[Mark Cowdrey]

“By placing the bunk back, it allows more weight to be put on the bunk(more to lift for sure), but by creating mechanical advantage (more runner in front than behind), you tend to make up for that,”
My inserted italics into Carl’s quote. I’m not sure the compensation would be complete, but it is certainly in that direction.

“but there is no mathematical advantage, runner length equal front and back, which amounts to a dead lift.”
I am picturing some mechanical advantage, just not as substantial. Picture a 6′ plank. Put a rock in the center. Lift one end. It takes a certain amount of work. Now lift just the rock (dead left). It takes more work. Now move the rock away from the end of the plank you are lifting, it takes less work to lift the plank end (& the rock.

Am I right on the above comments (Carl? Andy?)?

Carl I am with you all the way on your general reasoning; safety, versatility and economy.

Great thread. I feel like this sort of thing is one of the most valuable contributions DAPNet can make to the draft animal power community.
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

My recollection matches Erika’s.
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

“Final” Agenda 02/2/12

Review electronic committee (Comm Comm, P&E,Fin) reports – Mark – 15
NOTE: Ed will not be on call. He emailed a report on 2/8/12. (Sent from “Town of Washington Public Works Department” )

Grants – Reva – 15

501(c) 3 update – Mark – 5

Website – Jen -15

Sponsorships – Reva – 15

Newsletter staffing – Erika/Jean – 15

Networking w/ other Draft Animal orgs – Ethan – 15

Administrator Job Description
Board Meeting Attendance
Insurance
Changing BoD Meeting Dates – Reva – 10 min

Event Teamster Compensation – Ed – 15
NOTE: As Ed will not attend, this item will be tabled unless BoD objects

Other business – Mark –

[Mark Cowdrey]

Hi all. Please remember to attend tonight’s meeting at 7PM 605-475-4001 code 120059
If you have other agenda items,let me know.
Thanks,
Mark

BoD 02/2/12 Agenda update & material

Agenda

Review electronic committee (Comm Comm, P&E,Fin) reports – Mark – 15
NOTE: Ed will not be on call. He emailed a report on 2/8/12. (Sent from “Town of Washington Public Works Department” )

Grants – Reva – 15
See info below

Website – Jen -15
See info below

Sponsorships – Reva – 15

Newsletter staffing – Erika/Jean – 15

Networking w/ other Draft Animal orgs – Ethan – 15

Event Teamster Compensation – Ed – 15

Other business – Mark –
NOTE: The schedule runs 1:45+. If possible we will finish in 1:30.
__________________________________________________________________________
Reva grant info from emails you should have gotten:
For our discussion about goals tonight.

Update for BoD meeting – responses to my email below:
Mark – move retreat to #4
Pam – educational & promotional materials
Jen – computer
Ken – new farmer monies, organizational development
Tim – change approach look at funding ops first, such as environment, local food, community, forest resources.

Sent: Sun, February 5, 2012 5:39:15 PM
Subject: Grants and the Feb meeting

If we are going to look for grants, I need to know what we want the money for. So I would like you to think about your priorities for the next 18 months and make a list for discussion at the meeting. Send me your ideas so I can pull them together.
For example (with the numbers being the ranking):
1. Field Days in 2013 – $10-15,000 (include money if you have any idea)
2. Redo the website – $10,000
3. Underwrite all the seasonal events for 2012&2013 – $15 -20,000
4. Focus on Logging and create DAPLogger lists with websites, events, etc
create nationwide resource on the web for education and PR – $5,000
5. Underwrite the plowing events only for 2012-2013 – $2500
6. Work with educational institutions who do DAP – ???
7. Board Retreat to define Long Term Priorities – $2-5,000
8. what else….?

Obviously, this is part of a larger discussion which we need to have this year. In the meantime, I need some place to begin looking/thinking about larger funding. Reva
_________________________________________________________________________

Emailed by Jennifer Judkins with two (2) attachments 2/11/12
Website Report 2/12

I met with Pam R and David M at Blue Star this month and got some sense of what a website rebuild would look like and cost.

This was my starting point:

So DAPNet runs two websites. http://www.draftanimalpowernetwork.org is the main ‘Informational we bite, where members sign up, business resources are listed as well as event information. http://www.draftanimalpower.com is the forum and a very valuable DAPNet asset.

Here are (some of) the problems:

1. We have no web support. The DAP.com we master has been unresponsive for months…probably the better part of a year now. The DAPNet.org webmaster has recently been not responding to email. I am optimistic, that this is a temporary problem and I can get him back on board with a phone call. Keep in mind we pay both these parties a months fee to host our websites. Since I am virtually the only one managing these sites, I feel very vulnerable, as I don’t have extensive web design experience.

2. In regard to maintenance, the two websites take twice as much time as one. I have to post events on two calendars, cross post announcements and event info, etc. One website would make more sense in regard to keeping information in one place and up to date.

3. In addition, there is no way to track who is a DAPNet member on either site. I would like to give members some perks on the forum, but it is just too complicated to figure out who has paid for a membership (which is not tracked on either website, just by our administrator.

4. Advertising. Outside the Business directory on DAPNet.org, which highlights folks who pony up a higher level of membership, we are not making the best use of space for advertising. There are ways to do it on both sites, but again the duplication issue is a problem. In addition, I do know the necessary HTML to add banners to the DAP.com website.

5. I would like to have an online store. Right now, I believe DAPNet.org would support this, but I hesitate to pay the webmaster to construct this if we are just going to rebuild a new single site.

According to David, we can pretty much build whatever we want….but this means the planning needs to be well thought out and clear, so that we don’t have to do this again. His estimate was 75-100 hours (on his end) at 50.00 an hour, of planning and development. 25 or so to actually build the site. This assumes help from DAPNet providing copy and content. So that tallies up to much less than the 10 grand in the budget, though I think we should plan for the full amount in regard to grant proposals.

The next step is to hammer out details of how the website will function in a ‘Requirements Document’. I’ve attached a copy….its a daunting document and I will need help, both from David was well as someone(s) from DAPNet. So if you have any interest in helping on this project, let me know. I will look at the larger membership for help as well. I think Ellen Anderson would help and perhaps Bekah Bailey.

I have also attached David Milos CV for your review. He has extensive IT experience both at Fortune 500 companies and non-profits. Blue Star recommends him without reservation. Let me know if anyone has any concerns.

FYI, Phil Wilson, the other website guy has fallen off the map….I’m kind of relieved, there was definitely something concerning about him.
___________________________________________________

[Mark Cowdrey]

WOO-HOO!
I can’t wait till they all join DAPNet to help support this effort. (http://www.draftanimalpowernetwork.org/membership.html) Let’s see, 3000×20 bucks a pop, that’s real money that can do real good to sustain our mission:

“Advancing the use of draft animals and promoting sustainable land stewardship by providing resource connections and shared
learning opportunities while building community.”

Thanks to all who are members.
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

Either option works for me. I am available Monday 2/13.
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

Another interesting feature of Peavey’s is that the swing arm with the dog can be different lengths. A shorter one working better (for rolling) with small wood and a larger, larger wood.
I haven’t seen the double dogs that George is showing us before.
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Mark Cowdrey]

George,
Does it sweep up or down or fore or aft?
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

Thanks to Jen’s reminder, I think I have what I need from the DAPNet.org website.
Just want to make sure that “Tim” & “Ed” are good on legal documents.
Thanks,
MArk

[Mark Cowdrey]

Thanks Tristan.
These hames are fairly common looking steel work hames, similar to what Meaders Supply (http://www.meadersupply.com/Publish/products_tack.html) sells.
What a great resource to have a machine shop setup for bending hames. How complicated is the jig?
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

Go for it & get it to Jen for insertion.
Thanks,
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

Initial thoughts.
Good concept on #1 “looking to the future”. Great to have a perspective shot. graphically the off hame ball & blinder create a single lump. I would prefer a team. Longer tail. What about cattle, are they already somewhat marginalized? (#2 avoids that by having no animal). I always (?) use lower case for the “et” of DAPNet, though the full uppercase gives a good “bottom” to the graphic.

#2 cool but, naaah… not the one for us.
Thanks Ethan,
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

@Carl Russell 31883 wrote:

…I’m almost more willing to assert that the biggest reason for developing the D-ring was to improve on the hold-back system represented by the Side-backer. …
According to Les, most people that he has met had no idea that the D-ring harness they were using could be adjusted to bear pole weight, even men older than he who had used the harness their whole lives. I wonder if that was just a regional innovation in itself, merely taking advantage of any mechanism, square D or rounded D, to accomplish that, and may not have had anything to do with the actual design and subsequent manufacture and marketing of the D-ring harness.
…

Carl

Carl,
Thanks for taking my intuitive thoughts and running them through your research.

It is not immediately apparent to me that the D-ring offers any substantial improvement holding back than a side backer does. Your thoughts?

Coming from the current position of knowing the pole weight advantage of the D-ring it baffles me that it would not be an initiating element of the design. Certainly the photos in this thread certainly bear out that that capacity was not used. Just an instructive example of the lens of “time prejudice” I look through when I look back from my perspective of today I guess.
Thanks,
Mark

[Mark Cowdrey]

For me the critical breakthrough moment would be when someone realised that with a “D-ring” (actual shape not withstanding) harness it is possible to move the pole weight from the neck to the back. I am inclined to substantially define a D-ring harness one that has 5 straps to the “connector”. Previous to that, e.g. the Betsy Ross photo, the “connector” seems more of convenience of some sort than anything substantive. From jut the photos on this post we can see that there were many, many harness variations manufactured and doubtless many other combinations and amalgamations in actual use. It is not beyond the pale for me to believe that some such incidental combination of parts allowed the above mentioned adjustment to occur accidentally. I can conceive that it was some sort of “ah-ha” moment in barn dooryard or livery rather than a drawing board solution to a perceived problem. If so, it would spread a neighbor saw the benefit. If this was the method, it could easily have occurred simultaneously at several different geographic points. This line of thinking spreads the invention out to several people, though certainly when the benefit became widely recognised some enterprising harness maker would start making them new.

One set of harness I have has a forged ring that the straps are sewn onto, the D has 2 “stems”, one for the trace and one for the britchen. The other set, however, has a larger ring in the style of a clevis, that is, it has a bolt that forms the D’s stem. This makes the D look much more like a D. My guess, while we are doing all this guessing, is that the clevis type is simpler (to put the harness together) and likely a precursor to the forged type.
Mark

[Author]

Posts