What is "appropriate technology"?

[Scott G]

This seems to be an issue that recently keeps surfacing and has the potential to be divisive if we don’t address it. 1) What is appropriate technology and what room is there for it in our culture/profession, and 2) Is there a limit to what is acceptable to the group for integrating draft animal power into other harvesting systems or in turn having practitioners own operations enhanced by it?

Examples:

The “modern” log arch is a big improvement over previous mechanical advantages. We embrace rubber tires as opposed to steel wheels, other groups do not.

Most horse/mule loggers have no problem having a self loader haul their logs. Many have loaders on their landings to deck, sort, and load.

Is there a difference in using a forwarder to collect pre-bunches brought trailside by horses if that operation is carried out in a low-impact manner?

Is there an issue for using animals where they really shine in small diameter material pre-bunching for a motor-manual CTL system when that combination of harvesting systems has been one of the best impressions of us for the rest of the conventional forestry world?

As Gregg mentioned, pre-bunching for helicopter yarding systems to increase the efficiency and decrease the cost of both? This is exactly what I/we are contemplating out here for clearing bark beetle mortality from high voltage transmission lines that cross designated roadless areas.

To be used for integrating the strengths of our system with any other system if we achieve superior results as measured by all parameters?

Sorry for putting this forth in the context of forest engineering, but being someone who deals with conventional forest management and my contemporary peers everyday, these are the questions and opportunities that will take our harvesting system to the next level. It sounds as though among several horse/mule loggers there is a desire to work beyond small parcels while staying in a conventional log market.

Let’s keep it civil and productive. Now I return to the shovel and appropriate snow removal technology…

[Gabe Ayers]

Oh Geez guys, I am not wanting to be divisive. I hope I can get this posted before it disappears again. I wrote on this the other night in response to John’s post and the computer crashed before I could hit submit.

I am not against “appropriate technology”, which is this case is a euphemism for machines – fossil fuel fired machines. I drive a truck to and from work, load with a knuckleboom and haul with a truck, use a forwarder often – with all logs and wood that was cut with a machine (chainsaw), all fossil fuel fired.

My point and this is my only point – on this subject is that the phrase will compromise much of the purity of our efforts. We all know we can’t operate without it nor do we want do given the poor markets for our services and goods produced. I was just suggesting not including that phrase in our wording because it will come back to haunt us in the future when folks dismiss our efforts as not about animal powered forestry.

For instance, write a grant to the National Center for “Appropriate Technology” and ask them for support to train folks to work with animals in the forest and you will be told it is not an appropriate technology and is heritage based historical technique not appropriate for the future. We know they are wrong, so we don’t want to invite criticism by using a phrase that allows someone to lessen the quality of our efforts as those efforts relate to animal power being truly appropriate as all the power needed to accomplish many of the tasks of forest products harvesting.

This is only semantics maybe and it is only my opinion and it is up to the group as a whole to decide how to word our mission, goals and objectives.

I hope we can get on to other things now that it is clear I am not opposed to the use of fossil fuel machines, heck – we all have a responsibility to do our own part to run it out as quick as possible… I know I do my part. Now I’m off to ride the fire from our mother’s guts to town to buy salt, sugar and more bullets….weekly routine with the old lady, y’all know where it’s at….

Good work as usual Scott, keep it up.

What’s next?

Sincerely,

[cousin jack]

I’m fairly new to this and I was proud of how I built the piles in the first picture,I did this by hand with a peavey and bearers, on my own, but by using the equipment in the second picture, I could go higher and make more use of space at the landing, (picture three), without giving myself a rupture, appropiate technology or am I a traitor to the cause. Of course, people will look at the first picture and say, “well you did it, did’nt you”, but I know there were moments when I was on the limit, I like to think I’m fairly fit and in good health but it would only be a matter of time before something gave way, and I’m fairly certain it would’nt of been the timber.

[Carl Russell]

I agree with Jason. It will be more divisive if we include such a statement because then we will have to define it, and adhere to that definition. Having bunched for skidders, crawlers, forwarders, and even skidded from a crawler bunching for me, I can appreciate the intent of the statement.

I think if we concentrate on the crux of our effort, Draft Animal Powered Forestry, then we will have our greatest effect. I can see that somehow encouraging the development of certain types of equipment that may be more facilitative to the use of animals, ie walking beam arches, or multi-purpose skidding tools, might be close to that objective, but the lines are murky when we try to define what is truely “appropriate”.

Just so you all know, I have never owned a tractor or other such conveyance. I have logged with bob-sled, scoot, and forecart, almost exclusively, and I have stacked hundreds of thousands of board feet, and hundreds of cords, by hand. For me the choice was not as much “appropriateness” due to the relationship to working animals, as much as my own personal financial calculation. (I’ll also say that I thrive on significant physical exertion)

So anyway my point is that what is “appropriate” to me may be ludicrous to another. I think we should collect the mission of this group to not be about who is in because of how they do what they do, but rather how we all can be in because of a few core deatils that bind us all together.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I would like to suggest that we all try to pitch in on this discussion. The lack of response may indicate agreement, but it also might mean no one has had the time to respond.

I would feel a lot better about using this medium for making decisions if we just agree that everyone in this group needs to at least throw in a yep, or a nope.

This is not something that we have talked about yet, but it seems right that we should set up some mechanism so that we can be sure that we have gotten some consensus on an issue before we move on. I don’t like rigidity, but it might be plausible that we agree to all weigh in on a question, so that even if it is just a whole lot of agreement, at least we can see that.

What do you think?? And if you take the time to answer me, make a statement about “appropriate technology” while you’re at it.:D

Carl

[lancek]

This is the only way to realy get the ball rolling,with out haveing finger poiting later on down the road! I think we all have busy secduals but if we have enough time to look at these post it certanly dosnt take that much longer to type a yea or nea
As far as appropriate tec. I think that one should incoperate any tec that allows you to handle the job effichantly and safely we have a quater mile skid to the road on the job I am working now and I have to use my truck to haul the logs from the woods to the landing [Woods are land locked ] even with a swedish HD forwarder it would be hard to make any money,going that far so we load the truck at the edge of the woods and dump it at the road side landing for the picker truck to load and haul to the mill. I can get four cords on my dump bed !

[john plowden]

while working away this week the tractor drawn forwarder got stuck – the ground was rough and wetter than anticipated – so… unload, use single horse on arch to haul out to road , use single horse woods wagon to haul to landing then use tractor drawn forwarder toto final site –
We all use what we use ’cause it works for us –
John

[Jim Ostergard]

Thought I had participated here but think it was another thread. Anyway, I think, “appropriate,” should be left out. If we are reaching out to folks lets keep it as inclusive as possible. Folks with similar uses of animals and or equipment will find each other. The point is lets get everybody in and sharing.
For me, as stated earlier I need the loader in the yard. Just cannot stack the wood like I did before. And I need the time saved to get in to market and get my check.
I worked with John last week chopping and the combination of horse, mule and tractor power got a lot of wood down and out to a distant landing pretty efficiently.
So for now lets leave the word, “appropriate” out.
Jimbojim

[john plowden]

I think that if you want to be inclusive one would include as many aspects as possible – Using the word “appropriate” may draw some folks in to find out just what it means-
I don’t want to dwell on it as an issue of the group mission –
John

[Scott G]

@Carl Russell 12427 wrote:

This is not something that we have talked about yet, but it seems right that we should set up some mechanism so that we can be sure that we have gotten some consensus on an issue before we move on. I don’t like rigidity, but it might be plausible that we agree to all weigh in on a question, so that even if it is just a whole lot of agreement, at least we can see that.

Carl

Carl,
Even with the “Bumpus” adventure wearing thin on me; what about using the poll tool with an end date?

Thanks everyone for the increased input, it keeps my enthusiasm up.

[Carl Russell]

Yes we could use the poll feature, but I like to see people’s comments, not just a straight vote. I’m sure if you used the poll feature it would be a simple way to compile results of choices, but it won’t help us to ensure that we get as much involvement as possible. I think by having to post, it gives us a chance to see who we have heard from.

I didn’t mean to to suggest that encouraging the use and development of equipment that facilitates the use of draft animals in forestry would not be part of our goal. It should be an important part of what we do. I just think that including it in a mission statement in such terms will be problematic.
Perhaps it would make sense to just rephrase that portion of the goals to be more specific to that intent.

Carl

[Author]

Posts