Hybridized Timber Harvest – Horses and Fowarder

[Andy Carson]

Simon, are you talking about this??? I really like this design, so simple, yet it seems it would be so effective and cheap to build. Better than a ramp and winch for sure.

[simon lenihan]

yes that is the wire crane forwarder in the picture. The back wheels are bogie and the front has an ackman type axle which means it can ride over stumps and the load stays level. There is a pin under each bolster which when pulled will drop the bolsters at the opposite side making it safe to unload. There is also a ram connected to the front axle which locks the frame when loading. I have taken close up pics of all the forwarder but can not seem to locate them on my computor. When i find them i will post them on here.
simon lenihan

[Baystatetom]

PhilG I hear what you are saying. I have spent the last two years working from Dec 1st clear through Feb 28th on only projects funded by NRCS. It has been great to know that money is there, but I probably would have been just fine without it as well. I am not sure the goverment should pay landowners to do the work that a good steward of the land should have done anyway, but hopefully it got better forestry done on a few properties and helped keep loggers working when they would have been idle. I would hate to count on it long term though. That type of founding can be here then gone pretty quick. Not to mention it adds another layer of bureaucracy.

I like the looks of that wire crane forwarder, but I think in most cases around here anyway the up and down terrain would still mean a tractor had to be on it more then the animals.

[simon lenihan]

single wire crane / 8 wheel bogie / grapple loader
simon lenihan

[Carl Russell]

@PhilG 28901 wrote:

Why is there government intervention into the free market of forest management ? I would rather my tax dollars go to paying for education, dept or any number of things other than a small percent of a rich land owners management bill. …..

Phil, as a rule I stay away from Gpv’t programs. I know that at their root there is some stimulus directed at economy, and supposedly at stewardship as well. I believe that stewardship that is handed out by the Gov’t falls very short of stewardship that is the foundation of a personal objective of land ownership.

The current situation is that, as George says, the money is there. NRCS is pushing the money, because if it doesn’t get spent, they won’t get any more. The funds are truly directed at land-use issues that are typically considered secondary for folks who are trying to make money from their land. For example if the LO is having logging done because they want to help pay taxes, then in most cases they are less inclined to see some of that income directed toward conservation measures.

In this case the LO was so concerned about finding ways to offset our costs (last summer we worked at reduced rates as log prices were down, and we were just trying to figure out some of the value issues of our operation). These funds are dedicated to creating large patch-cut openings in the woodlands to benefit birds. During the harvest last year I had created a patch-work of small openings, 1/10 – 1/4 acre in size ( my own aesthetic ecological take on this type of habitat) and the LO thought that these funds would be easy to get, and would bring in some extra income for us. There is no question about her personal commitment to stewardship.

I have mixed feeling about it. I was already on the track toward developing the prescribed habitat, but it did require a lot of non-commercial work to take it the rest of the way. I’m not sure I would actually want to replicate that size opening in my typical management… 2 acres is a big hole, but the wildlife specialists say this is important. There is no doubt that the compensation is more than it cost us/LO, but in this case I think it went to the purpose it was intended.

This is a huge issue really though. The cost of maintaining ecological services is something that we are all going to have to deal with somehow. If the market continues to put the squeeze the forestry product, it will be a perpetual problem for LO’s to be able to afford to implement conservation measures. In that regard, I am not totally opposed to the NRCS programs.

Carl

[near horse]

There’s a lot more going on than just the govt throwing money at folks. For many, not necessarily Carl’s recent client, timber mgmt is more timber harvest to pay my property taxes, fund my vacation, buy my new pickup/4wheeler/snowmachine AND ends up a show me the money now proposal. Out here it is the rare individual who wants any longer term stand mgmt – it’s cut it all down now. it will eventually grow back in someone else’s lifetime. Plus, many feel like they’re doing something for their friends and neighbors who run those skitters and feller-bunchers by providing work.

So my point is, the govt programs (WHIP, HIP, FIP and EQUIP etc) are financial incentives to draw folks toward various alternative mgmt ideas. Sure- I see it get abused and utilized by LO who could afford to pay the whole cost out of pocket but the point was to change the practice.

Lastly, if you don’t think those larger commercial logging businesses have the ear of the Forest Service, Dept of Lands, BLM …. you’re kidding yourself. They carry a lot of clout around here.

[Andy Carson]

@Baystatetom 28904 wrote:

I like the looks of that wire crane forwarder, but I think in most cases around here anyway the up and down terrain would still mean a tractor had to be on it more then the animals.

Can alone give me a general idea of what kind of slopes we are talking about here? Both the percent grade and the length would be wonderful info to have, if anyone knows… Also, does anyone know what a minimum load might be for the forward to be practical? I might have some creative ideas about these hills, but want to run some numbers to see if any are actually feasable…

And yes, I know there probably greater challanges in terms of manpower and logistics here, but I like to think about the technology aspect.

[Scott G]

Phil, you have me fired up and approaching pissed off…

As someone who has spent well over two decades making their living in Colorado from forestry and rapidly approaching a half-century living in this State; I disagree.

If you are still living in the Ridgeway/Telluride area you should know the situation…

Intermountain Lumber, the last large mill in Colorado, is in receivership because it couldn’t make it with the hurdles that we currently face. Delta Lumber, Gary & Linda Sorensen’s family mill is in dire straits. We have the unfortunate combination of an unfathomable dump of beetle-kill coupled with an economy/lumber demand that is in the tank. Also, most of the material that is masticated on these projects does not have a market of any appreciable scale. We are not “blessed” with a pulp market out here. If you can’t sell all of your POL for firewood locally you are pretty much screwed. We are starting to get some small district biomass heating demand (which is a major part of my professional career) but presently is insignificant. Between two facilities, I only need 3,200 tons a year; which when you are generating 40-60T/acre, is inconsequential in the big picture of the State.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of bringing everything back local; take the mill to the woods and not vice-versa.

A majority of the folks from the CSFS have been dear friends & colleagues of mine for a very, very, long time. The Colorado State Forest Service is one organization that truly has the health and sustainability of the State’s forest resources as it’s primary goal.

The need to throw money at forest management in this State is for the reasons I just mentioned. Nothing would make the foresters in Colorado, including myself, more happy than to have truly viable markets of scale to accomplish the type of forest management we would all like to see accomplished without government subsidy. The cold reality is that it is just not there…

In order to currently pay for forest management & fuels reduction at a landscape scale in this State, we have to throw some money at it. Hopefully that will change in the not so distant future, but currently that is not the case.

If you want a true picture of the timber market in Colorado, contact Tim Reader out of the Durango district. He is the utilization and marketing forester for the CSFS & a damn good friend of mine. Within a very short span of time through conversation the picture will be painted. There are solutions but they require participation above & beyond. Are you game?

I’ll be at Troyer’s auction at the end of the month. If you are there, call me at 970-217-9692. We could talk face to face re: the present day realities of forestry in Colorado…

[PhilG]

Scott, know you got me riled up ! The government if it had a 1/4 of a brain would have put biomass burning units in every possible building that needs heat in this state ten years ago when they saw this disaster coming down the pipe, the money’s that would have bean spent on that would have been for a permanent piece of equipment, then there would be a viable market for millions of tons of wood for years to come. There are hole towns in Canada run on biomass, and with all this dead wood here what is thee not a pulp mill? AWhen think intermountain had some internal issues that brought them into the mess mess there in, Delta
Timber is buying and sawing all the spruce they can get there hands on and I don’t know if you have driven by there lately but they are cranking out the wood! I had some conversations about the use of the new jd biomass harvester with my local state dudes and they lafed in my face and said if I want to make any money with them to buy a hydro ax, I even said I do their piñon clearing at Ridgway state park for FREE so I could use it for firewood, do you think they went for that ? No ! I had hundreds of conversations 10’years ago when the beattles were moving in, but I guess the they had it all under control and didn’t need my help, I said get it out before it spreads what did they do? Buck it into fire wood length and put plastic tarps on it, really? The big steam boat blow down about ten years ago, i got a few beautiful loads out of that and then they shut it down to be ” natural” and then I shipped a couple hundred loads down from Montana , that’s great for the environment . We had a couple hundred loads up in the flat tops get tied up so long the wood borers turned 18″ house logs into Swiss cheese, sorry if my faith is not in the government workers but I could go on all day about waist and mismanage ment

OWhen I look for standing house logs the have to be standing at least five years dead some stands are still very usable at ten years dead,

[PhilG]

( should this be moved to politics ?)
I would like to know if they have a management plan for dead stands of timber? Why just cut it all down now if it could be marketed as the economy turns around ? Close to towns and houses is one thing but what about the rest?
Also, I have worked a lot in northern co
The last 4 years, it is horribly depressing the state of things up there, I think most people on this forum really have know idea the extent of the devastation , so I would agree that your View on how things need a little help ar more then justified, but that is the exception and should not be the norm. Down south we still have green forests for the most part, spruce beetles are hitting hard in some areas, Aspen trees
Are falling off and there is some ips beetles in the piñon but it is a fraction of up north, I hope they have a good management plan in place for the south, unwound hate to see the hole state brown. I will try to hook up with Tim this fall and you at the auction because this craps
Got to end, we need a hundred crews like what Carl is describing and every school, court house, and DMV in the state running on clean burning renewable local fuel !

[Tim Harrigan]

It seems pretty fashionable in some quarters now to say “just let the market work without interference”, but generally markets do not work well in allocating natural and environmental resources. It is because in some sense they are common property such as water quantity or quality, or air quality, which is the property of all but the responsibility of no one individual. So if forest land is abused by over cutting or clear cutting for instance there can be external costs to society related to erosion, sedimentation of waterways etc., or just the damage to the viewscape that society pays, even though the landowner reaps all the economic benefits. So well managed forests, even ones that are privately owned, in some ways are public goods in the sense that they can provide flood control benefits, etc. to everyone downstream weather or not they pay for them. If we rely on conscience, or doing the right thing as Phil seems to suggest, that is fine as long as everyone shares the same values and is willing to acknowledge the common good, but it seems pretty clear that is not the case, and in fact, that approach favors selfish individuals and short-term greed. So as many have explained here, the various programs to pay landowners to act in the best interest of all may not be as efficient as we would like, but I am happy to contribute tax dollars to that effort.

What Carl and others are doing is important and has potentially lasting benefits now and into the future. I encourage them to consider the use of NRCS funds to help landowners, foresters and timber cutters get on board. This approach asks them to understand and value many aspects of the forests that do not provide short-term economic benefits. It does not help pay the bills so if there are alternative ways to offset those ‘losses’ it would be good use of those funds.

There are also other ‘losses’ to Carl, Jason, Scott and others that put energy into developing this holistic view of the forest and the services they provide. That is that the landowners have to understand the implications of their choices and what options or alternatives they have, particularly in this case where the option presented can be seen as radical. The ‘loss’ that they experience is the loss of income related to providing education and building the awareness of landowners and foresters regarding alternative management options. There are issues of protecting the environment, building a skilled force of local labor capable of employing low-impact, draft animal extraction techniques and adding value to forest products, building the capacity of the community and having an impact much greater than logging a tract and hauling the logs to the mill every 10 years or so.

So I hope that these loggers who believe in the common good consider looking not only for funding support from NRCS, but from other foundations and granting agencies that share their goals and values. This approach to managing forest resources requires enlightened landowers and others to drive the process. There are ways to help cover the cost of developing and delivering that education and building the awareness, I hope the opportunities can be uncovered and developed.

As Carl mentioned, Jason Rutledge has been a leader in this effort for many years, I hope he can find time to comment after the dust settles from the draft animal power show that he organized for this weekend in VA.

[Michael Colby]

Well said, Tim. I recently filled out the NRCS paperwork for a client of mine in the Northeast Kingdom. The deadline in Vermont was September 1st. It’s not going to make me or my client rich but it’s going to allow me to do things for them that would otherwise be ignored due to cost — apple tree release, brush/thicket management, etc. It’s too bad the federal money we’ll be getting won’t be taken out of the defense budget. 🙂

[PhilG]

Tim
I think you totally missed my point, I agree 100percent that many things are for the good of every one I just feel that most things can be handled on a personal or local level with great success , greedy opportunistic people will always be around and everybody has their special interest that they feel tax’s should be spent on, the problem is that when you accomidate every one we run out of money like we have over the past several years. I too would rather pay for forest manage ment than bombs . In can not speak for your forest and water
Issues back there but here in the west I feel things have and are severely mis managed and extremely wasteful . I have never had to cut down alive tree in my life ( only 18 years of cutting ) our management issues are day and night yours, I’m could have got a harvester and skidder years ago like people i worked with did but instead I limp along with a horse skidd steer and pickup truck probably making less than you guys because softwood is not worth much. When we clear around houses we get payed by the home owner or the association , I personally am ok with lacking less and doing it with as little diesel as possible and using crap wood for fire wood and heat, I am not ok with just hydro axing or chipping everything when it could be useful to people I think that is waistfull and selfish, that’s just my way of looking at it but it is polar opposite of what my local othoreties are doing, they hydro ax and chip almost every thing and I don’t Want my children tompay for that. I was hoping the new clean air bill would be past, that they wouldn’t let the wolves kill off all the elk and moose, that green energy jobs would stimulate the economy instead we have mismanagement, greed and selfishness just like you pointed out

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 28913 wrote:

Can alone give me a general idea of what kind of slopes we are talking about here? Both the percent grade and the length would be wonderful info to have, if anyone knows… Also, does anyone know what a minimum load might be for the forward to be practical? I might have some creative ideas about these hills, but want to run some numbers to see if any are actually feasable…

And yes, I know there probably greater challanges in terms of manpower and logistics here, but I like to think about the technology aspect.

Andy, the lot we are working on is located on a hillside that is located along a narrow valley with steep slopes. We are landing logs beside the town road at the bottom of the valley next to the brook. We are cutting logs at the height of land nearly 3/4 mile away. There is about a 300-350 foot rise in elevation. There are a few places where the trail cuts along the contour with pretty reasonable slope, which means in other areas it can be 20-30%, with one very steep pitch of 60-70% for about 50 feet. This is all empty going back into the woods.

There is no doubt that a good team can handle hauling a load, especially on wheels, up a trail like that. It just takes time to manage that kind of exertion, which impacts the work flow in the woods. I was hauling logs earlier this summer from a section about .4 miles from the landing with my bobsled. We had one chopper, a team twitching, and my team bobbing. I could haul out about 6 loads a day, 3-400bf each, but in 80º weather it knocked them pretty hard. If it had just been a chopper with a skid horse, I think the cadence would have been a bit easier.

As far as hauling a forwarder, I think the ones you and Simon have posted, would be pretty easy, and if they had brakes would work well. I’m not sure that horses forwarding wood that distance and slope, even with the light forwarder, would want to be taking wood from more than a chopper and a skid horse. If there was a third person to chop, swamp, and help load, they could probably find stuff to do when the wood started to bottleneck in the woods.

Carl

[near horse]

I think we are having 2 distinct and equally valuable discussions within this thread and I’m not sure how or if I can separate each into its own thread.

Do you think we might be suffering from the lack of reaching a critical mass w/ regard to sustainable logging and forest management/planning? Kind of like an action potential in physiology – you have to reach a certain threshold after which things proceed w/o added input. So how do we reach that threshold? I do understand that Jason, Carl and others are working diligently at presenting and promoting this practice – anything else we can do?

[Author]

Posts