# Heli-loggers: high grading?



## rmihalek (May 15, 2009)

I recall reading about a practice called high-grading (I think that's the term) where loggers would just take the butt log that was nice and straight and leave all the rest of the wood behind.

Now, I understand the concept of helicopter logging, but it seems like they are wasting a huge amount of wood just so that they can leave a standing stem light enough for the heli to snatch. 

In standing stem logging, do they come back and get those huge tops off the ground?


----------



## tomtrees58 (May 15, 2009)

man i think they wast woodtom trees


----------



## coastalfaller (May 15, 2009)

rmihalek said:


> I recall reading about a practice called high-grading (I think that's the term) where loggers would just take the butt log that was nice and straight and leave all the rest of the wood behind.
> 
> Now, I understand the concept of helicopter logging, but it seems like they are wasting a huge amount of wood just so that they can leave a standing stem light enough for the heli to snatch.
> 
> In standing stem logging, do they come back and get those huge tops off the ground?



Sometimes they'll come back and fall the rest of the setting later. Not fun for the fallers though, wading through all the tops and limbs that are (hopefully!) on the ground.


----------



## BC_Logger (May 16, 2009)

not all ways because 

1. the helicopter pilot cant see them and they usually cost the company more then what they are worth 
2.they the canopy is now open so the tops act as a buffer for the heavy rains in order to keep slope from being eroded 

here you have to leave a cretin percentage of coarse woody debris after logging usually this is taken up with snags tops branches but in heli logging it would be the tops


----------



## smokechase II (May 16, 2009)

*high grading*

What I've seen on heli-loggers is very much Hi-grading.

Gord was talking about taking the jigging method elsewhere.

I doubt that it would get more than just a very specialized use in the States.

Not only is the waste substantial there is a huge fuels mess.

BC has had some fire problems, (they can have serious fire seasons), but one needs to deal with ladder fuels.


----------



## mercer_me (May 16, 2009)

I know a guy with a skidder that takes the best logs and leaves the rest of the tree in the woods. He could make more money if he hauled out the rest and sell it as firewood or pulp. But I can se why they only take the best wood with helicopters.


----------



## RPM (May 16, 2009)

It also depends if it is private or public forest land. On the private lands they can do basically whatever they want with regards to what timber they take or don't. On public lands, they are still held to utilization specs and standards. If you leave a piece of timber that could have been made into lumber the company will assessed a levi (stumpage) against what was left. Public forest lands are regulated by gov't.....and these coastal areas are watched by the hippies - its not a free for all although it may look like it.


----------



## demographic (May 16, 2009)

Not knowing anything about helicopter logging I would have assumed that if your using something thats as expensive to run per hour as a helicopter you would have to cherry pick the very best timber otherwise you would be unprofitable?

How much do they cost per hour to run?


----------



## hammerlogging (May 16, 2009)

high grading is not what was originally suggested in the low utilization. Thats just wasteful.. High grading is removing the best genetic stock (which is the same as the highest quality and most valuable stems) from the forest and leaving the rest causing a lower commercial value to long term forest products from that forest.

SMZ protections essentially dictate high grading, which they might as well be high graded cause in 20 yrs I bet we won't be able to get any timber from them at all- and poor quality trees shade the water just as well as high quality trees.

And yes, high grading is more profitable short term so a more likely prescription for helicopters, and very challenging terrain. Bad for the landowner.
Helicopter logging: 500 gal./hr fuel, approx. $350-400/mbf harvesting cost.


----------



## BC_Logger (May 16, 2009)

vertol 107 is about 10 000 a hour. Maximum lift capacity, 10,000 lbs and burns 643 liters of fuel per hour 

and the Chinook 243 is about 15 000 a hour. Highest rated commercially certified lift capacity at 27,000 lbs and burns 1514 liters per hour


----------



## demographic (May 16, 2009)

BC_Logger said:


> vertol 107 is about 10 000 a hour. Maximum lift capacity, 10,000 lbs and burns 643 liters of fuel per hour
> 
> and the Chinook 243 is about 15 000 a hour. Highest rated commercially certified lift capacity at 27,000 lbs and burns 1514 liters per hour



I know its a bit random but your post reminded me of some pictures I saw on the internet showing the Soviet Mil Mi 26 helicopter, thought you might like them:jawdrop:


----------



## BC_Logger (May 16, 2009)

the "Korova" cow in Russian theirs only like 150 or less of these helicopters in the world and even a fewer number of pilots to operate it 

no idea on operating cost of it but i would guess about 60 to 80 thousound an hour 


from what i can remember I think the maximum lift was 40 000 pounds I only know of one in use in Canada


----------



## BC_Logger (May 16, 2009)

I believe this is one of the Chinooks that were downed in operation anaconda in Afghanistan


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (May 16, 2009)

I feel what they are doing is very much Hi-grading, they are removing the biggest, straightest, best genetic stock trees and leaving the lower quality trees. Most foresters will tell you that you need to thin across your diameter and age classes, not just taking the biggest most valuable trees as they do.


----------



## hammerlogging (May 16, 2009)

But thats just the reality of the situation harvesting timber from difficult places- its the economics. Easier or more accessible ground we can afford to apply good silviculture while harvesting. But it gets harder to do as the terrain gets steeper or access more limited, and so we are forced to digress to highgrading to make it worth while. We do "investment forestry" hardcore silviculture where feasible, but high grading can occur when its the only feasible option. 

High grading is a forest economics issue more so than an ecological issue because of the ramification on the qulaity of the residual stand and/or the regeneration conditions remaining thereafter. The ecologists and wildlife would I am sure rather see our high grades than out intensive silviculture such as silvicultural clearcuts or modified shelterwoods. Those are forest mgmt specific cuts, the high graded areas still retain nearly completely closed canopy conditions. Theres still wildlife food on either, ut if I was a wild turkey, I'd hang in the high grade, not the shelterwood. Hawk- then I'd hunt the shelterwood!


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (May 16, 2009)

hammerlogging said:


> its the economics.



Sound forest management decisions shouldn't be based on economics IMO. When people see the dollars signs they get greedy and don't want whats best for the forest only whats best for their wallets.


----------



## BC_Logger (May 16, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> I feel what they are doing is very much Hi-grading, they are removing the biggest, straightest, best genetic stock trees and leaving the lower quality trees. Most foresters will tell you that you need to thin across your diameter and age classes, not just taking the biggest most valuable trees as they do.



they are taking the trees which have no center rot which eventually happens to all species of wood 

also theirs no point in removing a tree with you will get minimal wood out of. 
their is minimal disturbance to the bio mass and there is still suitable habit existing after they are done 

its no different than harvesting apples when they are ripe rather than at the end of the season where they are rotting on the tree


----------



## hammerlogging (May 17, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> Sound forest management decisions shouldn't be based on economics IMO. When people see the dollars signs they get greedy and don't want whats best for the forest only whats best for their wallets.



True and not true.

Different mgmt organizations will dictate different prescriptions, some more exploitove, others truly manageing a long term resource. But, site and stand conditions also dictate this for everybody: it is far more sensible to practice intensive silviculutre on more easily accessible and operable terrain, and far more both profitable and succcessful to do so on highly produtive sites, than otherwise.

So our poor sites, which wildlife like anyhow, and our SMZs, are deferred to unmanaged status, maybe a little single tree selection will go on. But in general, they are out of intensive forestry and deferred to fulfill other objectives- wildlife habitat, clean water. 

Yes, economics is part of it, but its also working with the natural system. The influence of greed varies from mgmt plan to mgmt plan. But, even FSC dictates that economic viability is a critical part of a business, so if we go in and apply the wrong prescriptions for particular sites and run oursleves out of business, so that we apply the ultimate forestry and timber stand improvement on every stand, but run ourselves out of businsess, then there will be nobody to apply that intensive silviculture on the sites where it does make sense.

So greed is not the only factor, common sense goes into these decisions too. To eliminate greed we would need more intense forest mgmt legislation dictating proper operations and prescriptions, i.e California style. Thats lots of red tape and beaurocracy and $. Maybe one day.


----------



## Dalmatian90 (May 17, 2009)

> High grading is a forest economics issue more so than an ecological issue



While I'd bet your right more then not on that statement, I know from some recent reading there is concerns in Connecticut over the long term "high grading" from removing White Oak more heavily then other species. In our case it's not just removing the best of the white oaks, it's that white oaks are so preferred the entire species is being "high graded" out of the woods.

So the forest mix is starting to move towards more red oak and hickory as there are fewer white oaks and white oak acorns being buried by the squirrels.

I don't know how much it impacts them, but I remember reading critters eat white oak acorns first since they go bad first...red oak acorns store longer.


----------



## smokechase II (May 17, 2009)

*species*

*"High grading is a forest economics issue more so than an ecological issue."*

As long as species and size strata stay about the same.

If they are taking primarily cedar because that is what the market dictates just now then they are changing the forest.

==========

Who cares?

Canadians don't.

C - eh - N - eh - D - eh.


----------



## hammerlogging (May 17, 2009)

true to both the above 2 posts. 

White oak acorns have less tanins so are preferred.

I'm not saying high grading is good, I'm saying its inevitable in some cases- unless you just want to take the potential revenue away from the landowner, a power I don't possess.

But, we can have less high grading with more advanced more productive systems where cost per mbf (or ton) is lower. For instance, matching the equipment to the terrain. Believe it or not, a cable skidder and a self loader is not the best system for all mountain tracts!


----------



## coastalfaller (May 17, 2009)

==========

Who cares?

Canadians don't.

C - eh - N - eh - D - eh.[/QUOTE]

What is that supposed to mean?!! Didn't realize this was an us vs them site. I thought here we were all just fallers (& loggers). I guess not.


----------



## clearance (May 17, 2009)

Whatever loggers do here is wrong, thats just the way it is. 

Once loggers were thought of as hard working, productive men. Now they are a small step above child molesters, least thats the way it is here, for some, the loud treehugging types.

I believe they should build roads and clearcut instead, but I am just a dinosoar.


----------



## RPM (May 18, 2009)

smokechase II said:


> C - eh - N - eh - D - eh.



I don't get it ....


----------



## slowp (May 18, 2009)

smokechase II said:


> What I've seen on heli-loggers is very much Hi-grading.
> 
> Gord was talking about taking the jigging method elsewhere.
> 
> ...




It is filmed on Vancouver Island, not Eastern Oregon. A climate similar to here.
According to the highly educated specialists, we can never have too much down wood--coarse woody debris. The rotting and breakdown of that wood makes for our productive soils. Here, we have people go in after logging to drop additional trees and leave them for soils and wildlife improvement.

Slash acts as a mulch and protects the soil from our liquid sunshine. 

The small limbs and twigs break down rapidly, adding nutrients to the soils.

Fires in the RAIN forest are rare, but can be catastrophic when conditions are right. But that is natural also. That's how Doug-fir got here. 

If high grading is taking place, don't worry. We're doing the opposite here in the states so the world is in balance.


----------



## Greystoke (Jun 1, 2009)

demographic said:


> Not knowing anything about helicopter logging I would have assumed that if your using something thats as expensive to run per hour as a helicopter you would have to cherry pick the very best timber otherwise you would be unprofitable?
> 
> How much do they cost per hour to run?


You hit the nail on the head there pardner. The economics have to be there on a Heli-logging operation. I am not sure what it is costing to run a helo these days but I can assure you it is high:jawdrop: I fell timber for Columbia Helicopters for a while and things have to be very efficient in order to make a heli-logging operation happen. If there is not a decent market for the gnarly limby tops and it is on private ground, the landowner will not pay high dollars to fly junk, as they would lose their:censored:


----------



## bigskyguy5 (Jun 1, 2009)

*Erickson Air Crane*



rmihalek said:


> I recall reading about a practice called high-grading (I think that's the term) where loggers would just take the butt log that was nice and straight and leave all the rest of the wood behind.
> 
> Now, I understand the concept of helicopter logging, but it seems like they are wasting a huge amount of wood just so that they can leave a standing stem light enough for the heli to snatch.
> 
> In standing stem logging, do they come back and get those huge tops off the ground?



To see Standing Stem Harvesting done right, go to this website of a company I have worked for before. www.ericksonaircrane.com They also have a link to there parent company, Canadian air crane. You will be able to watch Videos too!

Ed & Rhonda
Angelfire Timber & Firewood LLC:greenchainsaw:


----------



## hammerlogging (Jun 2, 2009)

The rules pretty well dictate that SMZs are high graded. I'm working my way through another. Secretly, I like it, poking that big timber out of there without disturbing the residual canopy. And its shadier than in our variety of regeneration harvests.


----------



## slowp (Jun 3, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> Sound forest management decisions shouldn't be based on economics IMO. When people see the dollars signs they get greedy and don't want whats best for the forest only whats best for their wallets.



BUT, *economics need to be part of the big picture*. If no profit can be made, no timber sale, no stand treatment without paying somebody to do it. 
In my little world, too many units are being offered as helicopter units. It would be more cost effective to repair the roads into the areas and log with a yarder and or a skidder. 

Here's an actual example. There's a good road--which was built to the standards of the 1960s. That means rocked and wide enough to haul the big yarders up and down. Four culverts were washed out. Everthing else was there. Four 24 inch culverts would need to be installed. But, that would maybe sort of make some stream sediment so helicopter was mandated. We got one bidder and the minimum bid for that sale. It wasn't a helicopter company either. 

Ditto for another sale. Minimum bid. That means less $$ for all the nice projects that rely on the profits. Less money for the treasury. Right now the units can't even be logged because it isn't profitable for the purchasers.


----------



## Greystoke (Jun 3, 2009)

slowp said:


> BUT, *economics need to be part of the big picture*. If no profit can be made, no timber sale, no stand treatment without paying somebody to do it.
> In my little world, too many units are being offered as helicopter units. It would be more cost effective to repair the roads into the areas and log with a yarder and or a skidder.
> 
> Here's an actual example. There's a good road--which was built to the standards of the 1960s. That means rocked and wide enough to haul the big yarders up and down. Four culverts were washed out. Everthing else was there. Four 24 inch culverts would need to be installed. But, that would maybe sort of make some stream sediment so helicopter was mandated. We got one bidder and the minimum bid for that sale. It wasn't a helicopter company either.
> ...


:agree2: Unfortunately it is hard to get the average citizen to understand this. It is like :deadhorse: to make people understand how things CAN work in our forests. It sounds like you have got it:yourock:

Cody


----------



## rmihalek (Jun 4, 2009)

slowp said:


> Here's an actual example. There's a good road--which was built to the standards of the 1960s. That means rocked and wide enough to haul the big yarders up and down. Four culverts were washed out. Everthing else was there. Four 24 inch culverts would need to be installed. But, that would maybe sort of make some stream sediment so helicopter was mandated. We got one bidder and the minimum bid for that sale. It wasn't a helicopter company either.
> 
> Ditto for another sale. Minimum bid. That means less $$ for all the nice projects that rely on the profits. Less money for the treasury. Right now the units can't even be logged because it isn't profitable for the purchasers.



Jeez, even out here on the east coast I can understand that! Put the dang culverts in and get the logs out the "old fashioned" way. If it pleases the sediment crowd, take the culverts out when the job is done.


----------



## RPM (Jun 4, 2009)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> I feel what they are doing is very much Hi-grading, they are removing the biggest, straightest, best genetic stock trees and leaving the lower quality trees. Most foresters will tell you that you need to thin across your diameter and age classes, not just taking the biggest most valuable trees as they do.



Out here in the west we are not managing hardwood forests ... we log softwoods and we clearcut! Most of the areas that you saw them hi-grade on heli loggers was private land and not crown / puplic land (your version of state forests) and is a good example of economics driving a harvest system. Single stem logging accounts for approx .001% of the annual harvest in BC. It is a very rarley used harvest sysytem and is only applicable to the coastal areas west of the Cascades / Coast mountain ranges. It is not a good example of good forest management practices in BC ... don't always take what you see on TV as gosple.


----------



## RPM (Jun 4, 2009)

rmihalek said:


> Jeez, even out here on the east coast I can understand that! Put the dang culverts in and get the logs out the "old fashioned" way. If it pleases the sediment crowd, take the culverts out when the job is done.[/QUOTE
> 
> Couple of larger stream crossings now we have used fords (not pickups) in place of culverts. We use clean rock to reinforce the crossing and everything just flows through the road. Crossing is built into a bit of a swale to keep the water in. They have to be wide enough to allow logging trucks and lowbeds through - it doesn't work everywhere but where it does they are slick.


----------

