this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
87 points (100.0% liked)

HistoryPhotos

817 readers
227 users here now

HistoryPhotos is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.
  4. No genocide or atrocity denialism.

Related Communities:

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Could it be that they're only harvesting the branches and crown, leaving the tree intact in order to regrow everything?

Also, hey-- guys on the ground, uh... you might want to step lively?

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Nope. They cut the top out then move down cutting the rest into sections. This is how they used to cut tree's way down here. I used to watch from a distance when I was a kid. By the time I was an adult things had moved to tree cutter machines.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Why not just fell it, then cut it in to pieces afterwards? Wouldn't that be safer and easier work?

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If the tree falls onto an adjacent tree and gets hung up, then you have an unstable and dangerous situation. You can try to cut your target tree free, but when it breaks loose it might come crashing down in unexpected ways.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Good points.
There's more than a few videos on YT in which we can see folks who completely underestimated or just whiffed upon the amount of potential force involved in lumber-resting-on-lumber.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Might be something so tall and large is more dangerous - or ruins in some way the lumber.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Don't know. I'm just happy I never had to do much of it. When the machines came along there were fewer tree's like that left. Its all one big plantation around here now. The old growth tree's have been replaced by fast growing pine. No more lumberjacks and no more deer hunters. Just machine operators and deer farmers left.

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

They would normally do that, especially in those days. They topped trees to use them for rigging lines to help skid felled trees to rail lines, water or the mill.

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The guys on the ground are way closer to the camera / further from the tree than you think when you first see it.

Look at how big they are compared to the guy on the tree. Which, holy shit the absolute cajones on those loggers - I'd never be able to do that.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

Ah, you're right.

Still, I think I'd be even further away, on the other side, based on how tree limbs and pieces sometimes twist unexpectedly.

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

I expected real beavers. Disappointed.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok...

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Journey of Natty Gann vibes.