5 ms·

> because from a ecological perspective the walkers are superior You sure about that? Soil compaction is the most serious long-term damage caused by timber ha

> because from a ecological perspective the walkers are superior You sure about that? Soil compaction is the most serious long-term damage caused by timber harvesting. It's why only tracked harvesters driven by highly-paid fellers are allowed off the gravel. The masses of everyday log-truck drivers (and their wheeled vehicles) are not allowed on the dirt. You want the ground pressure spread out as much as possible, not concentrated on tiny "feet".

hutzlibu 6y ago
I am not sure about compaction compared to a tracked forester. Physics implies that tracked ones are better, for that, yes. But they rip up even more surface. I believe it is a question, how often the specific path has to be passed by by a forester. "It's why only tracked harvesters driven by highly-paid fellers are allowed off the gravel." And this is sadly not true for germany or other parts of europe I know about. I think I never saw a tracked forester in europe. Are they mandatory in the US? That would surprise me, given they have much more lax regulations in general (fracking for example)
- 24gttghh 6y ago
  This is a good example of the range of equipment I have seen: https://www.mainecustomwoodlands.com/maine-custom-woodlands-timber-harve https://www.mainecustomwoodlands.com/maine-custom-woodlands-... Only thing non-tracked that goes off the gravel logging roads would be the Skidder (it literally drags bunches, or 'hitches' of trees to the transport vehicles). And even that might be partially or fully-tracked. The feller, slasher, excavator, bulldozer, etc. are all tracked from what I've seen. Mandatory? Doubtful. But they are most practical in the rough terrain.
  - octoberfranklin 6y ago
    > Mandatory? Doubtful. But they are most practical in the rough terrain. I didn't mean to imply there was a government mandate. It's the large forestland owners who demand it of their contractors.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  > But they rip up even more surface. Compaction is much, much worse. It takes a century or more to undo in temperate rainforests like the Olympic Peninsula.

hutzlibu 6y ago

I am not sure about compaction compared to a tracked forester. Physics implies that tracked ones are better, for that, yes. But they rip up even more surface. I believe it is a question, how often the specific path has to be passed by by a forester. "It's why only tracked harvesters driven by highly-paid fellers are allowed off the gravel." And this is sadly not true for germany or other parts of europe I know about. I think I never saw a tracked forester in europe. Are they mandatory in the US? That would surprise me, given they have much more lax regulations in general (fracking for example)

24gttghh 6y ago
This is a good example of the range of equipment I have seen: https://www.mainecustomwoodlands.com/maine-custom-woodlands-timber-harve https://www.mainecustomwoodlands.com/maine-custom-woodlands-... Only thing non-tracked that goes off the gravel logging roads would be the Skidder (it literally drags bunches, or 'hitches' of trees to the transport vehicles). And even that might be partially or fully-tracked. The feller, slasher, excavator, bulldozer, etc. are all tracked from what I've seen. Mandatory? Doubtful. But they are most practical in the rough terrain.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  > Mandatory? Doubtful. But they are most practical in the rough terrain. I didn't mean to imply there was a government mandate. It's the large forestland owners who demand it of their contractors.
octoberfranklin 6y ago
> But they rip up even more surface. Compaction is much, much worse. It takes a century or more to undo in temperate rainforests like the Olympic Peninsula.