Forestry Service and the Humboldt Cut

chris_girard

Treehouser
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,535
Location
Gilmanton, N.H.
Could probably just ask Burnam this but thought that I would just put it out there, AND I'm not trying to start any arguments on which technique is better, but does the Forestry Service teach the Humboldt cut, or Open Face Notch cut?

I saw in B's old post that Dent taught fallers the Open Face Notch and was wondering about that? Also, how is timber scaled over on the west coast? Here on the east coast, it's measured on the shorter end, so there is really no need to try and save wood on the butt end with a Humbolt cut.

Is the open face notch really easier to learn than the Humboldt cut?
 
The Forest Service teaches conventional, Humboldt, and open-face undercuts. In my experience the open-face is the easiest to learn when teaching new sawyers.
 
As Austin says, USFS teaches all three. Dent also taught all three, but only used the wide open face when it was desirable to keep the hinge functioning as long as possible. He didn't care much if it was easier to learn for new sawyers...:D. I don't personally think any one type is easier than any other.

Even if measuring on the small end, the humbolt can save log length, so the measurement may be a bit larger since it is then taken a bit lower in the tree for any given log length, and thus the scale can be higher.

Scale rules are all over the place, no matter where you are ;).
 
Last edited:
I don't think any particular method is easier to learn than any of the others. It's more a matter of which one you learned first. After that, the others seem to be more difficult to learn. Does that make sense?
 
One strike against the Humboldt is you're working against gravity, but it's the same thing as a conventional, just upside down.
 
That's not true, John. With the Humboldt the powerhead is moving down, pivoting on the dogs, so gravity is in your favor. Unless you aren't doing it right :).
 
Last edited:
Fine aloft wth the small saws, but on the ground, even if I tried the dogs as a pivot point, it was the " Unless you aren't doing it right ".
Basically, the dogs just ripped through the bark and the pivot point was gone. I felt a bit less motivated to pursue the quest of the Humboldt !::?
 
Dunno Burnham. I'm skeptical a west coast bar is completely offset by the powerhead, but I'll defer to the people who've actually done it. The only "Humboldts" I've done have been aloft, or very small stuff, so it's more a perspective issue at that point, rather than a defined style if you get my meaning. "Did you really do a Humboldt in that horizontal limb, or was it an upside down conventional?"
 
There are sure relative points with arguments on both methods. But it can be demonstrated, practically, where one method will have better outcome over the other. It's all situation dependent.

But in any situation the knowledge to use one method over the other, with consistent outcome, is the defining line of an experienced faller.

That's just my opinion. Of course.
 
easy decision here. Want a low stump? Conventional. Want a mill log, Humboldt. Want the log to kind of slide off the stump and stay close, often I'll use a Humboldt. Want a little jump, more a conventional. Angle of the face plays into some of that. Narrow face, wide open face. Want that leaner to pull 180 out, wide open bird face. Don't let that face close till she is over center of gravity.
The more face structure you learn, the better. There is no one good way except what will land a log safely on the ground. This would include your comfort level to a degree. If you need to cut and run, cut what is easiest for you and leaves your feet on the ready.
But still, practice and learn what you can add to your kit and upstairs library.
 
I'd like to be able to practice a Humboldt with a bunch of straight forward trees, but I don't really get the opportunity. There's usually something wrong with the trees I'm cutting, so I stick with what I know instead of playing games. Not like my conventional cuts would win any prizes anyway. Need to perfect them too :^D
 
Of course, the weight in the bar and chain is centered farther away from the handles than the powerhead weight. But it still works out to fairly even, so gravity is more helpful than a detriment with the sloping cut of the Humbolt, imo.

Assuming you pivot on the dogs. If you're just trying to hold the saw in position and push it up towards the hinge, gravity of course is not helpful at all ;).
 
Last edited:
I like to use a Humboldt. It isn't always easy getting a low stump, but I hate getting a log on the mill and I can't get my timber because of a huge face cut.
 
Independent of function...

A heavy Humboldt is less work to break out of a trunk.

A Humboldt aloft may be more likely to fall out onto a delicate thing below when you are not wanting it.


Way easier to cut a Humboldt at shoulder/ head high, as is done to find better wood above decay in root and butt diseased trees.
 
Want the log to kind of slide off the stump and stay close, often I'll use a Humboldt. Want a little jump, more a conventional. Angle of the face plays into some of that.

I was always of the understanding that the Humboldt will help a tree (or a piece) jump further off of the stump (angle of the face also a factor.) compared to conventional.

I think we all agree Humboldt will get the butt of the tree to hit the ground before the top of the tree, so by that reasoning, the butt is moving forward and down off the Humboldt stump while a conventional butt is still in contact with the floor of the face, thus allowing the tree to be closer to the stump when it all comes to rest, with the conventional?
 
Again, as you pointed out, the face angle matters. As doest your back cut. More stump shot for example, on a conventional. Stump height is a factor. How low can you go. Felling it up hill, down hill, side slope, flat? Thickness of hinge. Head lean. Its definitely not two dimensional work.
 
There are a lot of reasons to use a Humboldt, that are mostly applicable in logging and forest scenarios. In suburban falling work, most of those reasons do not come into play (unless taking big tops). There are also advantages the open face or traditional have over the Humboldt, which make it much preferable over the Humboldt in suburban settings for the majority of suburban tree cutters. Guilty of treason put out a video showing the use of a Humboldt where the advantages of cutting a Humboldt did not come into play. An open face would have been much easier. The amount of fumbling around it took to put that tree on the ground, rather than being an example of good cutting technique as he intended, actually showed why the Humboldt is such a bad choice for inexperienced cutters in suburban settings.



compared to my use of an open face:

And this is the best example of Humboldt by pro cutter. few on the east coast have this kind of skill
 
Back
Top