ahh, yes i did, read your own crap as you sound like a girl. should delete them all or lock the thread. cause this is just that, comical
Well, I am a girl. I have even lived in the Up Nort part of Wisconsin. The part that is still attached to da UP. I saw very little chainsaw falling done. 95% of the logging was totally mechanized. I only ran into a couple of guys who still cut by hand. What was I doing? Why, I was a forester!
Now back on topic. Let me see if I can find the picture, or da picture.
View attachment 282130View attachment 282131
Those fallers in the photos were working in timber that averaged 16" in diameter--the primo size for my area of Warshington. That's where I'm from and that's where I now live. Now, they use a 460 or 660 with a 32 inch bar. That's standard.
Now, look at the tree they are standing by. If you log much, you know that some trees have to come down if they have dead tops, are snags, or are in the way of operations. This outfit was good to work with, and managed to save a lot of the old survivors--a fire ripped through here in the early 1900s. However, the tree in the photo had a dead, shaky top and was unsafe to work by. So, I slapped some paint on it, and they cut it down. They didn't have to hike back up the hill to their pickup to get a bigger saw, or drive home to get a bigger saw--they already had what they needed. Nor did they want to fool around making multiple cuts--time is money and safety again enters the picture--the less time spent underneath a spike topped tree, the less exposure to getting nailed on the head.
Plus, parts of this sale were rather steep. I was icing my knees after working on some of the units. Anyway, we've covered why short bars are not used in production cutting here in other threads.
I like the cheery smiles.
