[near horse]

@Countymouse 39255 wrote:

……I don’t think that these are productive ways to frame the debate.

Since I never meant to question one’s integrity and only to point out one example of potential drivers of decision making, I guess I just don’t get it.

[near horse]

Sometimes opinions/decisions can be based on a “practice looking for justification” —- case in point Rick’s example of mirroring natural disturbance. We can go looking for ways to justify our desired outcome. “How can I justify cutting 3000 cords using a mechanical outfit tht I have lots of money invested in?” “Oh, it’s just like natural disturbances.” From the trees perspective perhaps (dead is dead) but there’s a massive difference in loss/relocation of nutrients and in removal of biomass on that scale. When we say “it’s just like nature” we need to also consider “it’s in addition to nature”. Our disturbances are additive to those already naturally occurring.

As I mentioned in a different thread, there’s pretty good evidence that enhancement of wildlife habitat is often short-lived ( +/- a few years).

I was told these are admirable goals, but they stifle the economy, stop buying coffee makers, and someone loses a job……

I hear this in our area too. But has anyone thought someone designed and marketed “coffee makers” thereby creating a demand and thus the need for “coffeemaker makers” :(? Why does changing the status quo have to be seen only in terms of jobs lost and not new oportunities as well?

[near horse]

A2 is also used to market the heifers/cows to prospective buyers so expect to pay more as well.

Evidence from several epidemiological studies and animal models does not support the association of milk proteins, even proteins in breast milk, and the development of T1D. Ecological data, primarily based on A1/ A2 variations among livestock breeds, do not demonstrate causation, even among countries where there is considerable dairy consumption.

Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program. 2011;67:187-95. doi: 10.1159/000325584. Epub 2011 Feb 16.

[near horse]

Bump …. for the pirate.

[near horse]

@Robert MoonShadow 39193 wrote:

Geoff – You got any details or photos of this? Sounds like it’s about right for what I do w/ me donks.

I do have a couple of pictures on the computer ….. somewhere. I’ll see what I can find.

Arrrgh. 🙂

[near horse]

When buying HD equipment I recommend we consistently ask the manufacturers to install “pick point hooks” on the balancing points of the equipment. When assembled much of this equipment is very hard to load and unload off trailers and flatbed trucks. Some of mine is damaged as a result.

It is sure fun to go and help others on their farms, also let people rent/borrow, but lack of ability to chain and load some of this is a shortcoming…..

Great point!

I know of someone who hs a single horse cultimulcher (3′? W) – not a production unit but worked really well for working up beds for their market garden.

[near horse]

I think I like Low Impact better as it doesn’t imply we’re coming in to fix a situation that needs repair/intevention. And it does recognize that we are having some sort of impact on the ecology of that area.

Not to state the obvious but the “given” is that there is going to be some sort of impact on the forest ecosystem (ie. landowner wants “X” done or managed) so as Carl pointed out

Low-impact forestry to me, is managing my impact on the forest to allow the ecosystem the best opportunity that I can provide for it to express itself in natural terms.

[near horse]

Wow – I just read what I wrote and it seems like gibberish but I’ve wasted 10-15 minutes typing so I’m leaving it. And no I wasn’t on some mind-altering substance.

Here’s my thinking :eek:. Since the term ecology comes from the Greek “oikos” or “house”, we need to consider all the components that make up the house both biotic and abiotic. So things like soil, water etc need to be considered too. Integrity as used in ecological integrity means to hold together or not fall apart. Combined with ecology it seems to mean keeping or maintaining the “house” (place where stuff lives – not just us).

The $64,000 question is whether humans are part of the system (in the house) or outside looking in. I would argue that we are part of the natural world in that we weren’t an external force placed here from the great beyond but evolved under the same rules and constraints as the rest of life on Earth. BUT (and there’s always a but) we do have the ability to predict and recognize the longer term ramifications of our behaviors/decisions on “the house” and can choose to modify those behaviors – sometimes not necessarily to our own best short-term benefit but to the long term greater good.

Here’s a nice bit trying to define ecological integrity. http://science.jrank.org/pages/2252/Ecological-Integrity.html

Low impact means to limit your disturbance to the” house”, as much as is reasonably possible, while still living as part of the system. It is not and can never be No Impact and is more of an ethic to be practiced and refined. If minimizing impact on our house is at the forefront when we plan and make decisions, we are on the right track.

[near horse]

The magnetic switch/gate idea has been used for quite a while for individually feeding cattle in a group pen. Each one has a collar with a ball containing a magnetic key specific for their particular “gate” that allows them access to their feed. It does need electricity to power the bolt action on the gate but it works pretty good. That company was American Calan as I recall. Probably a good source for ideas.

[near horse]

Here guys will plant forage oats (just a variety that yields more like Magnum) to clean e field (it allows them to manage for broad leaf weeds). The protein levels can be higher than some grass hays (10-12% CP) and yields pretty good but it is an annual so one cut and you’re done (here). That said, one of my friends swears his horses won’t touch oat hay so he puts up barley hay.

[near horse]

“If the conventional thinking had valued any ecosystems functions at all there would not be much insight in this report.”

Tim – sort of a literal “can’t see the forest for the trees”. :confused:

Some times intuition can fool us. One example was a study looking at the impact of snowmobiles on movement of large wild ungulates (deer and elk in this case). Flight distance and longevity of displacement ended up being greater for crosscountry skiers moving through an area than it was for snowmoblies. Seems the duration of the “disturbance” had greater impact than how “disturbing” we perceived the disturbance to be.

Oh – too many thoughts going too many directions = time out for Geoff.

[near horse]

Mend quickly Jen. As many have said already, s**t happens even to the best prepared. Also, good horsemanship is often displayed not in the lack of incidents but in the fact that they are kept to “could have been worse” status. Way to cowboy up and run that sucker down after getting your knee whacked.

Even without snow, footing can be pretty dicey in the woods/brush while pulling out of an area where a tree was felled. In fact, IMO losing ones footing/falling is probably the most overlooked yet most likely way to get in trouble skidding wood. We’ve all been there and it is part of the risk/hazard —- Glad you and JD are alright.

[near horse]

Laughable to the point of ridiculous. The bird poop thing is so out of touch it makes me wonder if these people have ever been outside of a climate controlled building. How come there was no mention of monitoring flies landing on produce? They certainly carry pathogens from place to place.

[near horse]

How about using those velcro leg protectors you see used with show horses? Probably could make something similar pretty easily. Throw on/off at the field’s edge and wash as needed.

Bun and bag the tail (?).

Great question. Restoration is a growing interest and I think drafts could have a role so it’s good to think about the details.

Luke – I’d like to hear more about the project as it goes forward so please keep us posted.

[near horse]

Sigh – this is why I have a hard time with all this. We don’t support an economic driven management system, although we too are making money from the same woodland. In addition, we offer nothing to verify the long term ecological value provided by draft horse logging other than “It looks better.” And “Because I said so.” I just don’t feel comfortable asking a client to invest in me without something more tangible to present them with.

“”measure” for Ecological Integrity, as much as we establish the “value” of Ecological Integrity.”
How do you establish a value of ecological integrity? If we can’t explain what constitutes EI then how can we establish a value for it?

I’m trying to get a better idea of how this can work when presented to those who believe EI is best preserved by no intervention. Or is that the underlying premise – “Trees will be harvested.” So how will that be done?

Not meant to be argumentative but I’m feeling like I’m going round in circles with no argument to present to those who want more details.

I’m sure I’ll get bashed for this statement but really “worst first” is just a different spot on the continuum of forest management that ranges from “no removal at all” to “remove all at specified intervals”. Taking what we consider to be inferior trees is still altering the ecological integrity of the ecosystem. So what we’re presenting an owner with is a “less worse” version of conventional logging’s “less worse version”.

[Author]

Posts