[Ethan Tapper]

I definitely think that there should be more incentive programs out there… Ecosystem service accounting, carbon sequestration accounting, incentives for those who are motivated by $$ to manage their forest in a gentler way. WHIP and EQUIP (sp?) seem like they can be a pretty good idea, from the people I’ve talked to who have been involved with them.

I know that I differ from some forestry folks in this, but I think we need to reassess clearcutting (and heavy harvesting) laws too. In Vermont anybody with a saw can go out at clear 40 acres, no permit, nothing. To me that’s a hell of a big area for anybody to cut in that way just because they want to. Part of the solution to this is regulation, but I think another part of it is changing our beaurocracy so that ordinary folks don’t shy away from getting a permit. If dealing with state and local governments was easy, we might be able to require permits for forest practices and in that way manage forests more holistically over the state and local scale.

[Ethan Tapper]

I guess this gets back at that tricky thing about forests—What makes them healthy, what makes a harvest sustainable, how we should manage them, what we should actually be aiming for in forestry and logging, are a pretty subjective idea. I like the idea, like Mitch was saying, about the livelihood of the forester being dependent on the state, not the landowner, not the logger. In that scenario it seems like there might be less pressure on that forester to mark wood in any other way than he thought was right.

On the other hand, I’ve seen and heard about a lot of examples of government entities, like the U.S. Forest Service, doing a pretty poor job of management (in a bunch of different ways). I’m know there’s good work being done there, too, but I’m sure that with if you asked ten loggers about their interactions with state and county foresters, you’d get ten different answers, because all those guys are different , and see the forest and their role in it a little differently, too.

Sure, I’d like to see some things (related to forestry and logging) regulated by the government but its that darn question again –“What is the ‘right’ way to be in there, and how do we know”. Best answer I have for myself right now is what feels right to me, but the government doesn’t like that answer, I don’t think.

I’d like to hear more about that Mass highgrading law…

[Ethan Tapper]

And mixed with regular bar and chain oil I doubt it would affect the tack… We’ll see, I guess.

[Ethan Tapper]

@Robert MoonShadow 29101 wrote:

It might not be appropriate to introduce these spores to an area that they aren’t native in.

Even more incentive to sporulate your own bar and chain oil with a local strain (as if the cost wasn’t enough).

[Ethan Tapper]

Well this thread’s a bit old, but I just found out that Mushroom wizard Paul Stamets is selling bar and chain oil pre-inoculated with oyster mushroom spores (fungiperfecti.com). The idea is that as the oil flies off the bar it is already equipped with the means to digest it (oysters, among other species of fung,i have been shown to turn petrochemicals into carbohydrates). It’s more expensive (SO much more expensive), but for those of you who are interested and willing to try it out, you can take a spore print of an oyster mushroom you find in the woods (leave it spores-down on a sheet of paper for 24 hours) or a couple of them, and dump the spores into your bar and chain oil and shake. The spores are nearly microscopic, so I don’t think that they’ll be a problem running through your saw. I’m trying this method and will report back about it.

A good idea, anyways.

Ethan

[Ethan Tapper]

I have to tell you that I can see both sides from here… It may be idealistic, but in the time I’ve spent with the SFI people I’ve been convinced that they’re not bad people. Same as the rest of us they’re trying to promote sustainable use of forests. Now, that means something different to them than it does to the rest of us, but with something as variable as forest health I think we all have our differences of opinion, and some of us are just plain wrong.

I think that the way the opposition group, Forest Ethics is approaching this, is all kinds of wrong too, though. They don’t want to improve the certification, they want to destroy it. They don’t want to make it real, they want it to lose credibilty completely. A lot of their points I believe and know to be true, however I don’t know when in the history of the world negativity of this nature has ever fought negativity of the SFI nature and produced something positive. And right now I feel like the stakes are too high for this kind of dispute. We lose forestland every day.

I don’t care who SFI is, who their funding comes from, as long as they are a means to promote practices I feel good about with regards to forest management. Right now and in the past they haven’t done a very good job of it in a lot of ways, but I think if we talk to groups like this instead of yelling at them we can get something done… Or at least find out what they’re really made of.

I’m interested to hear from those of you who have interacted with SFI and FSC, their audits, their certified jobs and lands. What have you seen?

[Ethan Tapper]

Also, meeting for Forest Ethics, which will picket the SFI conference in Burlington, Vt at the lightbulb institute on Decatur st. at 5:00 tonight (saturday 9/10).

[Ethan Tapper]

Wondering if any of you Vermont people know where a guy could volunteer with a saw or otherwise this weekend. I’ve got a long weekend from UVM and I figure I’ll head south with a saw (my folks live around Brattleboro), but I didn’t know if there was someone specific I should get in touch with (or if any of you fellas on the forum here need a hand). I’m sure I’m not the only one wondering.

Ethan

[Ethan Tapper]

Just checking in again. Still looking for a single in the Burlington area to lease… Don’t want to feed your horse this winter? I do!

[Ethan Tapper]

Just gotta put in a plug for this rig. I’ve used it with John and I think it’s an amazing tool for the single horse in the woods. For a greenhorn like me the two wheeled set-up is especially helpful because of the way it moves and shifts a little bit so that when I hit rocks and stumps (people, dogs) and things it just goes right on over. The four-wheeled option is easy to turn and maneuver. John does a really good and thorough job. When I get myself up and running I’m definitely going to get one of these myself.

–Ethan

[Ethan Tapper]

Something I’ve heard murmurings of in the academic community is people buying up ecosystem services– people, people with interests in the services (clean air, clean water, animal habitat/habitat continuity, etc.) that a forest (or habitat) provides paying for certain areas of forest to remain forest. They have done this out west, where beer companies bought up water seniority rights to keep water in the streams and the city of New York did something similar by paying for the restoration of forested areas in the catskills that feed their water supply.

Has anyone heard of any thing like this, related to forests, where you are?

[Ethan Tapper]

This IS research. Glad to hear what you have to say and all the great places our discussion has gone. –Ethan

[Ethan Tapper]

It is interesting to see all the ways that people, in research and thought, have tried to quantify the effect that a method of skidding has on the forest. The bottom line is healthy forest systems, but what that means and how to measure it seems to be pretty tricky. For me it is becoming more and more about just doing what feels right, given what I know about forests and everything in them. Using horses feels right to me on a local, and global scale, but I think that there is a place for other skidding methods in the woods too, without question.
In the end it seems like its up to us to be conscious, sensitive and skillfull, really, in how we work in the woods. As I’m learning, the first two of those attributes aren’t much good without the last one (and vice-versa). Thanks posting that research, Scott, and for everybody’s thoughtful replies. That we can have a discussion and keep ourselves thinking about this stuff is probably one of the most important pieces of the puzzle as we try and do what’s best for the forest.

[Ethan Tapper]

You should dry the cobs, shuck the kernels off and keep it in a dry place. That way you can grind it when you need it.

Also, you can soak whole kernels in water overnight, then boil them with sifted wood ash for an hour and a half to two hours. The ration should be about a spoonful of ash per cup of corn. The process is called nixhimizing and it is said to greatly increase the nutritional value of dried corn. Rinse the wood ash off and eat it raw or in chowder. It should have the consistency of a firm (not crunchy) cooked bean. They are delicious and addictive!

Enjoy, Ethan

[Ethan Tapper]

Here are some sources I stole off http://sites.google.com/site/timberhorseforestry/, Scott Golden’s website:

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29940
–7 pages, mostly comparing soil disturbance in different traction-plus-forwarding mechanism arrangements (horse-forwarder, mule-forwarder, horse side-loader, etc.) but they compare to other studies done about soil disturbance with mechanized operations and hand crews.

http://www.healingharvestforestfoundation.org/docs/Joshua%20Deal%20Abstract.pdf
4 pages, this one courtesy HHFF. A little more readable, I think. Also compares site disturbance in a similar way to the other article. Similar to the other article it doesn’t necessarily set animal traction and mechanized harvesting operations exactly side by side; A horse logger performs single tree selection on one site and a kind of odd mechanized set-up performs a clearcut elsewhere.

There are also some interesting articles about “social impacts” of horse logging.

Looking at these articles, they are interesting but to me lack the continuity, consistency and rigor that will really make people who aren’t convinced that animal traction in the woods is a good idea change their minds. There needs to be a real study, I think, a Hubbard Brook-type study in order to get into the nitty gritty of this stuff. Shoot, maybe I have to do it.

The problem with all of this, of course, is that the impact of any logging system is highly variable due to the operator. I met a forester who was turned off horse-logging because he saw a horse logger skidding a hitch down a stream. I have no doubt that there are highly mechanized systems that do a really good job, too, because they care about the woods deeply and are really knowledgeable and careful in the work they do. Somehow we need to take the human aspect out of it and show the inherent benefits that we all know are there in logging with animals.

[Author]

Posts