The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has developed this

information for the guidance of its employees, its contractors, and its cooperating Federal and

State agencies, and is not responsible for the interpretation or use of this information by anyone

except its own employees. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this document is for

the information and convenience of the reader, and does not constitute an endorsement by the

Department of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political

beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Stock-Drawn Equipment

for Trail Work

Steve Didier, Packer

Lochsa Ranger District

Clearwater National Forest

Diane Herzberg

Mechanical Engineer

USDA Forest Service

Technology and Development Program

Missoula, Montana

3E32A14–Horse-Drawn Trail Plow

August 1996

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Technology &

Development

Program

2300 Recreation

August 1996

9623-2802-MTDC
Contents

Introduction _____________________________________ 1

Hillside Plow Designs _____________________________ 2

Vulcan _______________________________________________ 6

Chattanooga (International Harvester) ______________________ 6

Oliver ________________________________________________ 7

Syracuse (John Deere) __________________________________ 7

Grading Equipment_______________________________ 8

Beatty Grader __________________________________________ 9

Fremont Grader _______________________________________ 10

Specialty Equipment Designs _____________________ 11

MTDC Combination Plow and Grader ______________________ 11

Trail Ace and Trail Scoop________________________________ 12

Performance Testing ____________________________ 13

Results ________________________________________ 15

Discussion of Results ___________________________ 16

Recommendations ______________________________ 17

Equipment Modifications ________________________________ 17

Operator Qualifications and Training _______________ 21

Sources _______________________________________ 22

—Line drawings of the hillside plow and Beatty grader by Steve Didier, Jr.

ii
Introduction

This project started as an investigation to find replacement

parts for the stock-drawn hillside plows of yesteryear.

Manufacturers no longer provide replacement parts for

machines or implements that have been out of production

for 50 years or more. The only sources for parts in the past

were “bone yards” of implement dealers or salvage yards,

or old-timers who knew the location of some old plows. The

Amish, who still use horses as draft animals, have manufactured replacement parts for some old horse plows. In

addition, they have built a couple of their own models

similar to the 10-in (250-mm) Oliver hillside plow, using a

similar cast plowshare.

Besides looking for replacement parts, the Missoula

Technology and Development Center (MTDC) fabricated

a couple of stock-drawn trail implements. The Center duplicated a grader initially developed and used on the Fremont

National Forest’s Lakeview Ranger District. The Center

also fabricated a copy of a combination plow and grader

implement developed in the early 1970’s, MTDC drawing

no. MEDC-529.

The purpose of this project was to:

• Locate manufacturers, sources, and suppliers of stockdrawn implements that could be used for trail tread

maintenance and construction.

• Estimate production rate of the implement, (for instance,

feet or miles of trails that can be covered in an 8-hr day).

• Assess skills required of equipment operators and how

easy or hard the implement is to use.

This information would be obtained for the following

implements:

• Vulcan hillside plow or similar plow

• Beatty grader

• Fremont trail grader

• MTDC combination plow and grader

• Trail Ace and Trail Scoop.

1
Hillside Plow Designs

The hillside plow is the traditional horse- or mule-drawn

agricultural implement for plowing on steep ground (Figure

1). Hillside plows are also called turning plows. A latch

allows the moldboard and shoe to rotate from right to left

(Figure 2). Rotating the cutting part of the plow allows the

operator to turn a hill of dirt to the downhill side of the trail

bed, regardless of the plow’s direction of travel.

Most designs have provisions for a draft adjustment range

of several inches both vertically (Figure 3), and laterally

(Figure 4). The better designs allow hillside (lateral) draft

adjustment from the handles. The size of a plow refers to

the width of the furrow it is capable of plowing. Plow sizes

range from 5 in (130 mm) to 14 in (360 mm). Figure 5

shows the Chattanooga plow.

There are four basic styles of hillside plows. They differ in

their availability and in their design. Effective hillside plows

are designed with adjustments for vertical (down) draft

and horizontal (hillside) draft. Plow handles should have

adjustments to accommodate operators, whether they are

short or tall. Plow handles should be made of wood rather

than metal for comfort and safety. Wood absorbs vibrations

and can flex.

A plow is only as good as its bottom. In hillside plows, the

bottom includes the share and shoe, which is mounted on

the body of the plow. The share and shoe provide bottom

suction and hillside suction. This suction is created by the

concavities of the plow’s bottom. The easiest running plows

are those with a fairly pronounced concavity. Bottom

suction and hillside suction concavities are illustrated in

Figures 6 to 13.

Figure 1—Line drawings of a plow and parts.

Lateral draft adjustment bar

Latch

Yoke

Moldboard

Handles

Body

Shoe

Yoke

Frog Share

Moldboard

Share

Beam

Clevis

Gauge wheel

Jointer

knife

Latch

Lateral draft adjustment bar

Side views

Rear view

2
Figure 2—The latch on a hillside plow.

Figure 5—International Harvester’s Chattanooga hillside plow.

Figure 3—Vertical draft adjustment.

Figure 4—Lateral draft adjustment.

3
Figure 6—Vulcan plow showing about 1

¦

2 inch of hillside suction.

Figure 7—Vulcan plow showing about 1

¦

4

 inch of bottom suction.

Figure 8—Chattanooga plow showing nearly 1 inch of hillside suction.

Figure 9—Chattanooga plow showing about 7¦

8 inch of bottom suction.

4
Figure 10—Oliver plow showing about 1

¦

2 inch of hillside suction.

Figure 11—Oliver plow showing about 3¦

4 inch of bottom suction. Figure 13—Syracuse plow showing about 1¦

2 inch of bottom suction.

Figure 12—Syracuse plow showing about 7¦

8 inch of hillside suction.

5
Vulcan

The Vulcan is a hillside or “two-way” plow (Figure 14). The

Vulcan is the only style currently being manufactured in its

entirety. They are produced by a foundry in Amish country.

Delivery times run from 3 to 6 months. The current price is

around $400.

• Plow sizes range from 6 to 12 in (150 to 300 mm), and

weigh 15 to 130 lb (7 to 59 kg).

• Jointer knife is not available.

• Gauge wheel is lightly mounted although the supports

can be strengthened.

• Lateral (hillside) draft adjustment is provided by a sliding

clevis and ring assembly available as an accessory.

• Latches are not adjustable, with no provision for wear.

Figure 14—Vulcan hillside plow.

Chattanooga (International Harvester)

The Chattanooga (International Harvester) plow is one of

two types commonly used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, in the 1940’s and 1950’s (Figure

15). Occasionally, a 10-in (250-mm) Chattanooga can still

be found in bone yards, antique stores, or in stock-drawn

implement dealers. Parts are also available from the Erb

Plow Works in Sugar Creek, OH. Shares may be obtained

from Dyko, Inc., of Spokane, WA. This plow, complete with

single tree, weighs about 150 lb (68 kg). Set up for trail

plowing, the plow will have the following:

• Jointer knife for slicing heavy sod and roots.

• Adjustable hillside (lateral) draft from the handles.

• Adjustable latch claws to prevent the plow share and

moldboard from chattering.

• Gauge wheel for depth adjustment and easy running.

Figure 15—International Harvester’s Chattanooga hillside plow.

6
Oliver

Oliver hillside plows, also set up for trail plowing, are similar

to the Chattanooga in availability of complete plows and

parts (Figure 16). The Oliver trail plow design has features

similar to the Chattanooga:

• Jointer knife for slicing heavy sod and roots.

• Adjustable hillside (lateral) draft from the handles.

• Adjustable latch claws.

• Gauge wheels.

The weight of the 10-in (250-mm) plow, 150 lb (68 kg), is

also comparable to the Chattanooga.

Syracuse (John Deere)

Syracuse hillside plows made by John Deere are available in areas of the country where John Deere was the

primary implement dealer in the first half of the century

(Figure 17). These plows are generally 20 to 30 lb (9 to

14 kg) lighter than the Oliver and Chattanooga, and they

do not have a jointer knife and gauge wheel. The hillside

draft is also controlled at the handles on these plows.

Syracuse plows were made in an assortment of sizes

from 6 to 12 in (150 to 300 mm).

Figure 16—Oliver hillside plow. Figure 17—John Deere’s Syracuse hillside plow.

7
Grading Equipment

Figure 18—Line drawings of the MTDC combination plow and grader, and the Beatty trail grader.

Two types of stock-drawn graders are currently available to finish the trail tread (Figure 18).

Wing

Hitch bar

Shoes

Wing adjustment

MTDC Combination

Plow and Grader

(Drawing no. MEDC-529)

Beatty Grader

Point

Beam

Handles

Wing

Rock point

Single

tree

Point

Handle

Lateral

draft

hitchbar Shoe

Wing adjustment

Beam

Hitch height adjustment

and stabilizer chains

8
Figure 19—Beatty trail grader.

Figure 20—Beatty trail grader. Front view shows single tree, swivel

 clevis, hitchbar, and handles.

Figure 21—Closeup of Beatty trail grader hitchbar and wing.

Figure 22—Beatty trail grader wing adjustment.

Beatty Grader

The Beatty grader is a modified ditcher originally manufactured by General Machine in Spokane, WA (Figure 19).

Although this manufacturer is no longer in business, Idaho

Falls Foundry and Machine, in Idaho Falls, ID, has molds

to manufacture new graders as well as replacement parts.

The Beatty grader was designed to function both as a

finishing tool following a hillside plow, and as a trail tread

maintenance tool. This implement is heavy. The grader,

complete with single tree and handles, weighs 250 lb

(113 kg). The grader is designed to operate on an off

center pull to create a landside or hillside draft (Figure 20).

Draft is adjustable from approximately 4 in (100 mm) off

center to approximately 12 in (300 mm) off center (Figure

21). The wing can be adjusted to grade a tread of 11 to

26 in (280 to 660 mm) wide (Figure 22). All parts are

mounted with either pins or bolts to allow easy dismantling

for packing. In its original design, several points were

available as accessories to allow easier operation in heavy

rubble and beargrass.

9
Fremont Grader

The Fremont grader is an implement designed by Forest

Service personnel on the Fremont National Forest, Lakeview Ranger District, in Oregon for finish tread work and

light maintenance (Figures 23, 24). The tool is based on a

double ski platform with a blade mounted on a removable

turntable that is adjustable for cutting depth. The implement

will grade a tread of approximately 28 in (710 mm). The

grader cannot be disassembled for packing. The only

removable parts are the blade, turntable, handles, and

hitch chain. The weight is approximately 200 lb (91 kg).

Figure 23—Fremont trail grader. Figure 24—Fremont trail grader parts.

10
Specialty Equipment Designs

Figure 25—MTDC combination plow and grader.

Figure 26—Shoe and wing adjustments of the MTDC combination

 plow and grader.

Some specialty equipment is commercially available or

can be fabricated from MTDC drawings.

MTDC Combination Plow and Grader

The MTDC combination plow and grader is an implement

designed to combine elements of the hillside plow and

Beatty grader (Figure 25). The implement design also

increases the grading width capability up to 4-ft (1200-mm)

trail tread. The MTDC grader is built around a 60-in (1500-

mm) main beam (hillside beam) that has a cutting point

mounted just in front of the wing. In addition, the beam has

a small keel and rock tooth mounted on the rear. The wing

is 50 in (1300 mm) long. This grading width is adjustable

from approximately 12 to 43 in (300 to 1100 mm) and can

be adjusted vertically through a 6-in (150-mm) range with

an onboard mounted shoe (Figure 26). Draft is adjustable

in two ranges. The vertical draft can be adjusted through a

range of 16 in (400 mm). The lateral draft can be adjusted

Figure 27—Closeup of the point and hitchbar with single tree of the

 MTDC combination plow and grader.

through a range of 24 in (600 mm) (Figure 27). The

implement is heavy, weighing over 250 lb (113 kg). It

disassembles easily for packing; however, it is somewhat

awkward to pack because of its length.

11
Trail Ace and Trail Scoop

Recent developments in stock-drawn trail implements

include the Trail Ace and Trail Scoop. These are patented

implements designed and built by Clarence McReynolds

and Bonner Brumley of White Bird, ID.

The Trail Ace has a rigid boxed steel frame featuring a

pivoting hitch frame, rigid steel handles, and 14 sleeves

or pockets (Figure 28). The sleeves and pockets are

designed to accept the various rock teeth, ripper teeth, and

hardened sod cutter attachments provided with the tool.

One or more attachments can be mounted in several

orientations. Included in the package is a tool box and a

fixed two-way grader blade. The Trail Ace, including all

accessories, weighs 146 lb (65 kg).

The Trail Scoop is a small slip constructed of mild steel with

hardened rock teeth mounted on the front edge of the

scoop (Figure 29). The scoop weighs about 100 lb (39 kg)

and has a 1/6 yd3 (0.13 m3) capacity. It is used for excavating fill materials and transporting them for short distances.

Figure 28—The Trail Ace. Figure 29—The Trail Scoop.

12
Performance Testing

All of the implements were tested on the Clearwater

National Forest, Lochsa Ranger District portion of the

Idaho Centennial Trail No. 2; Fish Butte Trail No. 223;

Fish Creek Trail No. 224; and Down River Trail No. 2.

(Figure 30).

Soil types were those common to the southern exposure

of the Idaho Batholith, or decomposed granitic soils. The

projects were done in late May and early June when soil

moisture was high (15%). Trail slopes on the Lochsa face

typically range to 60% and steeper. Trail grades in the

project area ranged from 5 to 30%. Vegetation ranged

from bunchgrass with heavy sod; to willow, vine maple,

and serviceberry corridors; to the heavy-timbered canopy

of cedar, Douglas-fir and white fir on the north sides and

bottoms. Only two sections of hard rock were encountered on Trail No. 223. Neither section was more than 30

ft (9 m) long. There were two sections of semihard partially decomposed granite on the upper mile of the trail.

The tread on some sections of Trail No. 223 was virtually

nonexistent due to years of weathering and elk traveling

up and down the slope across the trail. In those sections,

tread width averaged less than 10 inches. Trail No. 224,

off Fish Creek Canyon, crosses numerous hard rocky

spines of essentially unplowable trail interspersed with a

long section of plowable decomposed granitic soil.

Through the portion of Idaho Centennial Trail No. 2 from

the Lochsa Historical Ranger Station to Boulder Flats, the

trail grade averaged less than 10%, the soil was granitic,

and the vegetation was mostly grass with low ferns and

bunch grass.

The project was a Level III maintenance job on a trail that

had seen little maintenance in 20 years. Brushing had been

completed the previous year and the trail had been logged

out before the tread maintenance began.

The crew consisted of the district packer, district trail

foreman, and two trail crew members. Experience levels

of the packer and crew members with draft stock and

stock-drawn trail implements ranged from 1 to 8 years.

Fred and Kate, the two Forest Service mules used in the

project, had 13 and 14 years experience in harness,

respectively. In general, the draft stock used for trail work

on this project have more experience than any members

of the crew. While using the trail equipment, both the

teamster and the equipment handler followed the mules.

The manufacturers of the Trail Ace and Trail Scoop used

a two-person crew and their own mule, Stumpy, to demonstrate their trail equipment. One person walked ahead

of the mule to lead it. The other person followed the mule

to handle the equipment.

Figure 30—The Beatty grader being field tested.

The MTDC grader was used on portions of the Idaho

Centennial Trail No. 2 and Down River Trail No. 2. The

Chattanooga plow, Fremont grader, and Beatty grader

were used on the Fish Butte Trail No. 223. The Trail Ace

and Trail Scoop were used on Fish Creek Trail No. 224.

About 1-3/4 mi (2.8 km) of Idaho Centennial Trail No. 2

from the Lochsa Historical Station to Boulder Flats was

plowed and graded with the MTDC grader. The first pass

was made with the wing shoe lowered to elevate the

outside of the wing 4 to 5 in (100 to 125 mm). The return

pass was made with the shoe adjusted to allow the

grader wing to contact the tread. The spread of the wing

was adjusted to obtain a trail tread width of 2 ft (1200 mm).

The two passes were completed in 3 hours. The production rate for reconstructing this portion of trail is about 0.4

mph (0.7 km/h).

The MTDC combination plow/grader was also used on

Down River Trail No. 2. Two members of the Lochsa trail

crew and one mule used the implement to construct tread

on 1460 ft (445 m) of trail beginning at the trailhead. On

the first pass up the trail, the cutting point was used to cut

the inside edge of the trail. On the second pass, the cutting

point and the grader blade were used.

Two adjustments were made on the second pass. The

offset of the hitch was increased to allow the point to dig

more aggressively into the hillside. The spread of the wing

was decreased to decrease the finished tread width. The

tread was finished on the second pass. The tread maintenance took about 50 minutes, including 10 minutes of

13
downtime to adjust the wing. The production rate for reconstructing this portion of trail was about 0.6 mph (0.9 km/h).

This implement performed acceptably in terms of building

trail. However, design features made this implement

more difficult to use than the hillside plow. The single

handle provided less control, requiring the operator to

‘handle’ instead of ‘guide’ the equipment. Improvements

to the cutting point would provide a less aggressive cut.

The Chattanooga hillside plow, the Beatty grader, and the

Fremont grader were tested on Fish Butte Trail No. 223.

The testing began at the intersection of Trail No. 223 and

Fish Butte Road (FS No. 483) 5.2 mi (8.3 km) from the

trailhead. Two crew members and one mule made the

first pass of the trail with the Chattanooga plow. The

other two crew members and a second mule followed

with the Fremont grader.

The hillside plow/Fremont grader combination had mixed

results. The hillside plow worked satisfactorily. The Fremont

grader did an acceptable job of grading but left large

clumps of vegetation in the trail. These clumps of vegetation built up between the grader blade and the heel of the

front skids on the Fremont grader. The lack of clearance

would not allow the vegetation to roll off the grader blade.

After about 650 ft (200 m) of trail work, testing of the Fremont grader was discontinued. The crew plowed another

3420 ft (1042 m) for a total of 4070 ft (1241 m). This portion

of the trail was completed in 11/

2

 hours. The production

rate for reconstructing this portion of trail was about 0.6

mph (1.0 km/h).

The Chattanooga plow and the Beatty grader was used

to finish the remaining 4.4 mi (7 km) of Fish Butte Trail

No. 223. A single pass with the plow followed by a single

pass with the Beatty grader was completed in 8 hours.

The production rate for reconstructing this portion of trail

was about 0.6 mph (0.9 km/h).

The developers of the Trail Ace and Trail Scoop, Bonner

Brumley and Clarence McReynolds of Whitebird, ID,

presented the features of their trail building equipment and

demonstrated the implements on Fish Creek Trail No. 224.

The two-person crew worked an 1170-ft (357-m) section

of trail between 2850 and 4020 ft (869 and 1225 m) from

the trailhead.

On the first pass up the trail, a single 2-in (5-cm) ripper

tooth was attached to the Trail Ace to dig and loosen the

inside edge of the trail. During the second pass going down

the trail, the Trail Ace with a three-ripper tooth attachment

was used to reestablish the tread width. After returning to

the top end on the trail, a third pass was made downhill

with the Trail Scoop. During this pass, the tread was finish

graded and five water dips were installed. Each pass

over the 1170 ft (357 m) of trail took 15 minutes, for a

total of 45 minutes. The production rate for reconstructing

this portion of trail was about 0.3 mph (0.4 km/h).

14
Results

The results from the stock-drawn trail equipment testing

conducted in early summer 1994 on the Lochsa Ranger

District in Idaho are listed in Table 1.

Table 1—Results of 1994 testing.

Trail equipment Trail Distance Time Passes People/ Production

stock rate

Chattanooga Fish Butte 1.2 km 1.5 hr 1 2/1 1.0 km/h

hillside plow Trail 223

Chattanooga Fish Butte 7 km 8 hr 1 each 2/1 each 0.9 km/h

Trail 223

Beatty grader " 44 mi " " " "

MTDC plow/grader Down River 0.4 km 40 min 2 2/1 0.9 km/h

Trail 2

MTDC plow/grader Idaho Centennial 2.8 km 3 hr 2 2/1 0.7 km/h

Trail 2

Trail Ace Fish Creek 0.4 km 45 min 3 2/1 0.4 km/h

Trail 224

Trail Scoop " 0.2 mi " " 4/2 0.3 mph

Fremont grader Fish Butte 198 m This grader was not suited to the soil and vegetation types at site.

Trail 223

650 ft

15
Discussion of Results

The combination of the hillside plow and the Beatty grader

resulted in the highest rate of production under the conditions of this test. The other equipment may not have been

as easy to handle as the hillside plow. In addition, the

operators have more experience and are more comfortable

using the hillside plow and Beatty grader.

The production rate obtained with the MTDC combination

plow and grader was about 10% less than that obtained

with the hillside plow and Beatty grader combination. This

is a relatively small difference. However, the equipment

operators agreed that the MTDC grader was much more

difficult to control than a hillside plow. Thus, the hillside

plow was preferred to the MTDC grader in the test configuration.

The Trail Ace and Trail Scoop combination resulted in the

lowest production rate, or about half the production rate of

the hillside plow and Beatty grader combination. This result

may be misleading for several reasons. First, this test was

conducted on a relatively short portion of trail. Second, this

portion of the test was conducted by different operators

(manufacturers) using a different stock-handling technique.

Although this is the lightest of the trail equipment tested,

the handle design and angle may be reducing the efficiency

of this equipment by requiring more ‘handling’ than ‘guiding’

of the implement. This technique requires the crew to make

more passes over the trail than the hillside plow and Beatty

grader combination, or the MTDC grader.

The Fremont grader did not perform effectively in the soil

type and vegetation type in this area of Idaho.

16
Recommendations

Good equipment, skilled operators, and experienced

stock are necessary for a safe and productive trail maintenance crew.

Equipment Modifications

Some changes to the presently available equipment are

needed, based on the June 1994 testing.

Fremont Grader

With its present design, the grader has a tendency to clog;

it cannot dig into hillside sluff and is difficult to maneuver

around sharp inside turns. Since it cannot be broken down,

it is not practical to pack. The load weight would exceed

200 lb (90 kg). If the skis were cut just in front of the turntable deck and tabs with hitch pins were added, most of

the problems of clogging and poor maneuverability would

be solved. The grader’s overall length would be increased

by 4 in. The additional clearance in front of the blade

would give sod, duff, and dirt a better chance to clear the

blade. In addition, the pins would allow the grader to be

broken into two pieces for packing (Figure 31).

Figure 31—Suggested Fremont grader modification.

• 2 x 2" angle iron welded to front skis

• 4 x 4 x 1/2" tabs butt-welded to the angle iron on

 upper side of front skis

• 4 x 6 x 1/2" tabs welded to front skis on underside

• 3/4 x 2" hitch pin

18-1/2"

52"

24" 15"

(front) (rear)

6"

4"

12-1/2"

• 2 x 2" angle iron

• 4 x 4 x 1/2" tabs welded on upper side to front skis

• 4 x 6 x 1/2" tabs welded on lower side to front skis

4"

Fremont Grader

17
Figure 32—Wyoming sod cutter.

Removable hitch pins in front of the blade and deck would

allow the implement to articulate, increasing maneuverability. Adding about a 11

¦

2-inch blade width at a forward

angle would allow material to roll forward, improving clearing. Small rock teeth added to the blade would improve

the tool’s usefulness on cobbled trails and during dry

conditions.

Extending the blade by using detachable rock teeth or

Wyoming sod cutters (Figure 32) would allow the tool to

cut into the hillside. The addition of angle iron rims in front

of and behind the deck would enable users to add rocks

for additional weight, or to transport tools and equipment.

That additional capability could be extended even further

by adding stake pockets or bunks to transport waterbar

materials (Figure 33). Separating the grader by pulling

both hitch pins would allow the implement to be packed,

with each half weighing approximately 100 lb (45 kg).

MTDC Combination Plow and Grader

With its present design, this implement is difficult to control

safely. The single handle does not provide adequate leverage to control wing pressure or the depth of the hillside

cut. In addition, the handle is easily bent. The use of two

handles similar to those of the Beatty grader would solve

both problems while increasing safety. The cutting point is

fixed and needs to have slotted mounting holes to adjust

the aggressiveness of the bite (Figure 34).

The hitch bar places the point of draft too far back for

safe operation. The hitch bar needs to be changed so

that the point of draft is farther forward and lower, close to

a midline on the implement in the first 12 to 18 inches.

Replaceable or adjustable keels would also increase the

tool’s control and effectiveness (Figure 35).

Figure 33—Fremont grader being used to haul waterbar materials.

 The grader blade has been removed.

18
Figure 35—The MTDC combination plow and grader showing modifications.

Figure 34—Blade on the MTDC combination plow and grader,

 fabricated from well casing.

Keel

❤

❤

Note: Extend stabilizer chains to allow the hitchbar

to tip forward, decreasing the hitch height.

❤ ❤ ❤

Side view

Top view

19
Trail Ace and Trail Scoop

Overall, these implements are well designed and manufactured. They are relatively lightweight and perform well

in rocky soil types and beargrass. However, the handle

arrangement and angle of the tool put the operator too

close to the implement, forcing the operator to bend over

and control the unit with muscles in the small of the back

(Figure 36). Longer handles at a more acute angle would

increase leverage and move the operator away from

sharp cutting points, increasing the equipment’s safety

and manageability.

Beatty Grader

Additional points need to be available for mounting.

Quick-mount capability of rock teeth or hardened cultivator sweeps would increase the implement’s effectiveness

in a wider range of soil types and seasons.

Vulcan Hillside Plow

Double strapping the gauge wheel with heavier gauge

metal would strengthen this weak area.

Adding a jointer knife would increase this plow’s effectiveness in heavy sod and heavy root conditions.

A fixed, horizontal 6-position clevis or a swinging clevis

needs to be added for hillside draft adjustment before the

Figure 36—Poor ergonomics of the Trail Ace and Trail Scoop. plow can be used effectively on steep slopes.

20
Operator Qualifications and Training

Teamster skills are the most important skills and the

hardest to acquire. Close communication with the draft

stock is the key to preventing accidents. Communication

with draft stock on a trail project is accomplished with line

contact (through hands and body) and voice. It is difficult

to learn these skills without instruction.

Formal instruction is available through courses and

clinics. The Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center at

the Ninemile Ranger District near Huson, MT, provides

this training. The Ninemile Trail Plows and Graders

Course is conducted each spring and is the only clinic

addressing trail implements. The 1-week program provides basic hands-on instruction in handling draft stock

and using implements for trail construction and rehabilitation.

Draft horse and teamster clinics are held in various parts

of the United States and Canada. The most comprehensive information on clinic dates can usually be found in

Small Farm Journal and Draft Horse Journal. Prospective

students need to be sure that the clinics emphasize

teamster skills and agricultural implements rather than

skills needed for vehicles such as hitch wagons.

The skills required to operate the plows and graders are

not nearly so esoteric. There is a degree of risk involved

with working with stock and stock-drawn implements on

steep ground. Initial training and on-the-job training can

mitigate that risk.

Lynn Miller has written two books that may help people

working with stock-drawn trail equipment: Training Workhorses, Training Teamsters (1994, Small Farmer’s Journal, Inc., P.O. Box 1627, Sisters, OR 97759) and Work

Horse Handbook (1981, Lynn R. Miller, HC-81, Box 68,

Reedsport, OR 97467). Another book that may be helpful

is The Draft Horse Primer by Maurice Telleen (1977,

Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA).

To address safety issues and to maintain communication

with the draft animal, two workers are required for each

implement. One person is responsible for handling the

animal through the lines. One person runs the implement.

This method has an added benefit of placing both the

teamster and operator behind the implement. Should

anything happen to startle or scare the animal, no one is

in a position to be run over or to be trapped between the

animal and the implement.

The use of draft stock and trail plows and graders is a

cost-effective alternative to traditional hand crews. However, safety and expertise levels should be resolved

before using draft stock for trail construction, maintenance, and reconstruction. The use of draft stock is not

limited to trails. By using harrows, stone boats, and other

implements large amounts of hand work can be eliminated on projects such as trail rehabilitation, campsite

rehabilitation, and bridge reconstruction. Draft stock can

be used to advantage in virtually any area where more

horsepower and less handwork is desired, particularly in

remote areas.

21
Sources

Trail Ace and Clarence McReynolds

Trail Scoop 1 mile south of Whitebird

Whitebird, ID 83554

Phone: (208) 839-2265

______________________________________________

MTDC USDA-FS, MTDC

Combination 5785 Hwy 10 West

Plow & Grader Missoula, MT 59808-9361

Drawings Phone: (406) 329-3900

Fabrication drawings are available upon request. Specify

Drawing No. MEDC-529: Grader-Plow, Mule Drawn.

______________________________________________

Fremont No fabrication drawings are available

Grader for the Fremont grader. The Center

Drawings may make these drawings available in

the future.

Vulcan Erb Plow Works

Hillside Route 2, Box 14 CR 340

Plow Sugarcreek, OH 44681

(No phone)

Current price is around $400. Allow up to 6 months for

delivery.

______________________________________________

Two-Way Dyko, Incorporated

Plow Shares 8021 West Highway 2

Spokane, WA 99204

Contact: Chuck Clark

Phone: (509) 747-4139

Replacement two-way plow shares for the Chattanooga

hillside plow. The part is identified as FS 120. The price

(August 1995) is $24.69 each, plus shipping from Spokane,

WA. The company is not set up to accept credit cards.

______________________________________________

Beatty Idaho Falls Foundry and Machine

Grader P.O. Box 2287

501 Northgate Mile

Idaho Falls, ID 83403

Phone: (208) 522-7412

Current source of Beatty grader and replacement parts,

cutting points, runners and blades cast from M1 steel.

22
 Library Card

Didier, Steve; Herzberg, Diane. 1996. Stock-drawn equipment for trail work. Tech Rep. 9623-2802-MTDC. Missoula,

MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Missoula Technology and Development Center. 22 p.

Includes photos of stock-drawn plows and grading equipment that can be used to build and maintain trails in the

backcountry. Describes the advantages and disadvantages

of different types of equipment. Includes sources where

the equipment can be purchased.

Keywords: forest trails; horses; maintenance; mules

For further technical information, contact

Steve Didier at:

USDA Forest Service, Lochsa Ranger District

Route 1, Box 398

Orofino, ID 83539

Phone: (208) 926-4274

Fax: (208) 926-7259

Internet: sdidier@fs.fed.us

Lotus Notes: Steve Didier/R1/USDAFS

Additional single copies of this document may

be ordered from:

USDA FS, Missoula Technology & Development Center

5785 Hwy 10 West

Missoula, MT 59808-9361

Phone: (406) 329-3978

Fax: (406) 329-3719

Internet: wo_mtdc_pubs@fs.fed.us

An electronic copy of this document is available

on the Forest Service’s FSWeb intranet at:

http://fsweb.mtdc.wo.fs.fed.us