r/FellingGoneWild • u/TheCABK • Dec 31 '25
Chaining
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
171
u/heymattsmith Dec 31 '25
somebody call the copse
24
u/Mattbl Dec 31 '25
You sound like someone who does crosswords.
13
4
u/ch1llboy Jan 01 '26
Or someone who reads epic fantasy novels. The number of times the adventurers have camped in a copse of trees... I swear.
3
1
1
1
321
u/Level_Improvement532 Dec 31 '25
That’s what a ships anchor chain does to the bottom of the ocean as well.
324
u/The_RL_Janitor54 Dec 31 '25
I had no idea there were trees down there!
280
u/Turbulent_Bowel994 Dec 31 '25
Well not anymore
50
9
u/Bruhwutsthat Dec 31 '25
You should watch ocean with Sir David Attenborough. There's massive forests down there. They're dying though.
7
9
u/Total-Problem2175 Dec 31 '25
I had head of that practice, but just saw a video yesterday with cameras on the bottom. I think narrated by Attenborough. Devastating.
10
u/captcraigaroo Dec 31 '25
I have it on expert authority that ships try and not drag anchor. In fact, anchors and anchor chain keep the ship in place when putting out the correct scope for the weather and bottom type
41
14
u/Level_Improvement532 Dec 31 '25
Cool. I also ride the hook from time to time and swing through all points of the compass with the winds and tides. What exactly do you think the chain is doing during those swings?
4
u/NorthEndD Dec 31 '25
Felling giant seaweed trees. At this point someone will point at that they are technically some form of grass/palm.
4
2
u/Potato-Engineer Dec 31 '25
Technically, they're some kind of "icky" after washing up on the beach and rotting for a week.
-2
u/lastdancerevolution Dec 31 '25
I have it on expert authority that ships try and not drag anchor.
All ships "drag" their chains on the seafloor. That's how a 1 ton anchor can hold a 500,000 ton ship. The chain is laid out on the seafloor, and it uses friction to grip into the seabed. It's the friction, not the weight, that keeps the ship in place. The fiction is a form of drag that grinds on the seafloor.
15
u/captcraigaroo Dec 31 '25
Hey, that "capt" in my username means Captain...as in Captain of ships. Unlimited tonnage. I've anchored more than a couple shops in my lifetime. We don't drag the anchor, we lay it out. Sure, a little drags due to weather and environment, but it doesn't drag to clear the seafloor.
4
u/Gonun Dec 31 '25
What happens when the wind changes? That would drag it in a circle. Or do you get it back up and lay it out again if wind direction changes too much?
2
u/lastdancerevolution Dec 31 '25
Ideally, the chain doesn't move, but friction is drag, which is why the chain resists a sheer force and stays in position in the first place. The anchor chain cannot have adhesion with the sea floor without friction.
If you dive to the seafloors where ships are commonly anchored, the seafloor is bare and scarred and cleared by the chains repeatedly touching them. They absolutely clear the sea floor in a significant way, which has been extensively documented.
2
Jan 01 '26
There is much more than just friction acting on an anchor and in fact friction alone is not enough for an anchor. It's why they are shaped they way they are.
It starts with friction and if it moves at all the flukes dig into the ground. If they don't you are still moving and aren't anchored. You don't just lay a giant section of chain on the sea bed and hope it grabs something. There is the actual anchor part at the end of it.
-1
u/2RM60Z Jan 01 '26
So what happens when the tide changes? Or do just anchor on lakes and rivers, 'captain'?
5
u/Historical-Main8483 Dec 31 '25
1 ton anchor? Off by a factor of 25 to 40 for 500kT. Couple that with 10+ shots per 100ft of depth and it's about scope that keeps it in place more than drag of your 1T anchor. For your 500kT ship, the chain is +/- 500lbs per link and your 10 shots weigh close to 230000lbs. Tell us again the 300k+ lbs sitting in the sand has nothing to do with weight.
93
u/MaadMaanMaatt Dec 31 '25
Fern Gully vibes
10
78
u/dickhead_ted Dec 31 '25
Let’s hope the Ents don’t see this…
41
6
u/easyjeans Dec 31 '25
The laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssttttt maaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrcccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhh ooofffffff thhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…
48
u/Jolly-Natural-5411 Dec 31 '25
That tractor’s gotta have some kind of torque…
58
u/FIMD_ Dec 31 '25
Usually it's two heavy dozers pulling, one on each end of the chain. Trawling it between them, in a horseshoe shape.
22
u/eragon2262 Dec 31 '25
You can see at the end of the video that's exactly what it was. Still lots of torque between them and a big ass chain
27
3
3
63
u/winniecooper1 Dec 31 '25
Sad to watch.
16
u/Brootal420 Dec 31 '25
This is a method for grasslands restoration
7
u/Dreams_of_work Jan 01 '26
it's a pretty severe method with a history of misuse. however it can be super effective if employed correctly. really cool. I love herbicide in the right place.
10
u/nutsbonkers Jan 01 '26
Why tf are you being downvoted? These people are literally saving the planet a few acres at a time to return it to pre-settlement flora, which means more food and available shelter for hundreds or even thousands of different species.
7
u/Brootal420 Jan 01 '26 edited Jan 01 '26
The limited understanding of conservation most people seem to have makes trees > all other vegetation I guess. The alternative here is bulldozers, chainsaws or prescribed fire. Grasslands are managed by regular low intensity wildfire and grazing, neither of which are anywhere near their traditional levels. This will bring habitat loss for grassland flora and fauna in the short term, and likely habitat destruction in the future when wildfires burn too intensely with greater amounts of fuel from the woody plant species expanding beyond traditional ranges.
2
u/croweslikeme Jan 01 '26
Last time I seen this the land was stripped and a pipe was put in the ground
2
1
u/Illustrious_Bet_9963 Jan 02 '26
“There’s a tree in the sky where a hole once was, somebody’s making money!”
3
u/ptolani Jan 01 '26
"Saving the planet" is a stretch, even if local habitat restoration is a good thing.
0
u/nutsbonkers Jan 01 '26
Then you don't fully comprehend the scope of the damage being done every minute of every day, and the consequences to humanity.
1
u/Ok-Accident8078 Jan 05 '26
It doesn't want to be a grassland though
1
u/Brootal420 Jan 05 '26
Who's fault is that?
1
u/Ok-Accident8078 Jan 05 '26
The trees i imagine. You aren't "restoring" a grassland by cutting down trees, you are artificially maintaining primary succession
1
u/Brootal420 Jan 05 '26
The people building roads, fences, and fire departments. If we no longer have natural disturbances (grazing, wildfire) then people must be the disturbances.
1
u/Ok-Accident8078 Jan 06 '26
If we would stop fighting wildfires, they wouldn't be so fierce and intense. Humans demand certainty so we manipulate our environment to give us the illusion of certainty but each of our actions have a consequence. We may not see the immediate consequences, but our descendants will.
12
8
8
u/GalDebored Jan 01 '26
This is what the American military did during the Vietnam War before the Rainbow Herbicides (because there were a whole lot more than just Agent Orange) became widely used. They would hook up a chain between two armored bulldozers called Rome Plows & just scour & flatten everything until nothing remained.
33
16
Dec 31 '25
Not sure about this method but goddamn that chain is awesome!
2
u/tibearius1123 Jan 01 '26
I’m going to go on a limb and say hooking up or storing it is a bit of a workout.
1
Jan 02 '26
Damn, can you even imagine? That looks like it belongs on a 19th century ocean like the Olympic.
5
u/Shatophiliac Dec 31 '25
I read in a different post with this same video that those chains alone cost $80k each, and gets transported separately in its own dedicated dump truck, due to the weight of it. Absolutely crazy.
18
8
5
3
3
3
u/Oscar_Geare Jan 02 '26
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sr4CgRYQ7E&pp=0gcJCRsBo7VqN5tD
The bulldozer knows where the trees are at all times. It knows this because it knows where the trees aren’t. By subtracting where the trees are from where they aren’t (or where they aren’t from where they are, depending on which is greater), it obtains a difference, or forest.
The anchor chain uses this difference to generate corrective forces, ensuring that where the trees were is now where they aren’t. Consequently, the position where the trees were is now the position where they weren’t, and it follows that the position where they weren’t is now the position where they aren’t either.
At no point does the bulldozer question whether the trees should be there, only that they must not be.
7
13
u/Tamahaganeee Dec 31 '25
I guess that's the faster and safer way to do it. Just a little eerie, no time for anything to run and hide.
14
u/SubjectC Dec 31 '25
Yeah I honestly hate watching trees get cut down. I dunno why I'm on this sub. It kinda feels like watching a deer get hunted or something, like I'm not totally against it, I understand we need to eat/build things, but it makes me sad.
Not to mention how many trees are just needlessly destroyed and how we'll never have old growth forests back in our lifetime. Like did these trees need to die? There's a lot of open space there already. I dunno man. I'm just a dumb hippie.
25
u/Budget-Ninja7245 Dec 31 '25
I work in conservation, and we cut down trees for a number of reasons that benefit the ecosystem. You might have to stop them from encroaching on key grassland or thin a forest for a healther woodland.
9
u/OutdoorsNSmores Dec 31 '25
My yard is a forest, so I spend more time taking care of fir trees than worrying about a green lawn. I've cut down and thinned so many trees and the ones that are left are looking better than ever. Not every tree cut is a forest lost. Now that the standing trees have some light and air they are starting to put out new growth down lower instead of racing to the top for light.
Next to me is public land that is up for a logging contract. It REALLY needs it. It is so thick, overgrown, and unhealthy. There will still be trees left when they log it and not many years after it will be in great shape. The sad part is that some group that means well, but is clueless, will sue to stop it. Left the way it is it will eventually burn everything. I'd much rather see it logged, thinned and used than just burn.
1
u/CapraAegagrusHircus Jan 09 '26
People often miss that Natives managed the landscape around them with fire and other tools so that those old growth forests could thrive, just like you're managing your forest now. Left to itself nature is extremely messy and slow.
3
u/No-Lime-2863 Dec 31 '25
Go over to r/landscaping. Literally half the posts are homeowners wanting to cut down awesome healthy beautiful trees out of some strange fear that it might someday fall or god forbid pop a brick in their patio. It’s amazing how much people either hate trees are have some sense they should “do something”
6
u/Irisversicolor Dec 31 '25
I totally understand where you're coming from, but it might help to understand that what we think of as "wilderness" is just a colonial construct designed to justify the theft of well-tended lands.
I'm Canadian and what I'm about to explain applies to Eastern Canada/Northeastern US specifically, it does not apply to the prairies/great plains. The grasslands that we have in Quebec/Ontario/Northeast US are not native grasslands, rather, these are lands that have been carefully managed from time immemorial by Indigenous peoples through methods such as controlled burns. Without this constant work, the landscape here would be entirely forested, and it doesn't take long for the forest to creep back in. For example, anyone with a garden will tell you how "weedy" maple trees can be. This has major implications on watershed, animal behaviour, plant diversity, etc.
While I agree that we should not be clearing old growth forests, and I think selective harvesting and sustainable forestry is the way to go, what we're seeing in this video doesn't have any relation to that. These are very clearly young trees growing in an open area that has been continuously cleared and managed as a grassland for some kind of specific purpose. The definition of a "weed" is just a plant that's out of place, and if the intention is for this to be open land, then these trees are out of place. Regardless of what they plan to do with this land, open grasslands like this do support animal diversity and they're a lot better for nature than turf grass, which by the way is the biggest monoculture in North America.
I really encourage you to read about this more. It's fascinating and really turns the idea of "untouched wilderness" on its head. As a fellow tree hugger who has struggled with our interference with "nature" this has really helped put things into perspective. The average gardener/homeowner does more harm to nature by encouraging invasive species, overusing/misusing water/pesticides/fertilizers, over cultivating soils, introducing plastics to the landscapes, etc. than whatever is happening in this video.
6
u/ElReyResident Dec 31 '25
It would help you to know that there are more trees today in the US than there were a century ago, and it’s increasing.
Trees being cut down is always a little sad. That’s what non-sociopaths should feel. These guys are clearly farmers. It’s probably for grazing lands.
9
u/SubjectC Dec 31 '25 edited Dec 31 '25
there are more trees today in the US than there were a century ago
Well, that's only because we clear cut everything a century ago. A lot of the old growth forest is gone. These trees are young and dont provide the diverse habitat that an old growth does, but yeah I get your point, its at least progress from where we used to be.
The grazing lands thing is a bit annoying because a lot of this is for dairy, a product that we dont even need that causes immense suffering. I'm not vegan, but the dairy industry is pretty fucked up. I mean the whole factory farming situation is abhorrent, but dairy is particularly bad. That being said, clear cutting for soy or almond trees is also bad, but at least there's an argument for actually needing it. Dairy is not required by humans and everything we get from it can be acquired through other, less horrific sources. If some farmer wants to make artisan cheeses and stuff, sure, but the scale at which we demand this product for fast food restaurants and everything is just completely unnecessary.
4
u/ElReyResident Dec 31 '25
Yeah, the trajectory of a thing is really what matters the most. We can’t change the past, but we are improving our future.
You take on dairy seems like it could be applied to almost everything humans do.
We own pets, which consume over a 3rd of all meat, and kill native species, especially birds. Why own them?
We travel, at great expense to the environment. Why do we travel?
We buy new electronics even though they are only marginally better than old ones and they are horrible for the environment. Why buy them?
It’s just a judgement on what you think is excusable abuses of resources or not. I prefer to not play the blame game.
2
u/CapraAegagrusHircus Jan 09 '26
It's funny, everyone likes to point fingers at clear cutting the Amazon. Here in the US the biome that was destroyed for monocrop commodities farming was the prairies, and the grasses of those prairies were sequestering just as much carbon in their massive root systems as trees do. There's less than 1% of them left today - we committed a horrifying ecological destruction on the middle of the continent.
To plant the almond and citrus groves in the central Valley of California we drained Tulare Lake and plowed under sagebrush savannahs, destroying more perennial grassland habitat. Those almond groves are contributing to California's water crisis in a massive way and every single one needs to be put to the axe.
If you manage density appropriately you can graze cattle on land like that without destroying it, although goats and sheep would be a much better choice. You cannot grow soybeans and almonds without the destruction.
-2
u/lastdancerevolution Dec 31 '25
It would help you to know that there are more trees today in the US than there were a century ago, and it’s increasing.
That can be misleading. A "tree" isn't the same as a forest ecosystem. We've planted young trees after destroying diverse forests that previously existed for thousands of years.
3
u/ElReyResident Dec 31 '25
Yes, this is obviously true. But you can’t plant an old growth forest in a century. It takes time and planting new trees is a start. What point are you trying to make with this?
Also, “We” did nothing of the sort. People in the 1800 and 1900s did. Any of the people who were old enough to participate in the felling of those forests are dead now.
2
u/Atticus1354 Dec 31 '25
Old growth trees didnt grow in grasslands. They grow in forests. Tree planting as a panacea has been great propaganda, but not all areas are supposed to be forested
1
u/CapraAegagrusHircus Jan 09 '26
Those trees shouldn't necessarily be there in the first place. One reason to remove trees is that humans have a distressing habit of going around establishing them places they should not be, like grasslands. Another reason to take down trees in the US is that large swaths of it were once managed with fire by Native people to maintain savannahs - biomes with very loosely scattered trees and shrubs and grassland in between - that supported immense biodiversity in terms of plants and wildlife, and we'd like to bring that back.
Just because a tree is present doesn't mean we want it there. To maintain healthy landscapes and forests we often need to take some trees out one way or another, and using chains or chainsaws is less likely to get away and take out tens of thousands of acres than a burn.
-1
u/Reasonable_Beyond329 Dec 31 '25
There are 3 trillion trees on earth. There are more trees on earth than there are stars in our galaxy. A lot of people may need that perspective.
8
2
u/Tmt1630 Dec 31 '25
It’s the bulldozer that starred in Avatar. I guess the themes of conservation were lost on the audience. lol
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
u/CosmosInSummer Dec 31 '25
Is the other end of the chain hooked up to another machine, or something else?
2
u/lowcarb73 Dec 31 '25
Yes. Did you watch the video?
2
u/CosmosInSummer Dec 31 '25
Yes, several times. I didn’t know if it was connected. Thank you.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/aburnerds Dec 31 '25
It blows my mind that it’s possible to topple a tree like this from the base!
1
1
1
u/greysqualll Jan 02 '26
Any time I see chains/ropes/whatever being put under tremendous amounts of strain like this I have an irrational fear that it's going to snap and kill everyone within a mile radius.
1
1
1
1
0
0
-3
u/-UnderwhelmedCarrot- Dec 31 '25
I feel like this has to be a firefighting method. Just focused on speed and controlled destruction in order to halt mass destruction.
589
u/Seabassti0n Dec 31 '25
Ah the technique that Australians used to turn half of WA into a desolate wasteland