Open Source Logging?

[hogdog]

This site is very open with the sharing of professional information and help. I thought I would ask if anyone has heard of Open Source Open source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Logging in any form?

I've have seen many businesses tied up in the complex nature of their work. The saying 'many eyes makes all bugs shallow' can hold true for any business I feel. Any operation can always be run smoother, cheaper and faster given unlimited resources to gather better information. The reality is most businesses don't have these resources so operations run at less than optimal even if they are still profitable.

Especially for logging public lands where everyone has a vested interest; couldn't these operations benefit from such a platform?

Sorry if this sounds too unrealistic but I thought I would ask anyway.

 

[Gologit]

'Many eyes make all bugs shallow'? That's a new one.

Just exactly what are you proposing? Or are you selling something? Please keep it simple, some of us still move our lips when we read.

 

[Carburetorless]

Yeah, that bug metaphor went over my head to. I don't think you'll find many loggers who are familiar with the term "Open Source". Most loggers use terms like "many bugs means rotten logs" and "open the throttle".

"Open Source"; What are you, a computer programmer?

"Cheaper, faster, given unlimited resources"? Are you saying you can run a logging operation cheaper and faster if you have a #### load of cash to throw at it? Faster definitely, cheaper maybe, eventually if you have enough cash to throw at it and the bottom doesn't fall out of timber before you pay for the equipment and start turning a profit, providing you're not plagued by break downs.

If you want to understand the logging industry grab a saw and get your hands dirty for a couple of weeks, then run a buncher feller for a day, then sit down and crunch the numbers, and look at the ups and downs the industry has.

 

[Pelorus]

'Many eyes make all bugs shallow'
Confucius needs a Snickers bar also.

 

[Gologit]

I think I'll move this to the Forestry and Logging thread...they need some entertainment over there.

 

[slowp]

My forester brain translates Open Source into Collaboration. My brain says Collaboration=Lots of Micromanagement by People Who Do Not Understand Forestry And Logging. Also, Lots And Lots of Time Spent "Planning" By People Who Spend Little Time On The Ground Being Planned For.

GIS is a blessing and a curse. It does save time, but the info is now used by the specialists during the planning process and they seldom do ground truthing. Which results in somebody stumbling upon a stream or wet spot late in the planning process and that puts the brakes on for a while.

Meanwhile, folks are planning who know virtually nothing about equipment capabilities, economics, and logger capabilities. Nor do they want to learn. It "isn't their real job."

I could go on and on and on and on....

Collaboration ultimately means no one person is responsible for making decisions. Now, when the excrement hits the ground during logging operations, if it ever does, there is ONE person who is blamed when things don't go as planned.....guess who? :bang:

That's my experience. Others may have had happier experiences.

Meanwhile, the shallow bugs continue munching away.

 

[Oldtimer]

There's a universe of difference between logging trees and logging data...

 

[mad murdock]

I hear you slowp, company foresters used to be allowed to really do their job, now they are given a policy book, and a narrow budget, and have been given less and less resources at their disposal to manage more and more acres. They have been morphed into contract managers, overseeing contractors who do whatever the contract specifies be it cutting, hauling road maintenance or in the case of where I work, aerial application. In some cases the REITs even hire a contractor to oversee us the contractor, with the forester being involved only remotely. It really has changed, over what it used to be. For better or worse, it is what it is. The worst part IMO is the over reliance on GIS data, which often is not verified by boots on the ground, so as you stated, things don't always match up, and the worst of it is if your giS equipment quits working for whatever reason, you have to stop production because of a stupid computer!

 

[floyd]

Wow, consultant /pr talk. Please flesh this out for us.

 

[2dogs]

No I would to disagree with the Open Source concept with regards to public lands. This type of planning allows for someone in New York to have a say in forest management in New Mexico while never even having been there. A Forester living in the forest he is managing (for say 20 years) will have his expertice and experience diluted by theorists and do-gooders who feel everyone in entitled to their opinion. It is similar to, after years of planning and writing a THP, a group of little old ladies show up and chain themselves to the gate preventing any work from being done.

Open Source is another road block to forest health. A certain amout of thinning and fuels reduction must go on continually. Open Source has stopped most of this in the planning phase.

Forest health is not a bug to be worked out. It is not a new problem.

 

[North Star]

My forester brain translates Open Source into Collaboration. My brain says Collaboration=Lots of Micromanagement by People Who Do Not Understand Forestry And Logging. Also, Lots And Lots of Time Spent "Planning" By People Who Spend Little Time On The Ground Being Planned For.

GIS is a blessing and a curse. It does save time, but the info is now used by the specialists during the planning process and they seldom do ground truthing. Which results in somebody stumbling upon a stream or wet spot late in the planning process and that puts the brakes on for a while.

Meanwhile, folks are planning who know virtually nothing about equipment capabilities, economics, and logger capabilities. Nor do they want to learn. It "isn't their real job."

I could go on and on and on and on....


Collaboration ultimately means no one person is responsible for making decisions. Now, when the excrement hits the ground during logging operations, if it ever does, there is ONE person who is blamed when things don't go as planned.....guess who? :bang:

That's my experience. Others may have had happier experiences.

Meanwhile, the shallow bugs continue munching away.

The mineral exploration industry is a mirror image of this. The majority of the claim staking, line cutting, geophysics and field work is planned by geologists, GIS techs and other office personnel who never step foot in the bush. When the field crews run into snags in the bush, this usually translates into more money having to be spent. It always looks real simple when its just a map with UTMs on a computer screen. When things go haywire, then the blame game begins and then it's just a race for everybody to cover their a$$.

 

[North Star]

No I would to disagree with the Open Source concept with regards to public lands. This type of planning allows for someone in New York to have a say in forest management in New Mexico while never even having been there. A Forester living in the forest he is managing (for say 20 years) will have his expertice and experience diluted by theorists and do-gooders who feel everyone in entitled to their opinion. It is similar to, after years of planning and writing a THP, a group of little old ladies show up and chain themselves to the gate preventing any work from being done.

Open Source is another road block to forest health. A certain amout of thinning and fuels reduction must go on continually. Open Source has stopped most of this in the planning phase.

Forest health is not a bug to be worked out. It is not a new problem.

We've had something similar to this in Ontario call the "lands for life program". I've seen entire townships taken off limits to logging and mineral exploration because a certain plant grows in a swamp there. This decision was made by a committee of greenies in Toronto about a tract of land 900km north of them that they have never been to. It seems that these decisions are always being made by people who the outcome will not effect in any way. Sorry about the rant, but this sort of thing happens here on a regular basis and it drives me nuts.

 

[Samlock]

I think the open source method is great for designing and developing highly complex systems such as computer operating or community infrastructure. A forest is an extremely complex and diverse system, yet an open source management is not capable to do anything with it. Why? Well, nobody really designs forests. They grow as they have always grown. The actions made by human in a forest are very simple and options are limited. Logging is not about choosing or designing alternatives, but acting. It requires will power of few, not opinion of many.

 

[redprospector]

I think I'll move this to the Forestry and Logging thread...they need some entertainment over there.

What would we do without you Bob?
otstir:

Andy

 

[redprospector]

No I would to disagree with the Open Source concept with regards to public lands. This type of planning allows for someone in New York to have a say in forest management in New Mexico while never even having been there. A Forester living in the forest he is managing (for say 20 years) will have his expertice and experience diluted by theorists and do-gooders who feel everyone in entitled to their opinion. It is similar to, after years of planning and writing a THP, a group of little old ladies show up and chain themselves to the gate preventing any work from being done.

Open Source is another road block to forest health. A certain amout of thinning and fuels reduction must go on continually. Open Source has stopped most of this in the planning phase.

Forest health is not a bug to be worked out. It is not a new problem.

Oh, so that's what they call what they do here in New Mexico. :msp_mad:
It seems like everyone from everywhere else have all the say over what goes on here. :bang:
If this is "open sorce" then I'm again it.

Andy

 

[saxono3]

I've never heard the term "open source logging". Seems somebody has to be in charge of every cut, weather its the private land owner, the US Forest service, Bureau Of Land Management, Game commission, what have you.

 

[hogdog]

I apologize if the post was in the wrong category and thanks for everyone's responses.

No I am not a programmer nor am I selling anything but the saying "...all bugs shallow" comes from programming I think. A bug is an unforeseen problem and a shallow bug is a problem that is not propagated or built upon.

Carberatorless
I am not saying I could run an operation any better, quite the opposite. When I refer to resources I am not only talking about money but people resources as well. There are some problems that can't be solved by throwing unlimited amounts of money at. These problems take smart, experienced people which can be more of a limited resource than money.

I would love to run a saw or buncher feller. I'm sure nothing is peaches and cream, especially in this industry. I'm 25, out of school and figuring stuff out, if you will.


Slowp
I would think your GIS problem is a good example of more than a shallow bug. Ask me how to fix it and I would have no idea. Put a lot of intelligent minds together who work in this industry and who knows what could happen.

I completely agree that there is a big potential for micromanagement and bureaucracy. Both of which are bugs in administration. Couldn't these be made shallow as well with constant improvement and analysis?

Murdock
What is 'REITs?'

2Dogs
Open Source can be different than free for all. I agree that a Forester with 20 years under his belt should not be contesting with laypersons about his expertise. Certain Open Source structures only allow experienced people of the trade or only reward for positive contributions. Theorists and do-gooders could be brushed aside, probably where they belong.

North Star
Couldn't these problems you speak of be overcome? You're indicating that the land track was unnecessarily made off limits due to an ill decision by people who didn't have a clue. The 'greenies' over value the swamp plant and think you over value your mineral or logging resource. The good decision is one where everything is valued correctly and objectively with everything taken into consideration. The best way this can happen is when all of the qualified people about this issue put their heads together, crunch all the numbers and say ya or nay.

Samlock
Your response has definitely made me think. I agree that no body designs a forest and that the final actions are undertaken by few. However the human interaction with the forest is a very complex one IMO.
Here in Colorado, the forest burns every summer, pine beetle has ravaged entire mountainsides. All the while everyone is arguing what is causing it and what to do about it. The standing beetle kill has little value, especially where there is no roads, so it will be there 'till it rots or more likely burns. This will affect snow accumulation which will affect how much water everyone will have in the spring. The situation I'm describing is a very complex one and we haven’t even begun trying to make money.

Thanks for everyone's input. I'm not trying to tell people how to do their job nor am I saying I could do it better. I am just trying to start a discussion on this topic and maybe spark a few ideas.

 

[redprospector]

I apologize if the post was in the wrong category and thanks for everyone's responses.

No I am not a programmer nor am I selling anything but the saying "...all bugs shallow" comes from programming I think. A bug is an unforeseen problem and a shallow bug is a problem that is not propagated or built upon.

Carberatorless
I am not saying I could run an operation any better, quite the opposite. When I refer to resources I am not only talking about money but people resources as well. There are some problems that can't be solved by throwing unlimited amounts of money at. These problems take smart, experienced people which can be more of a limited resource than money.

I would love to run a saw or buncher feller. I'm sure nothing is peaches and cream, especially in this industry. I'm 25, out of school and figuring stuff out, if you will.


Slowp
I would think your GIS problem is a good example of more than a shallow bug. Ask me how to fix it and I would have no idea. Put a lot of intelligent minds together who work in this industry and who knows what could happen.

I completely agree that there is a big potential for micromanagement and bureaucracy. Both of which are bugs in administration. Couldn't these be made shallow as well with constant improvement and analysis?

Murdock
What is 'REITs?'

2Dogs
Open Source can be different than free for all. I agree that a Forester with 20 years under his belt should not be contesting with laypersons about his expertise. Certain Open Source structures only allow experienced people of the trade or only reward for positive contributions. Theorists and do-gooders could be brushed aside, probably where they belong.

North Star
Couldn't these problems you speak of be overcome? You're indicating that the land track was unnecessarily made off limits due to an ill decision by people who didn't have a clue. The 'greenies' over value the swamp plant and think you over value your mineral or logging resource. The good decision is one where everything is valued correctly and objectively with everything taken into consideration. The best way this can happen is when all of the qualified people about this issue put their heads together, crunch all the numbers and say ya or nay.

Samlock
Your response has definitely made me think. I agree that no body designs a forest and that the final actions are undertaken by few. However the human interaction with the forest is a very complex one IMO.
Here in Colorado, the forest burns every summer, pine beetle has ravaged entire mountainsides. All the while everyone is arguing what is causing it and what to do about it. The standing beetle kill has little value, especially where there is no roads, so it will be there 'till it rots or more likely burns. This will affect snow accumulation which will affect how much water everyone will have in the spring. The situation I'm describing is a very complex one and we haven’t even begun trying to make money.

Thanks for everyone's input. I'm not trying to tell people how to do their job nor am I saying I could do it better. I am just trying to start a discussion on this topic and maybe spark a few ideas.

Just my opinion...BUT.
Your own description of what's happening in Colorado is a classic example of "open sorce" logging.
No one wanted anyone to do anything because, well, it was just so darned pretty (let's put the emphasis on the word WAS).
Now the same bunch can't decide what to do with their own screw up.

When we started suppressing fires, we took over natures job. Now, nature would send a fire through the forest every few years to keep the ground fuels down, and thin out a lot of the smaller, and weaker trees. Since we took over natures job the forest has become overgrown. There are enough ground & ladder fuels to ensure that any fire that goes past the initial attack from firefighters is almost guarranteed to be catastrophic. But let's face it, firefighting is big business now, and even if the funding and market place were there to thin and log all of our forest's it still wouldn't be done because it would step on too many toe's. I have to be careful because I'm getting into the politic's of it, and Bob might move this to the political forum.

Long story short, the mess that we are in today is stemmed from too many chief's, and not enough indian's. Or maybe it's too many chief's and none of them care what any of the indian's have to say. I don't see where we will be making any headway by repeating the mistakes we've already made. Unless you think we can make the same mistakes better. :bang:

Andy

 

[madhatte]

I have some experience with Open-Source software in the Forestry arena.

Growth models are continuously evolving. Logging companies buy timber based on cruisers' measurements. Sometimes, in spite of everybody's best efforts, they get less than they paid for. Nobody wants that. If a given cruiser's measurements for a sale are procedurally consistent, and the scaled volume at the mill differs, often the weak link is the growth model. Tarif tables only describe what is measured NOW. Growth models can extrapolate that across the landscape, drastically reducing the number of measurements needed to turn in an accurate measurement for a specific sale. There is a widely-varying amount of interest in different species, research-wise, and some species have been ignored altogether, due to financial constraints.

The FS has an office in Colorado Springs which has never once failed to go the extra mile for me, and there are private outfits dedicated to making the math of forest mensuration usable by everybody as well.

The problem with a true Open Source approach regarding timber is that both geography and markets require extensive local knowledge for success. The best we can do with current technology is to share what we know among ourselves, and wait for software to catch up. The onus of responsibility still falls on individual ownerships to manage their own land.

 

[mad murdock]

REIT=Real Estate Investment Trust. Most of the private timber outfits are companies that have organized from spun off land holdings of larger mill/land operations like potlatch timber, plum creek, or they are land holdings held by large mutual fund or other fund managers like Hancock, Campbell group etc. a lot of the private timber ground in the west is held by such entities, and us gypo (gyppo) contractors do the ground work for them.