Forum Replies Created
- AuthorPosts
Scott G
ParticipantParticipantRick,
Here are two contacts that may be of use.
New Brunswick DNR Contact list:
http://app.infoaa.7700.gnb.ca/gnb/pub/ListPersonOrg1.asp?OrgLevel1=01&DeptID1=60&OrgID1=604and
Quebec:
http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/contact-us/contact-us-forets.jspContacting the office should poiint you in the direction of a registered contractor list or district offices which should be able to give you horse logger contacts.
Might be of some help…
ParticipantJim,
What’s your phone #? I’d like to give you a call.
-ScottParticipant@Rick Alger 16701 wrote:
One thought about what direction to take might be localized groups affiliated with the larger group but based on forest type and regional markets.
The group that interests me would be – spruce/fir forest type, Northern New England/southern Quebec region.
Rick, Have you networked with any horse loggers in Quebec/New Brunswick?
ParticipantGiven both the applicabilty and number of comments, unfortunately I would have to concur with Rick’s comments, although on a broader scale.
Not sure why this has died. I have a feeling it may be because I had the tendency to wait for more folks to weigh in and be inclusive rather than exclusive. To that end, the fault is my own.
I sensed a unique opportunity with the general passion of the group, coupled with my current ability to give more time to this group than the “full-time horse loggers” could, given my present gov forester job that pays most of the bills.
That said, I have energy and will put that forward to further the general cause. But, as time and lack of involvement goes by I have less of it… My horse logging business takes up all the productive time my gov job doesn’t, and I have a very flexible gov job…
Let’s keep what we have and see what may come of it. I fully understand that it is the few who carry the weight for many but at a minimum, there needs to be discussion among the many that is at least directed towards the cause.
I will continue to pursue and refine the web-based Draft Powered Forestry Contact List, as I have heard from many that it is a valuable resource.
I will also be considering a newsletter in the future, those of you that are interested in this possibility contact me.
Ciao
ParticipantEven though the intent of the original posting was looking for specific examples in a specific forest cover type, it has taken a turn, which isn’t a bad thing.
I have mentioned several times that I am not opposed to mechanical harvesting systems, and like Carl, I administer them on a regular basis. It is my job that pays most of the bills.
It boils down to several factors that affect the quality of the job: operator experience and attitude, site conditions (i.e. not running in the mud or when soils are easily compacted), harvesting plan and layout, AND the application of the appropriate harvesting system for the job.
I am not one that supports harvesting of timber as the primary objective. Utilizing all of the tools in our toolbox and always keeping forest health, ecological integrity, and productivity as the foremost objectives; timber/biomass is the result of proper management and should be utilized to its highest potential.
I can tell you, as someone who had a fairly decent sized mechanical operation which included a 525 CAT dual-arch skidder, feller buncher, and whole tree chipper (among a collection of other pieces of iron), that quality work can be accomplished. My operation was highly sought after on the Northern Front Range for our low-impact harvesting, quality of work, and commitment to the resource.
That said, there is a huge difference in what I could/can do with a 35,000# 250hp CAT skidder with a 10’6″ wide foot print versus my 1,600# single horse with a 2’6″ wide path. Individual tree selection on scattered conifer in a sensitive aspen clone is one example of that. In tight stands, even if I hopped out of the cab to pull cable (which many operators of grapple skidders won’t) I would be severely limited in my ability to not damage leave trees without setting up blocks to redirect the mainline. That is something that just the plain economics of the operation will not allow. Spending 5 minutes to pull a single stem of crap out of a stand doesn’t pencil out. Even with the small feller buncher I had, an 8′ wide foot print through a bunch of aspen regen is completely unacceptable if the objective is to leave it as undamaged residual. A horse is perfect for this scenario, team the horse with a forwarder and now you have production as well.
The beauty of mixed harvesting systems is that you are using all of the tools in the toolbox when combined with an appropriate prescription.
So, as I mentioned before in this and other posts, my thoughts on applicability for draft powered systems are: individual selection where residual stocking is high, sensitive sites (such as SMZs’), smaller properties where move in costs for a mechanical show are prohibitive, in areas where aesthetics are a primary concern, and where low-impact harvesting (as measured by several parameters such as visual, noise, etc..) methods are paramount.
Horse logging can be productive when used on the right job, in the right application, and when supported by appropriate other systems when appropriate. With the aforementioned scenarios alone, there is more than enough work to keep us busy.
Let’s focus on the most appropriate and profitable “low hanging fruit” first and that will keep us fed for a very long time. It will also demonstrate/validate the appropriateness of our harvesting system with the forestry community, which in turn will add to our credibility as a tool rather than just a PR plug.
If we take the tact of being inclusive in the tool box rather than exclusive, our utilization and acceptance by the current forestry community cannot help but be enhanced.
ParticipantDepends on the horse and their personal ability to whoa (sit stay) and how tired they are.
For throwing brush, rolling a log to limb the ground side, etc. not a big deal if they’re tired and headed away from the landing.
If they’re fresh or young & restless (like my current horse) and/or pointed towards the landing, not so much leeway…
When I’m felling or doing other serious saw work they’re tied to a tree about 1 1/2 tree lengths from where I’m working.
Worst case scenario; that is why they make those hames balls shiny so you can see where your horse ran off to…;)
ParticipantListed below is a link for a trailer that serves as a great example for what I was mentioning.
Not much money ($8,900 negotiable) and can sit roadside/landing to be directly loaded by forwarder. Not trucker dependent and you are in a better position to negotiate hauling as any roadworthy semi can haul it, dependent on what type of roads you are coming out of.
The beauty of a true CTL system….
ParticipantJen,
What is sticking out of the back end of the log? ….a branch?
Something else to consider, when a log is felled (by you or Ma Nature) branches on the down side tend to drive into the ground like tent pegs.
That is why the standard practice is to start the skid off to the side to roll the log somewhat to free it.
That said, I still find myself from time to time pulling off straight away only to find the thing anchored tight.
My horse has glanced behind him more than once at me with that expression “yo…stupid”
Worst case scenario is that you try again and again to the point of your partner repeatedly slamming into his collar and ending up balky in the process.
Congrats on taking your time to think it through.
ParticipantRick,
When I loaded with a skidsteer I had a brush/log grapple on it. That way I had total control of the load until I placed it in the bunks. With posts I would often have one of my guys crawl up on the load with a sledge to give the rogue posts a ‘love tap’ to even the ends. Not much effort though…
As far as rolling logs on skids off the cut bank unto the truck/trailer; I usually put the small end a little downhill to make up for the gain. Usually just doing it by ‘eyeball’ works, having to do some adjustment on the load with a peavey is a given.
Every once in a while though one pops off one skid and onto the ground. Inevitably it ends up being wedged between the trailer tires and the bank.
As Jason mentioned, it is a wretched bummer when you are staring at a big pumpkin on the ground with no where to go with it. Kinda’ brings the whole process down and inevitably happens at the end of the day.
I had one this past summer that somehow got between the tandems and under the trailer. Nothing like doing a bore cut between two tires…
That is definitely the exception rather than the rule though.
God bless hydraulics…
ParticipantSimon,
Don’t know how I missed your response, my ability to commit time to this site has been hampered lately. There is a lot going on right now…
The show you pulled off is exactly what I’m talking about. Different species, same idea.
Did anybody (resource manager) follow that job and write a report on the effort? That type of information is invaluable in furthering our cause.
Demonstrating our harvesting system as the most appropriate in these selected applications will go far in developing our niche, and ultimately, having land managers seek us out for these projects.
These types of highly specialized projects are what will allow our culture to grow in prosper in the realm of natural resource management.
Participant@Traveling Woodsman 16412 wrote:
….The horse drawn forwarders are intriguing, but the biggest problem is the capacity of the loaders. The big oaks, poplars and maples that grow in the deep coves on these mountainsides often reach 3-5 feet dbh, something that can’t be handled by any of the loaders I’ve seen….
I would still use a forwarder trailer for that length of turn, Ben. If you’re working the hill just roll them off the bank into the bunks, no loader needed. With that size of material I would have damn strong bunks so you don’t bend them over or snap them off at the stake pockets. Might even need to chain the forwarder to a couple of trees on the uphill side to avoid flipping the trailer or, worse yet, blasting it off the side of the mountain with that size of material. That scenario would be the definition of a very bad day… (quite a visual, eh?)
When in doubt, think and log like an ancient Egyptian…
Participant@Mark Cowdrey 16407 wrote:
When using “ramps”/skids and a peavey to deck 3-4 logs high, does a smooth skid work OK or does any one use one W/ “teeth”? What little I’ve done, “slide back” has been an issue. Are my skid poles just too short? Any other tips on hand decking, esp. solo, appreciated. Thanks.
MarkI’ve put “ratchets” on skids when I have to load on the flat but find, even though somewhat handy, they give you a false sense of security. You want to keep your pitch (angle) of loading as moderate as possible. Much better to have longer skids than shorter.
The best case scenario is to plan having your deck uphill on the cutbank side. Then you can run skids right off the bank onto your truck/trailer & gravity is your friend. This is the ideal situation for decking for horse logging and in my mind is by far the most efficient system of hand loading.
Although it might be better phrased “hand braking” as the biggest issue you now have is keeping control of them as they spin onto your truck…
ParticipantI fed the machine, then it turned around and ate my ass…
That said, I still work with, and around, mechanical operations. Between being a government forester and running my own gig, I am pretty much involved with every type of harvesting system there is. I might even put together a helicopter show for this nasty ridge we have next year. For me, it is always about using the most appropriate harvesting system, or mixed system for the job. It’s just that the draft animal option is severely under utilized in conventional forestry, especially with the smaller land ownerships and on sensitive sites. It is the niche I fill when I step away from the government role.
With that preface, it boils down to bottlenecks in the system. If you are not moving enough wood to not only pay for the loader, but also make money from it in the process, you shouldn’t have one. But hand loading gets really old and paying for a self-loader isn’t cheap. You are paying for an operator and you are losing payload potential from that loader being mounted on the truck. Out here where the turns are long, that adds up. But if you are not cranking out more than a load a week, and you have a good & honest trucker, it is probably the best way to go.
In my own situation horses are for skidding, hydraulics are for building large decks (if needed) and loading. I just factor it into the cost for the job, but the situation we have out here is different than what most of you fellas are dealing with. I have access to equipment when I need it, mostly from keeping great friends and collaborative working relationships from the past. It’s amazing what you can get done when you pool your resources on a project.
I’ve said this several times, but the outfit that Taylor, Simon & others run with, the horse-drawn forwarder, is the perfectly matched system. It is basically nothing more than a motor/manual CTL system with the teamster/faller/ horse being the harvester/pre-buncher and the horse-drawn grapple trailer being the forwarder. That said, to be truly efficient it needs to be completed like a real CTL system to be completely efficient. In other words, minimal landings and ideally, directly loading a set-out trailer. Unless you have only one sort or more than one trailer you inevitably are going to have to deck some wood until you get enough for a load of that sort. The great thing about this for a horse logger or any other type of micro-production system is that it is not trucker dependent and you are eliminating handling the wood once. First rule of logging; everytime you handle a piece of wood (without value-adding) you lose money. With the set out, it is your primary “decking” area and there is not a trucker waiting on you. When it’s full you call them up to bring you an empty and haul away the load. In anticipation of the response, “they aren’t going to let you have a trailer empty that long” the truth is there are quite a few idle trailers sitting around now, and fellas, I’ve seen several used ones for sale in the 4-9k range. Most of these trailers will hold 12-14 cds/6-7mbf. It takes a helluva’ a lot less money to maintain a trailer than a truck.
This system is more in line with the small conifer wood some folks are dealing with versus the hardwood pumpkins some of you guys are in. A minature version of this is just a 14-20k gooseneck behind a 1 ton. I used to haul a lot of wood that way, and for me when I was working small scale and alone that was just about 1 days production. I could get $350-$400 worth of post and poles on the trailer and that was a perfect amount of boot for a days production for one guy (me).
Concerning Rick’s statement a while back in this thread, I used a skid steer to load short-wood trailers with 8’s & 16’s for almost three seasons. I would build a dirt ramp on the landing, always on the cut bank (uphill) side. As I would fill up one bunk the driver would pull forward and I would load the next, and so on until the trailer was topped off. Worked well until I got a knuckleboom on site. That’s all I used when I was just pulling gooseneck loads off. Loaded many posts by hand as well, still do on small jobs, and like Taylor said, your arms feel like they are ripped out of the sockets by the end of the day. But if your smart about how you lay out your material and work with your head (unlike when I was in my 20’s & 30’s) more than your back it isn’t too bad. Hard to justify a loader when I just take a flatbed PU load of posts to town. Never was a huge fan of cross-hauling and rigging and an overhead block for loading, although I’ve had to resort to it more than a few times. It is the efficiency bug again, I’d rather be laying trees down & skidding and leave the loading to the modern aids if I am trying to realize any sort of production.
In short, if you’re production driven to any extent than hydraulics, apropriately scaled and in the right place at the right time, are a gift from god.
It is what puts the “modern” in modern horse logging.
I’m rambling, time to leave…
ParticipantWe use a lot of mastication equipment out here for fuel reduction work. It is often the cheapest way to go, especially if the timber type you’re in has negative value. I just administered a 175 acre mastication job in UGLY ponderosa pine for the County last summer. 40-45% scree covered slope, godawful nasty…
I would caution you when you put a lot of chipped/chunked material on the ground. The smaller processed material decomposes much more rapidly than natural coarse woody debris and can really suck the available nitrogen out of the ground. It can be an issue if you’re already dealing with poor soil.
- AuthorPosts