[Scott G]

A true cooperative is a legal entity, for taxes & other legal issues. L.L.P.s’ (Limited Liability Partnerships) are also a true legal entity. They are often used by white-collar professionals but have applicability in our world as well. A good friend of mine had a tree service set up with a partner and used the L.L.P.

They can be, as can most entity classifications, somewhat cumbersome and do not lend themselves well to “an everybody chippin’ in on the job” on occasion.

Even though the merits & downsides of utilizing a sub-contractor model have been pounded to death on this site, they do work very well when attention is paid to the details.

I and many of my peers have used this system in the past to take on very large projects or when everyone had something to offer that would make the operation perform at a higher level & quality than otherwise would have been the case if tackled solo.

My peers were(are) competitors, but first & foremost we were/are fast friends who share the same ideals, attention to detail, and stewardship ethic as one another.

The typical way we run one of these jobs is as follows: One of us picks up the lead, visits with the potential customer, discusses the logistics with said customer. Going into this we know what our other peers have available for resources and what they need (vs want) to mobilize and use those. After meeting with the landowner(customer) we start calling our peers and see who is available and verbally negotiate what they would need for the job. Eventually this will get written down, depending on the relationship you have with one another will dictate to what degree of detail you get into.

The primary person who puts this together becomes the main/prime contractor. The supporting peers are subs. THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND WILL HOLD UP IF INITIATED PROPERLY The key is, and what the legal folks will look at, is that the sub is indeed a legitimate independent contractor. That means that they are and act as a completely independent business. There can be no traceable sharing of resources (tools, fuel, transportation, etc) that has not been,or can be, compensated for on paper. In other words, be able to delineate very clearly who is doing what, what they are responsible for, and what is the payment method. Lump sum payments are definetely more preferable than trickling money out over time; just as any other business would be paid for their services at the end of the job.

Business is the key word. Each contributor to the effort truly needs to be a verifiable business. Most are going to be filed as a sole proprietor, which is fine. That said, you need to keep impeccable records, books, etc.., have adequate business liability insurance, and look and act as a legitimate business ( have a recorded business name) because you are. If you are not, then you are a major unacceptable liability for the cooperative effort set up in this fashion.

In my State (Colorado) a business owner, regardless of entity classification, does not need to carry work comp on themselves. If one of the contributors shows up with a non-family “helper” than they absolutely do.

Your insurance company should have waivers available to you for “your” subs to sign stating that they are independent contractors, not employees, and collect certificates of insurance from them. They may recommend that you have their insurance companies list your company as additional insured for the duration of the project. This is usually $100-200 at most. It provides you (and the other subs) an extra level of security should the sub do something very stupid…

This model works well. I, as well as many of friends/peers, have used it sucessfully for many years. There has to be a primary contractor (you) who, in essence, is the “woods boss” and ends up taking on all administrative and project management activities.

I have used this for almost every operational aspect of forestry that exists in my region and it works very well, builds relationships, and allows a “cooperative” atmosphere to pull off some really neat projects.

The only catch is that you have to be very detail oriented and everyone participating has to be a “real”, verifiable, business entity.

This allows for much more flexibility, using additional resources as a job dictates, than having a full-blown co-op or LLP for every project, regardless of size.

[Scott G]

I was wondering about that butt log. The bottom end looked pretty nice without much/any taper.

If the bottom end of the bottom log really matters or you are bailing straight down a very steep slope the Humboldt, as Carl mentioned, is the way to go. It is an absolute mirror of a traditional facecut. It helps if you have some decent butt swell to work with and your stumps will typically be higher.

For your jack, George, same thing. Referring back to what I said several posts ago; mirror your cubby on the bottom side of your backcut.

Looking at that pic you posted, if you were to increase the depth of your facecut just a bit you would have a lot easier time wedging trees over.

[Scott G]

Thanks,Simon. The price is pretty much in line for what Payeur & Majaco untis are in North America, I believe.

What is VAT? Some sort of trade agreement?

[Scott G]

Simon,

Any idea on what the current price is for the SJM forwarder/loader you have?

Do you know of any that have been bought & shipped to North America?

Thx,
-S

[Scott G]

Cutting conifers (lodgepole, pondo, & D-fir) out of aspen for aspen stand restoration at about 9000′ elevation. Not to severe of a winter, easy ground, so pretty enjoyable overall. Material is chip wood & fence rails.

Last couple of days cutting in a steep deep hole on the north side of the mountain where the entire stand of lodgepole blew down a couple of years ago. That is strictly a sanitation/salvage show with mostly firewood and a few posts/poles.

No shortage of work…

[Scott G]

@simon lenihan 23802 wrote:

This system where the maximum amount of timber is moved from forest to landing at any one time makes for a slick and efficent timber harvesting method. Long extraction skidding small volume is non productive and does not give a good impression of what horses can achieve. It is possible to build most of this equipment quiet cheaply and the cost would soon be recovered from the increase in production.

Simon,

1) I have a mental image of a southern evangelical church where the entire congregation stands up and yells “Hallelujah!’ & “Amen!”

&

2) I have already drank the Kool-Aid…

Even though I currently don’t have horse-drawn forwarding capability yet, I am feeding the piggy bank to get there. I am, however, putting together a job this summer that will use a tractor-drawn forwarder to forward trailside material that was pre-bunched with a horse.

It has been my primary soapbox that a mixed-harvesting system using horses as pre-bunchers combined with some type of forwarding system is what will put our preferred method of timber harvesting in front of the general forestry community as a truly viable, low-impact, AND economic form of harvesting.

John Plowden has been working on manufacturing/using Scandinavian-inspired equipment. Check out some of the pics at http://www.draftanimalpower.com/photoplog/index.php?u=55

Thanks fo everything you do, brother!

BTW, the pic of that one forwarder is in front of a pile of chips. Small-scale energy/heating plant?

[Scott G]

@Bradbury Johnson 23602 wrote:

Sorry to say that I am booked solid for the foreseeable future with woods work with my team.

That is not necessarily a bad thing at all….

@Bradbury Johnson 23602 wrote:

Unfortunately, there just are not enough insured horse loggers in northern New England to meet the need in terms of forestry work…good luck and keep looking!

…but unfortunately this is.

[Scott G]

My take is pretty much what has already been said.

The man made felling that tree way to complicated and his myriad of cuts weren’t that well done. I like Mitch’s analogy of a beaver, the two cut face resembled that… But as others have said, I don’t want to beat up on the guy.

The face bore is handy for significantly oversize material when you are working with a very short bar, and that is the only reason IMHO.

Removing the center of your hinge is no better/different than reducing your hinge thichness across its width to accomplish the same goal. I would argue that there is more stability/control with a hinge that spans the diameter of the butt vs two short lateral “mini-hinges”

Mitch’s question of the backcut/pre-setting the hinge & then backing until you reach your latch on diameters greater than bar length; yes, I will move over to the other side, continue from the visible bore back towards the hinge. You end up with a nice level cut that way. The sloping cut on the face in big timber you start with “rolling” your saw on the off side towards you in order to span the distance. The same goes for the horizontal cut on the face. Turns out nice & clean and you don’t end up with a “beaver” face as shown on the video. Keep the sloping cut on the face steep to maintain control all the way down without snapping off the hinge prematurely and getting fiber pull that may degrade your butt log.

Mitch, as far as just wacking it if the tree is already leaning in the direction you want it to go, depends. I’ll often do traditional backcuts in pole-sized timber when the strip layout is going with the direction of the predominant wind direction for the site. They will fall just like dominoes and it is more time efficient than pre-setting hinges on each stick. What causes major issues is one of the most dangerous situations an inexperienced feller (chopper) faces in the woods, heavy leaners. Trees that have a radical lean have a tremendous amount of tension opposite of the lean. When backcut in a traditional fashion from the backside (no hinge preset) the tension often reaches a critical point and rips apart well before the feller has reduced the hinge. This can/will create a “barber chair”. I have seen butts almost explode on people when this happens. The situation can clean your clock for the last time, bad juju. It is critical to always pre-set your hinge in this situation and leave an adequate trigger. Besides, it makes a really cool loud “pop’ when you cut the trigger 😉

Speaking of explosions on a lighter note 🙂 Explosives have really caught on with the wildland firefighter crowd. Removal of hazard trees, creating fireline, etc.. As in most things with fire suppression I think they have went overboard on some/most situations.

I was pulled off the line on a fire a couple of years ago by our FMO so I could help/witness explosives being used to take down this 5′ d.b.h. cottonwood “hazard” tree. The FMO, local bomb squad guy (aka wack job), and myself put about 50# explosives wrapped around the trunk with duck tape, primed it, and went to hide in a ditch about 100 yards away. Popped it off and I swear 10′ of the bottom log just went missing. In that blink of the eye it looked like this 60′ tree was standing upright in mid-air all by itself. Then, of course, the only large piece of wood blown any distance came gunning right for us, a 6′ long piece did an end-over-end towards our little piece of paradise in the ditch. Lucky it landed about 15′ from us… All in all, seconds of fun and a helluva mess to clean up afterwards.

[Scott G]

If you’re interested, this is a good little white paper on conversion issues with scaling methods…

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrp/fplrp611.pdf

For weight it is all about the specific gravity of the individual species and green MC% of the individual tree. That info can be found in the very hefty but valuable Wood Handbook at…

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/products/publications/several_pubs.php?grouping_id=100&header_id=p

Best (practical) bet, know what your local & regional species weigh per CF at an average MC% and you’re good to go…

Bug smack lodgepole at 15%MC on a green basis runs ~ 23#CF all day long…

Big green pondo pumpkins that leave a large dent when they hit the ground, upwards of ~70#CF, 45%MC on green basis.

Both grow side by side, but there is a helluva difference when you hitch on to one vs the other.

Take home point; know your wood so you can accurately estimate your loads.

[Scott G]

Personally, I prefer this method (sic) ….:cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWdpFZIdDqY

[Scott G]

@Carl Russell 23610 wrote:

Make sure to let the brake cleaner dry completely before starting the saw back up as I was told that when ingested by the saw it can cut the oil suspended in the fuel.

Also it should be a simple matter of hitting the trigger set once the saw has started. It can idle with the chain break on with very little problem. Since I have learned how to use a chain break ( we used to think the things were just put there for sissies) I only release the thing when I am going to cut…. no need. It isn’t good to leave it on while the saw is on high idle, but there is very little need to let a saw idle to warm up anyway. If the saw has been left out in the cold, it will warm up pretty fast even without letting it idle.

Carl

Brake or Carb cleaner can seize your powerhead if it is sucked up in the air intake. Soaking the flywheel shouldn’t cause a problem, it drys very quickly. Thinking about it though, the magneto is a little close to the pawl area and that might cause me a bit of concern. Nothing like catching your saw on fire first thing in the morning… 😮 Husky engagement pawls on the flywheel are notorious (at least with cutting our western conifers) for gumming up with sap and when cold, sticking.

Problem with the choke disengage from the throttle inter-lock is many folks are slow on the take; full throttle on a centrifugal clutch that is engaged when the brake band is set is a nasty thing..

My chain brake is engaged almost all of the time that the saw is sitting at a correct idle. The first saw I use to run extensively didn’t even have a hand guard, let alone chain brake (and chaps didn’t exist yet). When chain brakes first came out I hated them, now I consider them a necessity for a “safe” saw.

George, don’t drop start your saw. Its bad form and extremely unsafe. Decompression valves have helped immensely with the effort. Tuck the power head between your knees or start it on the ground…

Carl, your 575 still running well?

[Scott G]

@Does’ Leap 23593 wrote:

Scott, I have never tried 1/2 choke – will give it a go. Once it is warm, it starts up no problem (w/no choke). I am bringing back to the shop where I bought it to have them check the carb settings. Thanks.

George

1/2 choke after full choke & it kicks should work for you. Have the shop look at your low end fuel jet as well…

[Scott G]

@PhilG 23592 wrote:

My only complant with the 372 is that the little spring clips around the starter pully get gumed up a lot and don’t catch when you pull, happens alot in cold weather anyone else have this problem – and maybe a remedy ?

Phil, Yes… pull the starter cover & soak it with brake cleaner. After that it will work like a charm.

[Scott G]

@Does’ Leap 23235 wrote:

Does the chain brake affect starting? I started pulling with the chain brake off while I have the choke in. Once it turns over, I engage the brake, disengage the choke and start her up. Seems to be starting easier. My imagination?

George

George,
The chain brake being engaged has no link to ease of starting. Husky 372s – cold start: full choke 1-3 pulls till it fires (+/- dies) then 1/2 choke and it will run, immediately diengage the remainder of the choke and you’re good to go. You shouldn’t need to choke it again until after lunch…

Even though GOL, S-212, etc mandate having the chainbrake set when you fire off from a cold start, I don’t like it. You are putting full revs on a bound clutch that is cold. Too much of that and you can watch your clutch drum turn blue…

From a safety standpoint (safety seems to trump everything) it is probably a good thing, just disengage your choke immediately to avoid the full rev on the clutch.

[Scott G]

Thx Folks, think I’ll snag a copy. I’m all about lists, logistics, & the dirty details…

[Author]

Posts