Moving logs

[1savoy]

I spoke to Nelson today at WR Long Inc and he said I would be better off with the RBG than the RBG2 for my old JD301A. List for the RBG-72 is $2,363.00. He has a dealer about 2 hrs from my home, but I gave him the name of a local dealer I know well and he is going to give them a call, to see if they would like to become a dealer. He said he does not have a complete valve kit for my model tractor, but he could sell me the pieces to make up a kit for approx $300.00. I would have to supply hoses and probably a few misc parts. I guess I will have to see what the price from the dealer will be. It is over the $1,500 price that would be a nice price range for the home/ occassional user, but even at the higher cost it would still end up paying for itself in time and effort. I will let you know more when I find out.

Thanks,
Russ

 

[John_Mc]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Just wondering....Other than a "site/yard/fire protection, etc., why spend all the effort to take logs to the burn pile? The woods should have, and need, downed, and standing dead trees. All the critters and such make good use of these trees, and long before, and after, they are done with them they also provide needed fertilizer.)</font>

That's what I do... doesn't look as pretty, but much better for the long term health of the forest, as well as for the wildlife. As an added benefit, the downed trees can provide some protection for the next crop of saplings coming up... in a lot of areas around here, the deer will over-browse an area and prevent the next generation of trees from getting a start.

John Mc

 

[John_Mc]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I obtained a protective end from highway guard rails from local scrap yard.
It is curved and kinda like the end of a ski, also shaped like with 2 grouves or humps.

I welded a couple of 1/2 rings to each side to attach the log butt with a looped chain.(a small binder might be better)
On the underside of the curved end I welded a ring to attach the row chain. )</font>

Somebody sells a commercial version of what you just described. I just can't seem to find it now. It's called a "skid plate" or "skidding plate", but it's been a while since I saw it, so I may be remembering it incorrectly.

John Mc

 

[PILOON]

Shucks, missed again.

Should have gone to the patent office. LOL

Believe it or not as a teen I designed a packaging idea that today sells millions a copies daily.
Problem was my dad was the area sales rep for the company that sold the machines and copyrights to packageing.
As an employee the rights belonged to the company as it was deemed that being salaried the design was on company time.

On the other hand dad became general manager and retired at age 70 or so as 'special mgr' (mostly playing golf in the last 6-7 yrs).
His special treatment status was kinda a nice reward in itself.

 

[CT_Tree_Guy]

<font color="blue"> I am wondering if a guy would want the RBG or RBG2 for the 3830 </font>

Ryan, tough call as usual. You're giving up 400-500 lbs. of payload with the heavier grapple, but gaining a lot of jaw opening and associated abilty to carry larger volumes of bulky stuff. If all you were doing was carrying logs, maybe a smaller grapple would be the way to go to maximize payload. An 800-lb. grapple is a lot of "overhead" for even my 853 loader, and your 723 has less lift to "give away". Trade-offs, always trade-offs.

TechJ, I was wondering what brand/model of grapple did you end up with? As usual, pics would be great. Ditto on what type of hydraulic setup to control it - dedicated hydraulic solenoid; diverter-type setup; remote (hope not)?

Maine - speaking of trade-offs ... do you leave blow-down for habitat, and returning nutrients to the soil, or remove it to reduce forest fire hazard? Then there's aesthetics - do you want to look at a great big mess, or clean it up? So many variables, what's a responsible steward of the planet to do .....

 

[Maine_Polack]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue"> Maine - speaking of trade-offs ... do you leave blow-down for habitat, and returning nutrients to the soil, or remove it to reduce forest fire hazard? </font> )</font>

I do not worry about it being a fire hazard anymore than any other act of God. I understand that in certain parts of the country the gov't removes the understory so there is not much to burn. And I would certainly use methods to protect my property, if needed. Having said that to reduce brush etc. on a large scale is not necessary a good thing. Fire has a definite purpose in the scheme of things.

I have fought fires some. Once in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, where I was living. It was not a pleasant feeling knowing that at times one quite literally could not move fast enough to out-run the flames. Had to really pick your methods. And - Again....I would employ any means necessary to protect my property.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue"> Then there's aesthetics - do you want to look at a great big mess, or clean it up? So many variables, what's a responsible steward of the planet to do ..... </font> )</font>

The "mess" is in the eye of the beholder I guess. When I look at my little patch of woods, it warms the cockles of my heart to know that I am letting it do it's own thing. Things - hopefully - stay in balance, as intended.

By the way, I consider my patch a "working forest". I harvest wood, (and leave the slash). I have numerous trails and main woods roads that I have established, for work and recreation.

When I go to the big forest in the sky I know that my kids will appreciate my contribution - they already do - and hopefully continue to act accordingly.

Just another note. It would be physically impossible to keep this "mess" cleaned up.

These are my thoughts on the subject. There is no "intense offended" to others who think differently. I was just looking to get ed-u-cated.

 

[CT_Tree_Guy]

MP, that was (IMHO) beautifully said. After I made my last post, I thought a bit about how forest fires have obviously been raging long before we had the means to try to "control" them, and how they are, as you said, just a part of nature (at least, those that result from "natural" causes like lightning. Is a cigarette butt a "natural" cause? That might make an interesting debate in and of itself).

I guess things get a little "complicated" when the decision to "let it burn" starts to involve many human lives and thousands of homes, (or alarming percentages of national parks like Yellowstone about 20 years ago), when the (much-needed) insurance industry is already reeling from unprecendented claims from hurricane damage the likes of which have not been previously seen, as we swing into a new cycle of hurricane activity which might well bring us another twenty-plus years of "Katrina"-filled hurricane seasons.

As you said, we do very often fight forest fires (and I would add, try to prevent them) despite their beneficial aspects. Removing combustibles is just another aspect of forest fire control. Tough issue, for sure.

Things do get a little iffy when we try to control mother nature; just look at New Orleans, the possibly ill-conceived channelization and levying of the Mississippi, and the resultant negative impact on the once-vibrant Mississippi Delta.

I don't really want to start a debate about let it burn/put it out, air pollution, global warming, Kyoto, the Army Corps of Engineers, or natural hurricane cycles vs. increased hurricane activity possibly (probably?) being caused at least partly by oceans warmed by man's activities. Suffice it to say that sometimes it's very difficult to get at the "truth". All the more reason that we do our best to try to arrive at that "truth" in as intelligent, thoughtful and civilized a manner as that which you demonstrated in your post.

Cordially, John D.

 

[johnk]

Nicely put MP. Leaving blow downs on the ground actually help in the generation of new hardwood growth by protecting the new seedlings that are just strting to sprout. The blow downs give them a protection from the deer and other animals that like to nibble on new growth. When you strt dragging out all the brush you are actually uprooting a lot of unseen growth to the naked eye of future hardwood trees etc.. Just my thoughts....

 

[Tdog]

Guys, leaving blowdowns in the forest is one thing, but gthag, who started this thread, is trying to clean up after Katrina. Betcha he's not going into the woods looking for downed trees.

If his place looks anything like mine did after the storm, leaving everything in place would not be an option. That said, I stopped burning a little after I got my Kubota. I just claimed a piece of the woods, way in the back out of sight, & called it my bone pile. There I hauled/pulled all my tree debris. I found this method quicker than burning, & a heck of a lot more fun. However, there's no way I can even get to that site right now - - there are too many storm blown trees blocking my path into the woods. I'll clear that when there are less pressing things to do.

In the meantime, luckily, I can take all my debris out to the road in front of my property, & FEMA contractors are supposed to pick it up. When they take it, it goes to what used to be dirt/gravel pits, where the debris is dumped - - and burned.

 

[johnk]

I was talking about the forest. Sorry to hear about all the damage down there. If it was my front yard in a neighborhood I would be going to the burn pile also.. Good luck in your cleanup!