95" DBH+084+60" bar=KABOOM

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
sotc said:
very cool! why didnt you do it burn? as it was going over the road anyway? did it damage the road? how much did that one tree cost?
Click to expand...

If the situation was that we only had that one hazard tree to remove then I would have done it myself. And when we identify a specific imminent hazard tree at any time then I'm the guy doing the falling.

But we have a significant hazard tree removal program going now on the Mt. Hood NF; this is the third seperate contract we've let this operating season and on average we've had about 1200 trees per contract to be removed, doing as complete a survey for them on some of our major travel routes as we can and cleaning those miles out. There's no way I could handle +3500 trees in house. That number is totally budget driven...if we had the appropriated dollars for it we have a far greater need than this...it's a long term effort, with never a true end.

So this one big tree was part of a bid on 1015 trees that this contractor is in the process of removing. I just helped out a bit, with advice and formal loan of specialized equipment :).

No damage to the road...the part of the tree that hit was pretty punky, and it hit pretty flat.

You guys will have a hard time swallowing the price for falling that tree...the contract was bid on a per tree basis. We did a thorough site visit with all potential bidders looking at the range of sizes and complexity prior to taking bids. The award went for $38 per tree. So that's what was earned for that one tree. Sounds insanely cheap, eh? Of course, he earned $38 for the 65 foot, 16" dbh tree next in line down the road, too. He has to clear one off the road occasionally, but no removal from the site. And remember, that tree took less than 30 minutes to put on the ground all together, longer than most by far.

The operation has two state-certified flaggers, the faller, and the owner/operator of the 220 excavator (who is the contractor) on site full time.

I am not privy to Leonard's specific costs, but I can guess pretty close...the two flagger's cost to him is about $200/day each, the sawyer is about $500, fuel and oil and supplies no more than $200. Danny is getting 50 to 60 trees a day, so for an outlay of $1100 Leonard is earning $1900 to $2300 per day, leaving $800 to $1200 per day for himself and his excavator. That's not bad money, especially with things the way they are these days.
 
lumberjack said:
Stig woulda had that down with a 24" bar on a 441.

.
Click to expand...

As hollow as that tree was, that would certainly have been possible!

Burnham, when you subcontract jobs like that out, are the contractors tied hand and foot with a whole bunch of " can't do this and can't do that" bull.
Everytime we work for the forest service here, most of the pages in the contract are filled with things we can't do, right down to the kind of chainlube we have to use ( biodegrdable, of course) and the max pressure pr. square foot of soil our vehicles can excert.
It gets to be a little too much, sometimes.
I just won a big (4000 kubic meters) logging contract, that'll see me through the winter, there were 14 full A4 pages of " can't do!"
 
That's huge Stig. If I did my math and comversions properly, that figures to 1,648,000 Board Feet?
 
I can't work those board feet out for the life of me!
It translates to all the trees 3 guys can fall and buck in about 2½ months of solid work. I have 2 other smaller contracts, so We'll make it through the winter and spring with no worries.

The financial crisis hit the logging industry hard here, and very suddenly, too.
We were doing fine, and then about a month ago,all of a sudden it totally dried up. I have really had to scramble to make a living these last 3 weeks, since residential work has dried up, too.
My last chance of making it without having to fire anyone, was this job. I bid on it 1½ months ago and they were supposed to open the envelopes 2 weeks ago. Then there was some controversy about several companies not actually being qualified to do the work, so the whole thing was held up for a week.
I didn't sleep too much that week!!!
Then last friday, I got a phone call: We won the bid.
So now I'm a happy little logger again.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
stig said:
As hollow as that tree was, that would certainly have been possible!

Burnham, when you subcontract jobs like that out, are the contractors tied hand and foot with a whole bunch of " can't do this and can't do that" bull.
Everytime we work for the forest service here, most of the pages in the contract are filled with things we can't do, right down to the kind of chainlube we have to use ( biodegrdable, of course) and the max pressure pr. square foot of soil our vehicles can excert.
It gets to be a little too much, sometimes.
I just won a big (4000 kubic meters) logging contract, that'll see me through the winter, there were 14 full A4 pages of " can't do!"
Click to expand...

But of course, Stig...after all, it's a federal government contract :cry:.

Believe it or not, a lot of the restrictions are not based on what the US Forest Service feels are needed to protect the forest and it's resources, but rather based on the results of a long string of lawsuits filed against our activities by urban-based environmentalists. We either play by the rules that the judges have laid out for us, based on the laws our elected officials passed in Congress, or we go home. That's the landscape we occupy.

One aspect of my job as a COR (Contracting Officer's Representative) is to find the narrow space between the "can't do" and the "accomplish the work" within the contract language, the law, and the reality of working on the ground. No one wants to see damage to our valuable natural resources...I just try to figure out where the wiggle room is to get it done so the objectives are met and the contractor makes some money.

Rules governing logging operations are exceedingly prescriptive, and road repair work gets that way too if you need to get off the existing road prism with equipment.
 
We contractors don't want to see damage to natural resourses either, or as is more often the case here, to historical artifacts.
Sometimes here I think political correctness gets in the way.
One example: Odsherred Statsskovdistrikt ( Ods shire state forest distrikt.......see, danish is easy!!) has forbidden their workers the use of aerosol spraypaint even outdoors, because of the fumes.
As a result all the trees marked for felling are marked with an oldfashioned u-shaped knife, that cuts a line of bark off.
That is simply impossible to see at any distance, so to get an overview of the area to be select cut, I have to Spraypaint the trees myself.
Apparently the fumes aren't hurtful to contractors, because they don't care that we use spraypaint.
A lot of the rules, like those concerning the height of stumps, or damage to standing trees, watersheds etc. make sense,there are a lot of not very conscientious contractors out there, but every year it seems like the amount of BS regulations grows.


Maybe I'm just being grumpy today, after filling out forms for hours, once I get to the actual logging part, I'll feel better.
 
Last edited:
Burnham said:
But of course, Stig...after all, it's a federal government contract :cry:.

Believe it or not, a lot of the restrictions are not based on what the US Forest Service feels are needed to protect the forest and it's resources, but rather based on the results of a long string of lawsuits filed against our activities by urban-based environmentalists. We either play by the rules that the judges have laid out for us, based on the laws our elected officials passed in Congress, or we go home. That's the landscape we occupy.

One aspect of my job as a COR (Contracting Officer's Representative) is to find the narrow space between the "can't do" and the "accomplish the work" within the contract language, the law, and the reality of working on the ground. No one wants to see damage to our valuable natural resources...I just try to figure out where the wiggle room is to get it done so the objectives are met and the contractor makes some money.

Rules governing logging operations are exceedingly prescriptive, and road repair work gets that way too if you need to get off the existing road prism with equipment.
Click to expand...


Well said.
 
:O WOW! The only thing I've ever cut that was close to that big was with a crosscut in the Norse Peak Wilderness Area. A 084 with 60" bar probably makes this a lot easier. Looks like fun!
 
This is the biggest dead fir I've done to date. Took over five hours to get the rigging set and face it up and crank it over with the GRCS and a 3:1.
 

Attachments

  • 2007 pics 078.jpg
    2007 pics 078.jpg
    992.5 KB · Views: 67
Maybe its a european thing but I would have used a 395 with a 28" bar to drop that tree quite happily. In fact, I rarely use the 088 / 3120 for felling, more for just crosscutting and quartering big logs.


Nice pics Burnham, and nice pics Dave.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #47
I agree that it is a European/USA difference, Ed. One big reason we use long bars out here in the PNW is that the steepness of the ground really can inhibit working all around the tree base. If you need to stay on one side of the tree for most of the felling work, long reach helps a lot. Full wrap handles, too.

Not a factor in the tree in my pics, but frequently enough to generate the customary use of the long bar.

We just don't get taught the technique like you do.
 
Last edited:
After knocking the bark and sapwood off it went from just over 74" to just under 60". Quite a ways for a guy to cut when doubling up on a dead tree with backlean. The 660 with a 42" was a lot less fussing around. Often when using long bars we start cuts with a saw with a 28" or a 32" anyways. different strokes. Sometimes nice to not have to go pokin around with the tip wondering if all the wood is cut up.
 

Attachments

  • 2007 pics 058.jpg
    2007 pics 058.jpg
    226.5 KB · Views: 51
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #49
Oh, I agree with you Dave. That's always the way I prefer to do it. But I've seen some guys who could do mighty well with shorter bars, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top