Draft Logging Research?

[Scott G]

@Carl Russell 38975 wrote:

You can choose to see it as a service that you charge for, therefore it is economic, but it really comes down to how much you care about the way you do your work, and has very little to do with what you use to do it with. If it were purely an economic activity for you, you would be cutting as many corners in harvesting as you could…… disregarding impact….. just using horses to do it.

Spot on. That is why I prefer forestry services or forestry contractor as opposed to strictly logger. If you limit your scope when bidding on a job for a private landowner to strictly logging for maximum stumpage and return, you’ll be beating your head in perpetuity. To try to run a job where the landowner’s primary concerns are to maximize stumpage payments & volume, you will not be taking your business to a level where it should be. Ecological services, with a clear definition as it applies to the job, is truly our niche. Being able to effectively enter SMZs to manage timber while adhereing to BMP standards for your specific region is but one example of that. As a forester who administers forestry contracts (no stumpage) for a public agency I can tell you that normally I don’t award to low bid. I’m looking at the big picture as to value, the financial component only being a piece of the pie, and how the applied harvesting system will not only accomplish, but prove superior, for the objectives I have that are particular to that project. Ecological integrity will always trump “financial” cost but it still does have to be somewhat competitive since our constituents are ultimately footing the bill.

Do what we do well, showcase it, demonstrate that it is not only feasible but provides the best value. Not only maintaining the ecological integrity of the stand(s) you’re working in, but enhancing them. If we as a niche harvesting system can do that, the work will sell itself.

Remember that, realistically, we are only shooting for the 2% of the customer base, not the whole. That 2% not only “gets it”, they are going to be the ones who are appreciative of the value gained for possibly more financial outlay on their part.

Rather than jumping out of the truck and immediately letting your mind start performing a mental timber inventory, question the landowner on what their primary objectives are for their forested property. Dependent upon the answer, you might be jumping back in your truck after a 5 minute conversation or opening the first page of a story involving you and the landowner in a long-term relationship.

[Scott G]

So here is a little survey to follow up on the points brought forth in this thread.

Definitions:

“Ecological Integrity”

&

“Low-Impact”

There are no right/wrong answers here. Just your personal interpretation of what those terms, defined, mean to you. This is somewhat in line with pinning down the definition of “sustainable” & “organic”.

[Carl Russell]

@Scott G 39095 wrote:

So here is a little survey to follow up on the points brought forth in this thread.

Definitions:

“Ecological Integrity”

&

“Low-Impact”

There are no right/wrong answers here. Just your personal interpretation of what those terms, defined, mean to you. This is somewhat in line with pinning down the definition of “sustainable” & “organic”.

I’ll bite…….. Geez Scott, you couldn’t offer your own choices first?:p

“Ecological Integrity” – A free association of biological constituents of any ecological community, interacting without humanistic oriented impacts.

“Low-Impact” – Big change, high impact….. little change, low impact.

I see these things as principles, ideals to aim toward. Just because we cannot clearly define these things does not excuse us from keeping them in our sights.

Carl

[Andy Carson]

I agree that these are going to be difficult to define precisely, but the concepts are still important. That said, I bet there will be a lot in common between different people’s definitions. I will be interested to see. This is how I think about these terms.

“Ecological Integrity”
Important interactions between animals and plant species occure as they would have without human intervention. In many cases, humans have intervened in a not-very-careful way and at least some ecological integrity has been lost. In these cases, returning ecological integrity quickly might involve remedial human intervention and a historical perspective. I believe an ecologically balanced system can tolerate some human intervention without disrupting important plant/animal interaction significantly and I believe this term allows for some type of human involvement. Which animal/plant interactions are deemed “important” and how much disruption of these interactions by human activity is deemed “tolerable” are difficult judgement calls.

“Low-Impact”
Human interventions that cause a small disruption of ecological integrity (see above definition). Personally, I think some draft animal interventions might be better termed “remedial” (IE improving ecological integrity) rather than just low-impact. What is “small” is obviously subjective, and “remedial” is even more subjective. Still, this is how I think of these terms.

[Rick Alger]

I’ll cast a vote for Andy’s definitions. We will never restore my area of Coos County NH to pre-European settlement conditions. Wolves and Woodland Caribou will not be walking the Appalachian trail in my lifetime.

Another term that needs scrutiny is Draft Logging.

[mitchmaine]

Absolutely andy, its totally about us. animals live in the natural world. People do not. When we enter the natural world, it is to bring back something to prop up our artificial world. Dead animals, wood, minerals, oil etc. all taken usually under conditions of high impact. Corporations, profit driven, don’t seem too concerned with the damage. Smaller groups, we included, who might believe in climate change or global warming seem more sensitive to the issues. Homesteaders, including some of us again, see the problems up closer, and in spite of what we could or are doing to deal with the problems aforementioned, are or seem to be outnumbered by the ones who work and live for money.
Northern new England, or maine for sure, seem to be full of like minded folk who live and teach by example. Much more than fifteen or twenty years ago. Its wonderful to see and hear it, and it gives me some hope for the future.

[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.

[Andy Carson]

One of the things I DON’T like about the term “low impact” is that there is an implication the activity “doesn’t make a big difference” in terms of ecological integrity. I understand this term to mean that the negative consequences of the intervention are minimized, but I don’t think this extends to potential positive consequences. The positive long term consequences might well be dramatically different that either no intervention or conventional logging. When compared this way, I believe it is best to use a term that cannot be interpreted as “doesn’t make a big difference.” This is why I like the term “remedial.” It is worth something to use a term that in more recognizable, though, and “remedial” implies that humans can have a positive effect on ecology. I believe this is sometimes true, but sometimes well intended human interventions fail to produce the intended effect. Perhaps it is best to not open that can of worms… Just thinking out loud…

[Carl Russell]

@Carl Russell 39118 wrote:

I’ll bite…….. Geez Scott, you couldn’t offer your own choices first?:p

“Ecological Integrity” – A free association of biological constituents of any ecological community, interacting without humanistic oriented impacts.

“Low-Impact” – Big change, high impact….. little change, low impact.

I see these things as principles, ideals to aim toward. Just because we cannot clearly define these things does not excuse us from keeping them in our sights.

Carl

There are significant subtleties in all of these terms. Andy you are right about the positive aspects of what we hope to accomplish, I think that is why Jason uses “Restorative” forestry, because it indicates an “increasing” or “additive” process.

Also in “low-impact” I don’t look so much at the activity to determine impact. I look more at the processes of the forest. There are many instances in our northern forest where natural events cause extreme impact, such as high wind, ice storms, floods, and insect infestations. I see these events, even though measured as high impact, as being part of the ecological integrity of the northern forest.

Low impact to me means managing my additional impact in a way that does not interfere with the ecosystem’s ability to accommodate these natural occurrences. It also means that I can mimic some of these events, evidently causing high impact, but in the context of what is naturally occurring, not a big impact.

This is compared to clear-cutting, or significant stocking reduction as a landscape-wide application. Another example is maintaining even-aged distributions in species and on landscapes where there are very few naturally occurring examples. Or mono-culturing. Or whole-tree harvest.

I see this last list as causing high impact because they inherently ignore basic components of the forest ecosystem. Trees still grow, deer still run through the woods, berries still grow on bushes, but the ecosystem is held at bay, unable to express itself in natural terms.

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.

Carl

[Andy Carson]

I like the term “restorative.” Do you dislike this term, Carl? I think you can understand why some people (including myself) think it more directly expresses the concept.

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 39164 wrote:

I like the term “restorative.” Do you dislike this term, Carl? I think you can understand why some people (including myself) think it more directly expresses the concept.

No, I am totally on-board with it. I just use low-impact also, especially in discussions with others, because it seems to be the more commonly used term.

As you can probably tell, I don’t go far with definitions……:rolleyes: I know a lot about what I do, and I feel comfortable with that. I’ll do it all day, for the rest of my life, and not care how anyone defines it.

I see these discussions less about refining defining terms, and more about closing in on shared understanding.

Jason is a master at slogan-izing; Draftwood, worst-first, restorative forestry.

These are all important things to differentiate, but I am, personally, much more focused on the process, the act, the art……

Carl

[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.

[mitchmaine]

language is great. i love it. communicating with someone else, especially in text alone can be tricky, but great as well, when you connect.
in the end, your work has to speak for itself. all the words in the world can’t help a botched job.

[Carl Russell]

@mitchmaine 39168 wrote:

….in the end, your work has to speak for itself. all the words in the world can’t help a botched job.

Amen to that!!!

I just want to revisit the Qualitative vs. Quantitative discussion.

I think it is important to distinguish between making claims that need to be verified to substantiate an economic transaction, or business model, or regulatory policy, etc., and those that support individual lifestyle choices and personal commitments.

I realize that many people need to have numerical data to substantiate commitment to cultural changes, but things can to get way out of hand….

For example now in Vermont Legislators are realizing we will be facing substantial financial short-falls in a few years because we are driving less, and using fuel-efficient cars, so fuel tax revenues are declining……. Imagine that? Now we have arguments that green policies actually degrade our economy, so we should look very closely at those types of decisions as we move forward…..:mad: No…. I’m serious.

I made a comment on a conservative talk show a few weeks ago in regard to arguments about the merits of renewable vs. nuclear energy. My comment was we need to consider conservation as our first source of renewable energy…..stop using so much electricity, stop buying appliances that provide outcomes that are discretionary…..turn off street lights, xmas lights, etc…… make a stand as communities to reduce frivolous energy expenditures. I was told these are admirable goals, but they stifle the economy, stop buying coffee makers, and someone loses a job……

I have made a commitment in my life, not just to come up with a business model that can be replicated, but to practice these principles of ecological integrity and low impact as a wholesome solution toward a sustainable dependency on my environment, and as a set of habits, skills, and related techniques attached to a land management program so that my descendents will have something to work with in the future. Granted, I came from a lifetime exposure, including formal education, that helped me to validate the choices I made nearly 30 years ago, but I just knew (felt) that it was what I HAD to do, and I had to do it then.

At this point, partly because of my choosing, but mostly in response to outside interest, I have come into a lime-light where folks, (as many as 10/month) contact me looking for guidance. Some of the fall-out is represented in the concerns expressed by others in this thread, because it seems like there is a doctrine that I am professing. Part of me wants to find ways to substantiate these choices, because I realize those needs are legitimate for many people, but a bigger part of me just doesn’t believe “we” have time.

Like Scott says, the actual percentage of potential clients is miniscule. I have felt for years that it was more important for me to practice what I preach, than to try to sell it. As much as I want to see folks who own land make better choices, what I really want to see is better stewardship from folks who work their own land. Yesterday I walked a woodlot with a father and son who want to do just that. They may not do everything the way I would do it, but the mistakes they make will be investments in how they will improve as they go forward.

At the same time, I spent time at the State House 2 days ago and had the fortune to speak with one of the wealthiest people in Vermont. She is a strong funder of environmental and land-use programs, and is on the Board of Advisers for the school of Environment and Natural Resources at UVM…… where I go on the 31st to discuss these issues.

While there, I also spoke at length with another forester who has over 20 years of experience with FSC and Smartwood certification. We shared concerns about the disconnect between ecological forestry principles, and the economic realities of modern timber harvest, and I passed along a link to Draftwood for him to review.

I feel pressure building. Landowners want to know more, horseloggers want work, foresters want to find horseloggers or to get into themselves, schools are teaching these concepts and skills, but the pieces are not pulled together yet. Right now there is more interest from each direction then there is ability to respond. This is frustrating. People lose interst when they can’t find a horselogger who has skills to practice low-impact forestry. People lose interest when they can’t find a horselogger to train with, or to get experience using horses. People lose interest when they start horselogging and find that no foresters can give them work that makes economic sense.

Something has go to give. I feel like this is the time. I feel like we need to bridge these gaps in ways that best approximate what we are trying to achieve. This is what I want to be working on; finding people who understand the importance of this cultural growth, who are willing to take a stand, make a financial stake, work toward organization, support further study, and get us on to the next level of changing the way we relate to our environment.

I think we have enough people with enough common understanding that we can get under steam using what we already have available to us.

Remember what Minckler wrote in his book, Woodland Ecology, Environmental Forestry for the Small Owner, in 1975..

…..We must take action to save our Earth of life and beauty, and we must do it soon.
“Soon” is not quite too late. We can still save much of the beauty and usefulness of forests, wildlife, and waters so characteristic of this Earth. Judged by past experience, however, Man will wait until his back is against the wall. ……. The younger generations and all concerned people will have to make the choice and take the action. ……. We must understand that the old methods no longer work in this present world. If we fight for ever-increasing material abundance we will destroy our uniquely beautiful environment and, eventually, our species. The choice is ours. The goal is vital. With total dedication the attainment is barely possible…..

He isn’t calling for study and quantification….. he calls on us to look at our moral compasses, and to take action.

The goal is vital, Carl

[Baystatetom]

I have been thinking a lot about terminology lately myself. As in how do I sell my services. I think I am going to go with “Eco Friendly Timber Harvesting”. Excuse my mix of thoughts here but to hit a few topics, Carl people go to you because you are so well spoken. I think we feel many of the same things but I could never express myself the way you do. Sorry its a burden for you but I for one am glad somebody can talk more intelligently about these topics.
On to the next topic, I was working with another forester friend the other day whom I have had extensive talks with about draft powered logging. We were marking a mature pine stand for a skidder crew and he says to me “you can leave the big ones if you want, the landowner is only doing this because I really pressured them that it was time, they don’t care about making money off it”. Well what the hell! Why am I not ox logging half as many stems per acre. The answer is I can’t make my coworkers look outside the box. I typically blame the landowner for being greedy and only wanting to make the most $, but this was defiantly a case where the forester was to blame. I came home and started crunching numbers to see if I could make it on my own. Unfortunately I still need to administer timber sales to the machine guys.
~Tom

[Author]

Posts