Spruce Pirate

That seems pretty reasonable then. For some reason I thought they were more expensive. How do you find it?

I've both a 395 and a 3120. 395 is a far easier saw to use every day - I used it all day today felling. I like having the 3120 in the tool box, but realistically it only gets used every now and again, mostly I use it if I need to off-root a big blown stem and want to do it in one cut rather than having to do a reduction cut. Also ringing up big stuff it's pretty useful, but I think I've only ever felled one standing tree with it! If you're on a limited budget I'd go for the 395 every time.

Have a look on these: 4x4 Pickup Accessories | Aluminium Boxes | N & J Aluminium Linings Ltd They're not cheap but they seem to be quite good. I think there's been a thread on here before. Cheaper way (probably) is to do it yourself - I've lined things myself before, gives you a lot of scope to set things up just the way you want it.

I've heard rates for self employed cutters from £70 to about £150 a day supplying own kit and fuel. Low end of that you're very inexperienced, only got basic tickets and probably undervaluing yourself. Top end of that you'd better have a lot of experience, ALL the tickets - big trees and windblow - and be able to justify your rate to the main contractor.

Try these for gas springs, I think they've got a fair range. CBF | Commercial Body Fittings Ltd. Assuming the link works that is.

Not on purpose!!! :lol:

I find a big shot invaluable, even on small trees. This probably says much more about my skills with a throw-line than anything else. The big shot saves much time and heart-ache. Money well spent in my case, but if you have any sort of degree of hand - eye co-ordination you might think differently.

Totally agree with all of the above. Sometimes you have to be adaptable and figure out how to do things as they arise. College and training courses tend to only deal with the ideal situation, not always easy to apply ideal world techniques to the real world. All that said, I've seen us looking at an awkward tree for ages trying to figure out the best way to getting it down safely without mullahing the summerhouse and wall underneath, including going to get more kit and lots of head scratching. In the end we took it down pretty much as the book said to. Always worth remembering that you have the "right" way of doing things in the toolbox too. Getting back to topic, this is why its so important to get young guys straight from college/tickets in with more experienced folks. Both can learn from each other IMHO.

Cheers. All done by hand, amazing what you can do with a big cant hook, a bit of gravity and a bit of sweat.

A bit of windblow clearance from across a forest road. New on top of old - joy. Got the same to do round the corner on Monday.

Nowt wrong with that (provided obviously there's no TPO's or the like and the trees are coming down anyway). Think I'd use rails rather than panels though. Done a few fences in the woods that way, small scale felling and restock. Fell the trees, ones round the outside fell at about 6' - 7', top wire, bottom wire, roll of temporary net: job done, cheap temporary deer fence. Sometimes need to put in a few extra stabs between, and need to trim the strainers/turners a couple of times if its the likes of ash or sycamores but does a good job.

Back up? Fail safe? Nothing would surprise me these days! Mind you, in this literal world, all the signs will need changed to "wait here when red lights show"! The confusion otherwise....

For the record, I was certainly not trying to suggest that sycamore is native or indigenous, but it can be considered naturalised. There seems to be debate as to whether it was introduced in the 16th or 17th centuries, the middle ages or by the romans. Categorising species as native or non-native will always cause the debate as to whether we count humankind as a part of the natural order, and at what point in time do we remove ourselves from nature, however, in it's current accepted use, I see no reason that the meaning of native should become diluted: it is a species which made it to a locality without human intervention.

Good advice.

From the blue book: Volume from Length and Mid-diameter : V = ( π dm² / 40000) * L V is volume in cubic meters π is pi (3.1415927) dm is mid diameter in centimeters L is length in meters So: V = ((3.1415927 * (75 * 75)) / 40000) * 12 = ((3.1415927 * 5625) / 40000) * 12 = (17671.458 / 40000) * 12 = 0.4417864 * 12 = 5.3m3

Indigenous would normally be referred to as native here as, JLA says. Also correct that the normal definition of native for the UK is that a species has to have arrived after the last ice age and before the land-bridge linking us to the continent eroded to form the English Channel. Some species are only native to certain areas however; beech, for example, is only native to the south-west of the UK, it is not considered native in north England or Scotland. Naturalised refers to species which have been introduced by humans, but have been here for so long that they have effectively carved out their own niche. The only one I can think of is sycamore, a Roman introduction, which is considered naturalised. It will grown in natural rotation with ash: sycamore regenerating under ash, then ash under sycamore, then sycamore under ash..., you get the idea. They will also form part of the wider eco-system, supporting other organisms. I think hard-core conservationists/environmentalists have a problem with "naturalised", tending to see things as either native or non-native. Daythe trees, I've never heard of domesticated in relation to plants, but I suppose it is a good enough term for species which we grow agriculturally (just because I've never heard of it doesn't mean it isn't used or valid). or even silviculturally. I think you are confusing GM and breeding.

pong!

Maybe I should be on the over thinking thread. I think my brain's just getting confused as to what my eyes are seeing. So, the question is: is it worth having the full wrap on a saw predominantly used for felling with only a wee bit processing from time to time?

For what it's worth, the AFAG 401 says on Ladders: 29 Ladders are normally only used as a means of access into the crown of the tree. Once the climber is secured to the tree by rope/strop and harness, the ladder should be removed. 36 When using a ladder for ascent into a tree, the climber must be secured to the tree before leaving the top of the ladder or carrying out any other work. Note the use of the word, "normally", in point 29; this is a great get out! Further on: 38 If work is to be carried out standing on a ladder, the climber must be secured onto the tree by rope/strop and harness. In such cases the ladder should be secured at the top before work starts. Personally I've only ever worked off ladders many years ago doing seed collection - and hated every minute of it. I certainly wouldn't want to be working a saw from ladders, they become just another target! I'll quite happily use ladders to access a tree if the situation is appropriate, they're just another tool like any other.

So full wrap on your 395 Stubby goes right around and underneath? Or is that just the attachment to the mount on the bottom of the saw? I thought a 3/4 looked as wyk's picture of the 044 a couple of pages back, and the full went right the way under. I can be quite easily confused.

My mistake, I thought a 3/4 went round and gave an additional grip on over the clutch casing. I thought you could get a full wrap which went right around and underneath, thought I'd seen that somewhere?

Good man, obvious once its pointed out! If I'm thinking of getting a wrap handle, what's best - full or 3/4?

I know (or I think I know ) that PNW stands for Pacific North West, but what does HO stand for? Do you do much of the way of processing with these saws or just use them purely for felling? I could see a 3/4 wrap handle coming in very handy when felling, but then, I normally want to turn the saw to doing a bit of processing too - although not too much with the likes of a 395. Just wondering what the trade off is like?

I think the book says 50cm. I take that to mean you can have 50cm of rope between the bridge of your harness and your anchor. That is maximum you are supposed to climb above your anchor, obviously, depending on the tree, you can climb a lot higher above it.

I find there are two types of tree: 1. You look at it, go away, come back to do the job and it's grown in size and awkwardness and there are suddenly more things underneath it. 2. You look at it, go away, come back to do the job and it's shrunk in size, become easier and all the things you thought were right underneath it are actually further away. I much prefer the second type.