Humboldt vs. Conventional

[weimedog]

Part of the "extra" cuts are mixing the cleaning / trimming up of the log into the felling operation. My approach is a little more conventional and simple compared to  that "Good Fellers" approach, but the object is the same, get as low to the ground as possible and let the log buyer decide how much to keep. Maximize the volume of wood to be considered. All my wood is hardwood. I have maple, cherry, ash, oak mostly. Because of the more value in this wood the techniques used are a balance of things. In my case the face cut also is the trimming of the root flare while it's out of the mud. The hinge is as low as I can physically get and the bore cuts depends on the fiber whether I take out more hinge material. IF I have a strong hinge for things like a leaner or the need to wedge a tree, the back cut is a little higher, safety and fiber pull the priority over that inch of wood.

On the trees where compromised roots indicate center rot, I don't have to be in the "dirt" opening  up the options to things like a higher felling cut, Humboldt or a simple conventional. Same with tapped maple. I do have to assume cutting the stump low at some point as leaving a clean & low stump is part of the job.

The point I was making early is to say an absolute one vs. the other should really be a discussion about which approach gets the most money from one region to the next and why. That "metric" has to be considered from a over all job perspective from log pricing , felling technique ,  skidding , and to clean up or what the land will need after the logging is done. From the comments some prioritize speed or a square stump over additional "butt" log & low stumps. Where I prioritize more wood over speed and a perfect square cut. The way log sales are will drive those priorities for most. So I NEVER assume what works here in my jobs has to be what's the best for other places. No shortage of smart folks out there. Conversely there are a lot of folks who assume what they do should be what I do..

One last point I see even here. Our log buyers certainly aren't going to argue if I cut Humboldt high and leave a foot per tree on the stump. They won't even blink if the woods cut have a sea of 1ft to 18 inch x 28 to 30 inch stumps out there. It's only the person getting the check that cares if they even know to. A lot of hired pro fellers get a small percentage of the sale therefore  care even less. Here is the math, say I as a logger/company gets 40 percent. Then my employee's get a percentage of that. The larger the operation where production volume & pressure offsets the desire to squeeze the value out of every tree at the cost of time, THOSE "fellers" are all about simplicity and speed. Especially in wood where that "lost" wood on the stump isn't  worth the extra time required to get it. Hence the angst of folks from that world looking at mine.

I either own the wood outright or am working close with a landowner. On my place I get ALL of the proceeds, the land owners I do work for only want to harvest the valuable wood. In fact unless it's a favor type job I'm not interested unless I'm getting 500 a thousand or better. Most pine is down in the 200 to 250. SO I do prioritize putting in the extra time. On my wood it's been averaging a 1000 a 1000. That extra 1 to 1.5ft is worth chasing. Also the fiber pull and tall stumps are things that are tangible negatives. Fiber pull cuts the value of the log. Tall stumps left behind are a sign of a lazy logger loosing dollars for the person owning the tree's. Looking over a 100 tree job and seeing 100 1.5 to 2 foot tall stumps is looking at money left and wasted, even if they are Humboldt pretty. Access and value being the reasons. On my place I go back and cut the stumps I left tall  if they are in a place where I will skid later. Winter time for example it's harder to get low when there is a foot of snow. Bottom line? Like I've said , there are no shortage of smart folks making a living doing this. I assume that balance of time & technique is going to be different for different  regions and rather learn why vs. assume my approach is better in some esoteric way than theirs. It's a humility thing.

[Nealm66]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would can me if I started cutting for a contractor over there. I just don't know if the style they use over there would be very safe over here and would want anyone over here thinking about tackling a big cotton wood to be aware

[Nealm66]

My hardwood strips look like they were dropped out of a helicopter. The only hardwood we have with any commercial value is the alder and it still looks like a hay pile when I'm done 

[Nealm66]

Every logger I've ever cut for wants high production. Once they get the green light to log, they want it flattened yesterday. 

[Nealm66]

Every logger seems to have some little quirks. I helped a contractor out of mineral Washington for the Ramsey bros who wanted all the undercuts conventional. This was down hill tree length for a tower. Made absolutely no sense but they told that poor contractor they'd fire him if the saw one that wasn't 

[WhitePineJunky]

Glad I made this thread now lots of good info. I'd say both parties are correct, in their own environment/context. 

 different wood, land, different factors etc 

Both have their applications and uses 

[Grandpa]

Good post Weimedog, you summed it up just about perfectly.

Nealm66, it sure is refreshing to see a west boast cutter with an open mind that can see that things are done differently in other places for a reason.