# Manual brush/sapling puller?



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Sorry if this has been covered, my forum search came up empty.

I am building an (authorized) trail in an extremely brushy, sapling filled area. I would love to run power equipment, but have no budget to do so, and the amount of rock ranges from "lots" to "ridiculous". Rogue hoes work reasonably well, but the blade gets dull quickly from whacking rocks. Also, my wrists hurt after several hours.

Anyone ever try a device like this:

http://www.weedwrench.com/

Anything else I should look at? I don't think I can get the park's Gator very far into the trail due to the steep streambed crossings, and the ever-present rocks. I have a come-along style hand winch, but it takes too much time to set up.

EDIT: The medium size Weed Wrench is rated for up to 2" saplings. I don't want to cut anything larger than 1.5" anyway, I should be able to route around trees that size (and up). If the puller works, it would be a great addition to my tool collection. It's difficult to get volunteers to chop brush out by the roots.

Walt


----------



## Mr. Doom (Sep 23, 2005)

I have not tried one but it looks silly. The good old Pulaski is the go to tool for trail work.







That and a light chain saw will fix most shrubbery.


----------



## bespoke (Sep 22, 2005)

We love the weed wrench. A crew of 2 or 3 can work much faster than doing it with pulaskis alone. The downside is that they are a bit heavy, but whoever gets weed wrench duty doesn't seem to care very much.
http://gorctrails.blogspot.com/2006/12/gorcs-new-secret-weapon.html


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

Mr. Doom said:


> I have not tried one but it looks silly. The good old Pulaski is the go to tool for trail work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've used Pulaskis extensively. They don't take to chopping rocks any better than Rogue hoes. After an hour or so it's like hitting the roots with a shovel.

Thanks anyway.

Walt


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

bespoke said:


> We love the weed wrench. A crew of 2 or 3 can work much faster than doing it with pulaskis alone. The downside is that they are a bit heavy, but whoever gets weed wrench duty doesn't seem to care very much.
> http://gorctrails.blogspot.com/2006/12/gorcs-new-secret-weapon.html


Thanks for the link. I'm wondering whether I need the heavy duty one. The Weed Wrench website says the medium can be used for up to 1.5" saplings. That's all the bigger I'd need to pull, but I'm going to be doing the work myself for 4-6 hours a day. Is the heavy duty one overkill, or just enough leverage?

Walt


----------



## ortedd (Jan 14, 2008)

it is kind of slow, but with a cable (or rope) choker, you can wrap the sapling or brush down close to the roots, attach that to a come-along and route the cable from the come-along up a stout piece of wood to apply an upward force at the roots of the tree or brush to be removed. Ha just re-read the post and I saw that you don't want to use the come-along. . . . you can sometimes lasso a bunch of brush real close together.

Are the roots too strong to be cut the tree down 3 ft or so above the ground and wrestled out with some brute force?

See my crummy picture, I have successfully used this method to pull some small trees/brush (mostly oregon grape and holly bushes) along with a few fence posts complete with concrete


----------



## bespoke (Sep 22, 2005)

Since you say you'll be working alone, the decision on which one to purchase might boil down to whether the 7 lbs. extra weight is worth the additional leverage. Based on our experience, I'd say go with the bigger one. You'll probably find that you're using it to pull a lot more than you might have originally expected. Things do go more efficiently if you have one person pulling, and another dealing with any stubborn roots, but that may be more a matter of the type of plant you're working on. We have lots of honeysuckle down here with many, many roots.
Two other things to note about it: we've found that the base tends to sink into the soil, at least if the ground is wet, as you're applying force to the lever. This may not be a problem for you in rocky soil, but we have a few areas here in MO and IL where it's all dirt. We started out using a piece of wood under it for support, and then someone got some 1" nylon block and now we use that, so depending on your situation, you might have to carry something like that as well. Also, as I said, you might find yourself pulling more things with it than you originally expected. Despite how well constructed it is, the lever can be bent.


----------



## sick4surf (Feb 4, 2004)

We've used the heavy wrench for 2"+ saplings with great success. Works real easy when the soil is moist and it's a good idea to use a block of wood under the feet if soil is too soft. Make sure the person using it has some heft. Keep the moving parts well greased.


----------



## WaveDude (Jan 14, 2004)

www.pullerbear.com


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

ortedd said:


> it is kind of slow, but with a cable (or rope) choker, you can wrap the sapling or brush down close to the roots, attach that to a come-along and route the cable from the come-along up a stout piece of wood to apply an upward force at the roots of the tree or brush to be removed. Ha just re-read the post and I saw that you don't want to use the come-along. . . . you can sometimes lasso a bunch of brush real close together.
> 
> Are the roots too strong to be cut the tree down 3 ft or so above the ground and wrestled out with some brute force?
> 
> ...


Thanks, your idea is sound.

The problem I have is not that there is any one, two, or a dozen plants that are difficult. There are hundreds of saplings and bits of brush in my trail corridor. Unfortunately, the set up time for a come-along is prohibitive for that many plants.

I appreciate your thoughts!

Walt


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

bespoke said:


> Since you say you'll be working alone, the decision on which one to purchase might boil down to whether the 7 lbs. extra weight is worth the additional leverage. Based on our experience, I'd say go with the bigger one. You'll probably find that you're using it to pull a lot more than you might have originally expected. Things do go more efficiently if you have one person pulling, and another dealing with any stubborn roots, but that may be more a matter of the type of plant you're working on. We have lots of honeysuckle down here with many, many roots.
> Two other things to note about it: we've found that the base tends to sink into the soil, at least if the ground is wet, as you're applying force to the lever. This may not be a problem for you in rocky soil, but we have a few areas here in MO and IL where it's all dirt. We started out using a piece of wood under it for support, and then someone got some 1" nylon block and now we use that, so depending on your situation, you might have to carry something like that as well. Also, as I said, you might find yourself pulling more things with it than you originally expected. Despite how well constructed it is, the lever can be bent.


Your advise is appreciated. I'm thinking the heavy duty model is the way to go. The area I'm working in is all 1/2 mile or less from a road, so lugging a relatively heavy tool isn't going to be a huge problem.

Thanks,
Walt


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

sick4surf said:


> We've used the heavy wrench for 2"+ saplings with great success. Works real easy when the soil is moist and it's a good idea to use a block of wood under the feet if soil is too soft. Make sure the person using it has some heft. Keep the moving parts well greased.


Thanks, your idea about using a block seems good.

For better or worse, I'm 5'8" and 155 lbs. I'm assuming a larger person could pull a bigger tree, but I usually find a way to get the job done!

Walt


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

WaveDude said:


> www.pullerbear.com


The Pullbear looks like a quality tool. But I'm probably going to get the heavy model of the Weed Wrench, it appears the Pullbear is competing against the medium Weed Wrench.

Medium Weed Wrench is 17.5 lbs
Pullbear is 13.5 lbs.

Heavy Weed Wrench is 24 lbs.

I've bent rock bars.

Thanks
Walt


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

Couple other things you might try.
Old bumper jack and a chain, this has been the standard for pulling fence post.
Also a long rock bar with a length of chain and another rock for a fulcrum should work.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

*pick mattock vs. pulaski*

If I was working 4-6 hours a day and wanted to remove a few hundred sapplings, I would take my 5 pound pick mattock. I have killed/removed over 1000 Mexican locust plants encroaching a trail with my pick mattock and find it infinitely more efficient than a pulaski. We have over 50 pick mattocks our trail crews use daily and we only send a couple pulaskis on projects. They have very weak handles. The heads come loose. The handles are several inches shorter than the thick and sturdy hickory handles on the pick mattocks. The extra head weight of the pick mattock allows better penetration through the plants roots, allowing for a one-swing removal per plant. I remove sapplings up to 2" diameter and ever larger if they are soft ponerosa pine sapplings. I've probably removed over 5000 plants using just the pick mattock. It is the perfect trail tool. You can use it to remove rocks lodged at the base of plants before you whack them. You can use the mattock to grub some soil to fill in holes you make while removing plants. Just be sure to buy the models with hickory handles. If you pry rocks or roots with a fiberglass handle, you'll bend it to the point it breaks.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

The Prodigal Son said:


> If I was working 4-6 hours a day and wanted to remove a few hundred sapplings, I would take my 5 pound pick mattock. I have killed/removed over 1000 Mexican locust plants encroaching a trail with my pick mattock and find it infinitely more efficient than a pulaski. We have over 50 pick mattocks our trail crews use daily and we only send a couple pulaskis on projects. They have very weak handles. The heads come loose. The handles are several inches shorter than the thick and sturdy hickory handles on the pick mattocks. The extra head weight of the pick mattock allows better penetration through the plants roots, allowing for a one-swing removal per plant. I remove sapplings up to 2" diameter and ever larger if they are soft ponerosa pine sapplings. I've probably removed over 5000 plants using just the pick mattock. It is the perfect trail tool. You can use it to remove rocks lodged at the base of plants before you whack them. You can use the mattock to grub some soil to fill in holes you make while removing plants. Just be sure to buy the models with hickory handles. If you pry rocks or roots with a fiberglass handle, you'll bend it to the point it breaks.


Thanks, great idea.

I'll give this an try before dropping the money on a specialty tool.

Walt


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Second on the Pick Mattock, we've used it with great success here in New England and you can always use it as a lever to move rocks around or out of the trail without bending over or expending too much energy. Think rock bar lite for rocks as well as a good way to up root plants.


----------



## TrailYoda (Feb 23, 2009)

Walt,

Agree that a 5 lb Pick or cutter Mattock is the most cost effective weapon of choice for grubbing out a lot of small saplings. Especially if you realize that you can probably arm 5 workers with tools vs. one weed wrench. The 5 lb weight vs a 3-4 Lb on a pulaski makes a one swing "kill" possible with a Mattock vs. multiple whacks using a Pulaski. The mattock is also good for earthwork bench cutting since it has more surface area than a pulaski. I would also recommend spending the extra $5 on a one with a fiberglass mattock handle vs. hickory. Having used both for an 8 hour day, I can tell you the shock absorbing qualities of fiberglass is a BIG benefit. The fiberglass also lasts a very long time with very hard use.

However, If you don't have a team to swing mattocks, buying a weedwrench is a very good option. I have the medium size and it is a very good tool albeit very specialized. I bought mine to solve a problem I had in that we had about 75 pieces of rebar to remove from an old silt fence line. It did the job great, and then was put to work on more standard brush removal. As was previously noted it is very effective if the soil is moist but not wet. We also used it with two people, one pulling on the sapling and the other using a mattock to get deep tap roots. T


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

TrailYoda said:


> Walt,
> 
> Agree that a 5 lb Pick or cutter Mattock is the most cost effective weapon of choice for grubbing out a lot of small saplings. Especially if you realize that you can probably arm 5 workers with tools vs. one weed wrench. The 5 lb weight vs a 3-4 Lb on a pulaski makes a one swing "kill" possible with a Mattock vs. multiple whacks using a Pulaski. The mattock is also good for earthwork bench cutting since it has more surface area than a pulaski. I would also recommend spending the extra $5 on a one with a fiberglass mattock handle vs. hickory. Having used both for an 8 hour day, I can tell you the shock absorbing qualities of fiberglass is a BIG benefit. The fiberglass also lasts a very long time with very hard use.
> 
> However, If you don't have a team to swing mattocks, buying a weedwrench is a very good option. I have the medium size and it is a very good tool albeit very specialized. I bought mine to solve a problem I had in that we had about 75 pieces of rebar to remove from an old silt fence line. It did the job great, and then was put to work on more standard brush removal. As was previously noted it is very effective if the soil is moist but not wet. We also used it with two people on pulling on the sapling and the other using a mattock to get deep tap roots. T


Is the Weed Wrench noticably easier on the operator's back?

I'm leaning toward the low-tech solution of using a mattock.

However, I did some damage to my back two years ago chipping ice off my driveway. I wasn't able to get a diagnosis from the doctor. We took an interesting side trip into whether my heart was malfunctioning. It was not, but we never did get around to finding out what I did to my back. Anyhow, the pain is between my shoulderblades and I'd rather not make it worse.

Is the Weed Wrench easier on your back? Enough to notice? As I stated above, I'm not a large person, just a person with a large job.

Walt


----------



## TrailYoda (Feb 23, 2009)

Walt Dizzy said:


> Thanks, your idea about using a block seems good.
> 
> For better or worse, I'm 5'8" and 155 lbs. I'm assuming a larger person could pull a bigger tree, but I usually find a way to get the job done!
> 
> Walt


Walt,

Since you said it is only a half mile to carry the tool to the point of work, going with the heavier weed wrench would probably give you some additional leverage. I went with the medium since I had multiple miles to carry and wanted lighter. Although it would help if you were bigger, that is true of using a mattock also. I'm six foot tall and about 160 lbs. so I think you will be fine.


----------



## JamR (Feb 22, 2005)

Walt Dizzy said:


> Is the Weed Wrench noticably easier on the operator's back?
> 
> I'm leaning toward the low-tech solution of using a mattock.
> 
> ...


We have made extensive use of the Weed Wrench and they work great, but we also have another model that is called the extratigator. http://www.extractigator.com/

What I like about the extragitator is that it has a curved shoe similar to a rocking chair that gives you a much more even pulling consistency and overall does work better than the Weed Wrench.

They are definitely easier on the back than the Weed Wrench.

They also have an add-on shoe also for the rocker that you use in soft dirt conditions.

We've had great success with them. This time of year I keep one in the back of my truck at all times to make short work of invasive woody plants that pop up alongside the trails.

Hope this helps.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

TrailYoda said:


> Walt,
> 
> I would also recommend spending the extra $5 on a one with a fiberglass mattock handle vs. hickory. Having used both for an 8 hour day, I can tell you the shock absorbing qualities of fiberglass is a BIG benefit. The fiberglass also lasts a very long time with very hard use.


I'm going to strongly disagree with this suggestion. I can get five or more years out of a hickory handled pick mattock. I rub a bit of linseed oil on the handle to prevent it from drying out and I usually drill a hole in the handle just under the head, and place a large wood screw in that hole to prevent the head from sliding down on my knuckles.

Here's why I don't like fiberglass handles; they bend too easy and they break with even an average amount of torque put on them while prying rocks from the ground. You never want to use them to pry rocks. Many of the less expensive brands of fiberglass handles will have a narrow handle the entire length and then that handle is glued into a larger tapered piece that the head slides onto. That style is even more weak and prone to suddenly snapping than the style of handle that gradually gets larger as it nears the tool head. I've only seen one person able to split a hickory handle in 13 years and it was old and dried out. Usually the mattock blade will fail and snap off before a person can break a handle, unless you have some of the very old Polish made heads that were really beefy compared to the new ones from India and Mexico.


----------



## HypNoTic (Jan 30, 2007)

I use pulaski w/ fiberglass handle from Nupla and they are literally bomb proof.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

HypNoTic said:


> I use pulaski w/ fiberglass handle from Nupla and they are literally bomb proof.


They are literally NOT bomb proof, literally. I have a stack of broken fiberglass pulaski handles in a shed we store over 300 trail tools, along with a couple dozen broken fiberglass sledge hammer handles. I once was told the Grand Canyon Trail crew, which we have been working with for years, spends over $5000 a year repalcing sledge hammer handles.

Just look at a pulaski handle and a pick mattock handle. The pick mattock handle is three times thicker and probably ten times stronger and harder to break. We can't even send pulaski's out with trail crews because of the failure rate. You try to warn crews against using them for prying rocks and they never believe you until it's too late. Maybe keep one available for a supervisor who can use it for cutting roots or small trees, that's about all. Plus most pulaski handles are 3" shorter than a pick mattock handle, forcing you to bend forward more when swinging and straining your back. Even the mattock blade on a pulaski is inferior (much smaller) to the mattock blade on a pick mattock.

Don't mean to be disrespectful but are you running a fulltime trail crew? I promise you'll increase efficiency, productivity, and reduce tool replacement costs if you replace all those pulaski's with pick mattocks. Be sure to get the hickery handled ones.


----------



## TrailYoda (Feb 23, 2009)

The Prodigal Son said:


> I'm going to strongly disagree with this suggestion. I can get five or more years out of a hickory handled pick mattock. I rub a bit of linseed oil on the handle to prevent it from drying out and I usually drill a hole in the handle just under the head, and place a large wood screw in that hole to prevent the head from sliding down on my knuckles.
> 
> Here's why I don't like fiberglass handles; they bend too easy and they break with even an average amount of torque put on them while prying rocks from the ground. You never want to use them to pry rocks.


Prodigal, I think you lost sight of the OP stated issue. Walt is up against grubbing out a lot of shrubs not prying rocks. Having done extensive amounts of this over the past 12 years I stand by my advice that the fiberglass handle does make a difference on the shock absorbing. With Walt expressing concern regarding back issues I agree with you that the length of the handle is also an important consideration.

In terms of your general advice for large crews and especially in rocky areas, I would buy Hickory/Ash for pick mattocks and it is important to keep them drying out with linseed oil. Another trick I use to keep handles moist is I drilled a small 1/4" by 1/4" hole on the top of the handle near the head and pour some Linseed oil in the hole when I store them. I also would say if you have very large unexperienced crews between the lower cost and durability Hickory is a way to go.

If you are in clay or loam based soils with lots of earth work with roots and grubbing use a cutter mattock with a high quality fiberglass and avoid having to maintain a handle at all.

BTW I sure do wish I had more of the old Poland heads they sure are better than what you find out there now.


----------



## HypNoTic (Jan 30, 2007)

I'm not saying that fiberglass is the ultimate ****. I'm just saying that my crew and our association prefer that to wooden handle and that's based on years of experience. I do actually run a full time trail crew. My company build trails professionally across eastern Canada, in a pretty impressive amount of rocks and roots.

Beside, I'm also working with our provincial trail association and our tools trailer is loaded with various tools for 60 peoples. We volunteer over 7000hrs/year. We had a SINGLE fiberglass handle that chipped on us in 5 years. I would consider that a pretty good score. 

The main thing -- we teach our users how to properly use the pulaski. We also have proper tools for rocks. Pulaski are NOT meant to be used to pry rocks or roots. If you can't understand the limits of a tool, then you're not using it properly.

One last thing. You'll find a lot of various quality products on the market. We found that the pulaski from Nupla with TrueTemper head and fiberglass handle are by far the best we used. They fit the bill for our conditions.

My 0.02$


----------

