design must take into consideration that most basic animal power conversion efficiency. So what I was saying is that although the high hitch carts are performing as you, and others expect, they are in fact going beyond the point where the animal is most efficiently utilized, and rather than looking to an arch like that to solve the problem of moving heavy logs, I suggest using a sled, and use a lighter cart/arch for the short skids of smaller stems, where that mobility can be a key factor.

As far as blue prints for the Barden Cart, I was mistaken, although Les has passed on the design to several people(which is why I thought there were drawings) they have all been working off from pictures and his materials list. We will be putting together some detailed plans as part of some other initiatives concerning Les’ contribution to the working horse community.

Thanks, Carl

[Carl Russell]

highway;8622 wrote:

Carl Russell;8595 wrote:

Ed, sorry to miss you, as I was there too. It would have been good to meet you.

Carl,

Were you there with the kids wearing a plaid vest and logger boots? I think we spoke in passing one another near the entrance.

ED

That was me. The kids always get the attention. Not to diminish our chance meeting, but I almost always make some gesture and eye contact when I walk by someone, so which one were you? Did we exchange more than howdy?

Another time, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Not to drag this on too far, I just have a few follow-up comments.

Traveling Woodsman;8626 wrote:

…. I’ve skidded hundreds of thousands of bd. ft. on just about any kind of ground you can get an arch on, and have never gotten hurt. …..

Whether or not we get hurt is not a measure of the safety of a particular design. While I agree with your personal attachment to the specific design, having to climb up and down, and perching that high off the ground is not in its nature a safe design. Plenty of people get a lot of work done with them, and they are well built, but there is a design that delivers a much safer set-up.

It would take a while for me to get used to an arch with a much lower ground clearance (if I ever could). I routinely find it useful to go over logs both perpendicular and parallel to their length, such as tight landings and woods with lots of deadfall. Other places where I use the ground clearance include rocky woods, stumps, roots, and abrupt topographical features(ditches, banks etc.). Part of my selling point is that I can get into hard to access areas, and ground clearance is an important part of that. I suppose I’ve never known any other way (as far as arches) and have molded the way I think about skidding to the capabilities of the setup.

This is a very telling statement, and we have all agreed on the different personal preferences. I encounter exactly the same circumstances that you do, and I also molded the way I think based on the equipment I have found to work.
….

As far as the height goes, the particular arch I have has a horse hook point that is about 4 inches lower than the drawbar. This keeps a relatively high drawbar while still allowing the horses a good advantage. I realize that it is sometimes thought that the two hitch points should be on the same level plane, and I don’t have much experience with an arch like that, but I do know I have no trouble getting out plenty of logs in a day.

This is one of the common misunderstandings about the physics of draft. Even though your hitch point is lower than the draw bar, your horses are still lifting from the highest point. The pull goes down from the shoulders, and then back up to the draw bar, then down to the log. When they pull the energy straightens out that line. Although some people seem to think that it is sometimes thought that the two points should be on the same level, the reality is that the draft SHOULD be a straight line to the point where the weight is born, and if that is 2′ off the ground the horse’s energy is not being used efficiently.

The extra lift is important for me because I run into a significant amount of large timber. While there are some situations where a sled, scoot or log buggy would be advantageous, there are many places where those pieces can’t access, and the arch may be the only option. Situations like thick or rocky woods, no snow, small trails, etc.

I realize that you have a lot of experience, but the truth is that there is no place in any woodlot that I have ever been in that could not be accessed with a sled. I use them in all conditions, and in many different forest types. The fact still remains that if you have really big timber the best way to move it is on a sled. It may take a little ingenuity and elbow grease, but the sled provides the best advantage to the draft animal.
….

I guess the what it boils down to is this: If you’re happy with it and being safely productive within your goals, then go for it.

I whole heartedly agree. I just come from a school of animal powered logging that is based on adherence to methods and theory that have passed the tests of time. We are swimming in a culture that thinks they have reinvented animal power, and in the excitement many of the basic fundamentals of working animals have been overlooked.

Carl, I think that you were trying to more directly address the subject of the thread, and I was wanting to have more of a general discussion on arches, and I apologize for that.

We have all agreed that we cannot hope to limit the threads to narrow interpretations of the original post, so don’t apologize for creating a good discussion. ….

I came to logging with a cart/arch after having spent the first couple of years almost exclusively ground skidding, and twitching to a sled. There are significant advantages to using a cart/arch, but draft efficiency is not one of them. One of the common features of our modern culture is our ability to accept inefficiencies as par for the course. This is in part because of the abundance of power delivered by the machines that run our societal infrastructure, but it is also a result of influence of a culture where individuals are rarely personally involved in the creation and use of their own energy. One of the most basic elements to working with living power is draft efficiency, because in the long run every calorie saved or burned adds up. This is just food for thought.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

The point about log size is accurate, not so much that I don’t move very big logs, but that I don’t move the biggest logs with an arch-cart. My points about the value of a cart as a conveyance while working in the woods, have to do with safety, convenience, and functionality.

To make a cart to accommodate logs larger than 18″-24″(I take the large ones by the top, smaller diameter), I think one loses draft efficiency, safety, convenience, and therefore functionality.

The relative draft efficiency of a sled is much superior, by putting the draft point low to the ground, and lifting a substantial amount, or all, of the weight of the log off of the ground.

With a sled the weight is held high, friction reduced, and hitch is low (higher draft efficiency). With a high hitch cart the log is held high, but so is the draft point, and when the other functionality issues are added, it just doesn’t pan out for me as a solution that is worth the expense, as the Barden cart is entirely comparable in cost.

I have about $750 (including the several times I have rebuilt them) into both of my sleds, and I have nearly 20 years of work out of them.

As far as the percentage of large logs versus smaller, the forestry that I am practicing rarely creates an overstory removal. More often I am thinning from below, and dipping some into the largest diameters, especially since as trees get larger, fewer are grown per acre anyway. When I get into a job such as a stand of large pine (800-1500 bf/tree) I just use the sled exclusively.

My understanding of Tayooks objective is that she wants to produce fuelwood, and in that case, as I have said repeatedly (sorry for sounding like a broken record), I see the Barden style cart as a superb solution.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Ed, sorry to miss you, as I was there too. It would have been good to meet you.

The cattle tend to go fast because of the time of year, because most of them just got out of the barn, as could be seen by the stains and manure balls. When they are in good condition, cattle can move slowly and methodically like the horses.

Although I never tried a walking plow with my oxen, I always used a sulky and plowed that way, setting the plow, and walking beside them. There are those however who can drive their oxen from behind and they can plow both with a walking plow, and riding on their sulky.

Dennis, sounds like you had a great weekend. Gatherings like that are such a value to our community of interest. We have had a few logging bees here and everybody always goes home revved up.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I in no way intended to diminish the potential of any of the other arches, and in particular I really admire the work and design that Mark has created, especially as it utilizes a cart that has been designed for other purposes, but I hope that my explanations above can be seen as presenting what I see as advantages of the Barden design.

Yes, Les has a feature on his cart to insert a draw bar into a receiver so that it can be used to draw some farm implements. I have used it for raking, tedding, harrowing, moving my wood-splitter, and dragging pastures. The draw bar is a little low though, so I use the big cart for my wood wagon and manure spreader.

As far as a cradle hitch, it can be done. I have moved a lot of wood with this cart and can count on one hand how many times I have had to use it though. I think it may have to do with the fact that the draft point is only 18″ off the ground, and the horses still have a pretty good lifting ability. I have really found that when moving logs with animals, it is important to keep in mind the physics involved in utilizing the power of the animal, not just the technological solution that equipment can seem to offer.

I have to say, and I’m sorry to be too distracted from the point of this post, but as we all know these animal powered endeavors are rarely answered by one solution, so I do not tend to look to one piece of equipment to solve all my logging challenges.

When I am working really big timber, I tend to use a sled. Either a bobsled, if the skid in downhill, or on snow, or a scoot. Both work really well for eliminating or diminishing the friction factor. I go the the philosophy that harvesting timber with animals is not about skidding logs with horses or oxen, but about working horses and oxen in the woods (what ever methods, tools, equipment, or skills that fit the particular challenges in that woodlot).

Carl

p.s. Mark, some attractive features of your personality are that you’re easy going, humble, thoughtful, patient, and honest, but the truth is you have a horn to blow, so blow it man…it’s time, and you’ve earned it.

[Carl Russell]

As the design of a log arch attempts to raise the hitch point to get the logs up off of the ground, so the draft has to be raised as well. The evener needs to be hitched to the cart at exactly the same height as the hitch point for the chokers so that the power of the pull is directed straight through the cart in the most direct manner, ie power efficiency.

So, there is a point where the hitch and draft are so high that the horse no longer has the advantage of lifting, which is how the horse uses it’s power. Even though the theory is that the weight is now being held up by the arch (which is the truth) so the horse shouldn’t HAVE to lift it, horses actually need to be able to lift to efficiently use their power. So there is a point above which it just doesn’t make sense to raise the hitch point, which is what I was referring to in reference to some of the very high designs of logging arches.

I have a log arch that is designed very similar to the style that Jason uses. I find that it works great, but I have to climb up and down from the seat, and there is no easy way off in case of emergency. Although I have made a place to carry the saw and peavey, I don’t have the same convenient tool boxes.

I have used the Barden cart for nearly 15 years on all types of terrain, and skidding tree length right from the stump, and as low as it looks I have only gotten hung up on one stump in all of that time. It is narrow, light, and has a low center of gravity, which really help. I have tipped it over several times though, from logs coming up over a stump, or rock, and lifting it up on one side.

I have walked beside my big log arch, and find it no more or less dangerous that walking beside a log when ground skidding. But my point about that in this context is that if you can ride, it is safer, especially if you are inexperienced, AND you have a cart such as the one I am writing about where you can get on and off very easily.

I have also used the cart in deep snow, which can be problematic, but when the snow gets packed it works great.

Every person has their own preferences, I just find that this design takes into consideration several important factors and brings them together in one implement, which makes it a superb choice in my mind.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

It may belong in another post, but I’ll chime in right now anyway. My kids have been and still are around me all the time when I work my animals. It is important that they learn how to be safe around me when I’m doing what I do.

That being said, there are times when they are not allowed to be anywhere near me, because it is dangerous, like skidding logs in a working situation, getting out a little wood sometimes can be OK, but the reality is that it is one thing if I have a mishap when I am alone, but my life would become a living hell (from inside my own head and heart) if I was responsible for the injury or death of one of my kids.

But if you are just starting out I would say that you are going to have enough to figure out by yourself, so play it safe, leave her to play by herself.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Yep!! Just don’t have very much time right now, and wrapping my mind around a lot of other things, so thought others might help me make up my mind.
Carl

[Author]

Posts