Rod and Denise Nikkel

Vander, We make rawhide out of deer to use as lace in stitching our saddle trees. The thickness and amount of hair does increase the time in the chemical to dehair it but otherwise we do nothing different in making it into rawhide. It is a very strong hide but it is also very stretchy which makes it great for stitching but lousy for braiding. Definitely not recommended for braiding. We have never done an elk so can't help you with that.

Thanks for the answers. We had also heard that bleached rawhide is weaker than normal and that we shouldn't use it, so we never have. In this case we are considering it if we can find out enough information about it. That link you gave us rbd looks very good for getting information. Need to do some reading there. We were thinking we would just experiment with a bit of scrap rawhide to see what results we get. Rob, what type of concentration of bleach did you put with your lime? Kevin, do you remember concentrations and times for the peroxide? Our rawhide stays wet so you would think these would still have an effect.

We have a customer wanting exposed, bleached rawhide on a reproduction type tree. Can anyone tell us about how it is made (since we make our own rawhide normally) and what is different about bleached hide than regular rawhide other than the white color. Thanks.

Alan, You found us out! Thanks for looking at our website. Now I know that at least one person has seen it. (I didn't think people really looked at our website very often, especially since it has been over a year since we added anything.) I just put that up in the last week or so. It has been running around my brain for at least 3 years but hasn't made it out till now. Due to select "bugging", I am also working on getting pictures of different tree types up there and another project or two, but the problem between my brain and the website is dealing with a stupidcomputer. They will come, eventually... Denise

JAM – Dennis has his website up and running now. Contact him through www.DennisLane.com.au or PM him or David A Morris through this board. We feel his system is definitely the way to go as far as keeping records and being able to compare between horses easily and consistently. As far as the tree we made for you, we just wanted to be clear that we didn’t do anything really “extraordinary” with it. The idea behind a “custom tree” is that you get a tree that works well for the horse or horses it is intended for. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is a “weird” tree. We used the flattest bar angle we now produce for your horse based on the back drawings you sent us (made before Dennis’s production cards were available), but it is getting to be an angle we are using more commonly as time goes on. It is not excessive but it is toward the far end of “normal”. The rock again fits into a “not uncommon” category. I always wondered about that designation when it came to diseases, etc. but it is handy. Your mare has more rock in her back than the majority of horses, but it is not excessive or “weird”. We see other horses like her. So while we are glad this tree fits your mare the way you want, it shouldn’t need to be restricted just to her. Other horses with the larger body type and a back that isn’t really straight (flat front to back) should do fine with it. I would encourage you, if you have a chance, throw it on as many horses as you can before you build on it. This is a great way to see what sort of horses it will or will not work on. It won’t fit a narrow thoroughbred, but I think you might be surprised at the range of horses it will be useful on, especially with a bit of padding. That may help in the future to know what else you can comfortably use your saddle on if you have a chance to ride other horses.

Very nice job on these, Elton. Flashy stuff. And how are you telling the customer to get them clean after the Rainmaker Rodeo in St. Albert?

Thanks for the birthday wishes. Now I guess I am official "middle aged". Sounds scary. (At least I don't have to grow up yet. )

Rod's the birthday boy today. Thanks for the birthday wishes!

Since Rod has been lying around the house for more than a week now all gimped up post knee surgery, he is starting to get rather bored. So we wondered if any saddle makers wanted to get together for a chat session to talk about saddles or whatever else anyone chooses. Tuesday 7:00 pm Mountain Daylight Time. Talk to you then.

We have built a few trees for gaited horses, including Paso Finos. Like Jon, we have asked for back drawings when necessary. We find that they not uncommonly (but not always) have a bit less rock than we would normally put in a tree, but they fit well within the normal parameters of what we build. On the other hand, our range of "normal variations" is probably wider than what you can easily find in an off-the-rack production saddle. Often you read about people worried about shoulder action in these horses. We have not done anything different than we normally do and we have had positive feedback on how the horses have moved. So as far as we are concerned, a "normal" tree made to fit their body shape is all that is needed to allow these horses to move well. (As an extra point, we would caution against having the rigging too far forward. The further forward it is, the more downward pressure is put on the front bar tips and the greater the chance of interference with shoulder movement.) We are not well enough acquainted with Paso Finos to know about specific conformational changes with age except to say that all horses (and people too, come to think of it) change shape as they mature, and this has to be considered when purchasing a saddle. If you haven't looked at Dennis Lane's system for communicating back shapes in this thread http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=901 or on his website http://dennislane.com.au I would encourage you to check it out. This would be a handy, repeatable way to compare among the Paso Finos you have access to, and to compare them with other types of horses. It would tell you a lot about what you need to look for in a saddle - comparative width, angle, profile of the bottom of the bar, etc. Or if you wanted to order a custom tree from someone familiar with the system it would be easy to tell them the shape you are trying to fit. As an aside, Dennis has told me that he had to be convinced to collect information on the breed of horse from people using his system. Correct me if I am wrong, Dennis, but he says that he has found all shapes and sizes within all breeds so he, at this point, doesn't feel that he can use a horse's breed to tell him a whole lot about the shape of the back he is trying to fit. If you do get the system and get readings on a number of horses, it would be very interesting to both send the information to Dennis (he is doing more research with the information people are sending him from their results around the world) and to let those of us on the forum know what you find. All the best in your search.

Both Wades and Weatherlys are slick forks. That's about where the similarity ends. There a lots of names attached to slick fork trees, but how many ways can you really make an upside down U anyway? The original patterns were probably specific in shape, but now we make any slick fork in different "widths" from 8 to 10". (Question - where do you measure the width on a slick fork? Answer – nowhere specific. You really can't. It is an arbitrary thing so, once again, you can't compare between tree makers by the numbers.) The two major differences we see between slick forks are wood or metal horn and stock thickness (thickness of the fork from front to back). So, our run-down on how we name slick forks is as follows: Wades - Wood post horn (if it has a metal horn, it is NOT a Wade, regardless of what they are calling it). Originally 5" stock but we have made them from 6" to 4 1/4" on request. Anything other than 5” ST we generally call a “Modified Wade”, but we have been known to call them “Wood Post Taylors” or “Wood Post 3Bs” on request. Taylors – metal horn, 4 ½” stock 3Bs – metal horn, 4 ¼” stock Weatherlys – metal horn, 3 ¾” stock Functionally, the metal horn slick forks need a much higher gullet measurement to clear the horse than a wood post because the gullet is much thicker on a tree with a metal horn You need depth for the screws to attach the horn, while with good quality wood, the gullet can be made much thinner. So while the gullet may measure the same height, the height at the hand hole on a metal horn fork (all other things being equal) is much lower - almost an inch on our trees. There can be other differences, such as the angle of the top cut (how much it rises front to back) whether the lip is dipped or not, etc. This is probably where a lot of the different names came from, and people who know more of the history of some of these trees can maybe fill us in a bit more. If people want a specific look, then we can make it look like the picture they send us. That is the advantage of hand making something. I tried to attach pictures, but am unable to due to problems with our internet (non) service provider. Hopefully someone else can do that for you.

Happy Canada day to you too! We have made a few 1/2 size ones. A couple in just the wood with a fancy finish for looks. (Last I knew Caledon Sales still had one in their showcase.) The ones we have made to be built on have also been rawhided - with deerhide. We build them just like our regular trees, but the specs are 1/2 the normal. Sorry I don't have a picture to post for you but we haven't made one since we got the digital camera. Rod made one 1/4 size for fun once. 4" seat length, etc. Very cute.

Thanks for the post and picture, Robin. What type of wood is in that tree and do you still use the same material now?

Jim, how much do you really want to know? Your question got me going back to the books. But I will spare you the details… Basically, the only thing on a tree that practically may flex is the bars and as we said before, we don’t think they do or even should flex. And the quality of the covering on the wood is what takes the strain before it even gets to the wood. Once at the wood stage, there are differences in how wood breaks most easily, (across the grain, with the grain, etc.), how much pressure it takes to break it and how much it will bend before breaking. Just looking at the tests they run for bending a longer beam, the two types of yellow pine rank well up with Douglas Fir as far as bending strength goes, but all are very inflexible. (The flexibility rating on the Douglas Fir surprised me but I checked in a couple of souces and they both agreed.) Yellow Poplar is middle of the road in both of these tests, and the other pines (jack, eastern and western white, lodgepole, etc.) are weaker and more flexible. But does it make a practical different in a well covered tree? I doubt it. As far as benefits, all we can talk about is what we have had worked with. The Eastern White pine, which is the only type we can easily get, is cheap. That, its availability and its light weight are its greatest virtues. It also can take a lot of nails without splitting. It can easily be worked with hand tools. But, it is the only wood that has a lot of pitch that gums up the equipment and is a major pain. It has a lot of knots – large knots – that cause a lot of waste when you cut pieces around them (and a lot of weak spots if you don’t). We would not consider using pine for bars because with the stuff available to us we can’t get a bar length of wood without a knot it in. It also doesn’t hold screws very well in comparison to the other woods. Yellow poplar is close to knot free, and then they are generally small, solid pin knots. The few large knots can easily be worked around. This is its biggest advantage. It is readily available and not too expensive. It has good screw holding ability. It is heavier than pine and is too hard to be easily worked with hand tools. Maple or birch work well as a section in the center of the fork for added strength. They are much stronger than pine. They hold screws much better. They don’t have lots of knots to work around. They are more expensive and they are heavier than pine. Aspen is a light wood that we prefer to use in place of pine in our cantles and the non-hardwood portions of the forks. It in comparison to pine it is cleaner to work with, has a lot fewer knots, is about the same price, and can still be worked with hand tools but holds screws better. This year, however, we can’t seem to get it. With the downturn in the US housing market the OSB (Oriented Strand Board) market has collapsed and that is where a lot of aspen goes, so no one is cutting the trees. We may need to go back to pine for our cantles and non-hardwood part of the fork. Yuck. I hate cleaning up the mess it makes on the planer rollers. But at least we will have more (expensive) firewood over the winter with all the off cuts!

This can be another problem with bars that are designed to be flexible. Their shape can be easily changed by how a maker puts in a groundseat. For a regular wood/rawhide tree as you describe, we would doubt it. If you have a tree with thin rawhide and thin bars and a drawdown stand with a pile of pressure, you may be able to pull the bars down the middle a slight amount but when you release the pressure it will go back to where it was made to be. Depending on the angle of the bars, the shape of the stand and how your strap goes over, would it act to increase the rock as such or just pull the middle of the bars down causing the horn and cantle to get closer together? If the latter, you are really working against the grain of the wood even more so than putting pressure flat against the bars from the outside to the inside. Wood will go back to its original shape unless it is left with weight on it for quite a while (more than a few weeks in our experience) or unless it gets wet and is allowed to dry in the warped shape. You also have rawhide that is stitched in a shape and if it is any thickness at all it will pull the tree back to normal when the drawdown is released. Rawhide really wants to return to its original shape unless it is soaking wet and with any kind of a protective coating at all that won’t happen from putting wet leather on it for a day. The only way we could see it happen would be if you could bend it down and then you could somehow put your groundseat in strongly enough to hold it in that position against the strength of the wood and the rawhide both trying to pull it back. A pretty unlikely scenario all round we figure, and over time if it was left the groundseat would probably work loose enough to let the tree go back to normal. Do you still have the groundseat in the first tree? If so, make a template of the rock as described below, take out the groundseat and see if there is a difference. Then report back, please! Different makers, bar types and bar angles will change this measurement. Bar length could even be a factor in making a change. If all your trees are identical from the same maker, then you could compare this way. Different maker with different bar shapes you are probably measuring other variables too. One way you can use to compare rock between trees is to use a flexible curve along the bottom of the bar at a point you determine. Just make sure you use the same point on all the trees. Draw that on cardboard marking things like stirrup slots and bar ends, cut it out and put the bottom against other trees. It is an easy way to make the comparison.

Nicely balanced, Brian. The shorter back skirt matches well with the front - and is less likely to interfere with the horse. I like the shape on your seat jockey too. The rigging caught my eye at first because with the string where it is I first thought it was an inskirt. Unique way to install it so it appears like a ring rigging when it is a plate rigging. And let's just say the carving is very well done and leave it there. Rod

I really like seeing the carving on the seat close up. The over and unders of the vines are really well done. The whole cantle - binding, carving and ear - is so symmetrical and clean that it stands out for that alone. Very, very nice Jon. Rod

Our opinion is that while there might be some flex in trees it is only under extreme load and would be minimal unless it disrupted the integrity of the tree in some way. There is only so far you can bend a piece of wood without it breaking, and the same amount of flex will cause the wood to break whether it is encased in something or not. The rawhide, fiberglass or whatever is vital to withstand the flexing forces, keeping the wood from bending to the point of damage. Different woods vary in how much they bend (along with other tests of strength) before breaking, so wood choice is important. While the whole idea of flex in a tree sounds good, we don’t feel it is that realistic. The theory on very flexible trees is that they change with the movement of the horse so they always spread out the rider’s weight evenly rather than varying the pressure under the tree in different places as the horse moves. The problem we see with bars that are flexible enough for a person to physically take and bend is that they will therefore also bend under the weight of the rider, causing increased pressure under the rider and not distributing it over the whole bar surface area. A totally rigid tree that doesn’t dig in anywhere and that is rigged properly will distribute the rider’s weight and the other forces on it over a large area, even if that pressure varies in amount under different areas of the tree as the horse moves. We think this is probably what is happening in reality with most trees today. The bars are lifted by the muscles contracting underneath the whole length of the bar as they turn, etc., but they don’t really flex to any great extent. Up till now no one has been able to really tell what is going on under a ridden saddle. It will take the new technology of things like pressure pads that can read and transmit data throughout any and all activities of the horse to tell us the real story. If that is possible yet, it has only been in the last few years. If not, it will probably be available within the next few years. Then, finally, we will have some facts to base our opinions on.

Tim, Your repair may very well have been stronger than the original construction of the tree. A lot of trees are not well made. They are often stapled together, with the better ones being nailed. We have only seen one company that uses screws to hold the parts together and we have yet to see any production trees glued together, though we sure haven't seen everything that has been made either. Soft wood like pine is commonly used in trees and loosening of the fork or the cantle from the bars is a common problem due to the construction methods. Not trying to run down anyone, but just telling the truth about most cases. Yet the majority still don't break...

Tim, You bring up a good point. The quality of the wood used in trees is very important. Wood with huge knots and other defects in it is much weaker than wood that is clear. The thickness of the wood needs to be balanced with its properties in regards to strength. Laminating, especially when you have the grain running in different directions, also makes a major difference in strength compared to using a single, thicker piece of wood. Here is something we had posted BC (before crash) that may help explain why most custom makers use a combination of woods in their trees. Definition wise, hardwoods come from deciduous trees while softwoods come from coniferous trees. Some softwoods are as strong in the testing as some hardwoods, and they all have different properties which need to be taken into account when you are choosing wood for a tree. Jon has pointed out the benefits of yellow poplar, which is one of the most common woods used by custom makers for their bars. It is important to note that "poplar" can be many different types of wood. The yellow poplar is an eastern hardwood also known as tulip wood, and is in a totally different classification from the common western poplar trees which include aspen poplar (or white poplar, or trembling aspen or quaking aspen), balsam (or black) poplar, and cottonwood. These are all softer woods than yellow poplar, but have similar or higher breaking strength than the pines most commonly used in factory trees today. Yet they are easy to nail into without splitting, which makes them ideal for cantles where you are nailing the seat in rawhide covered trees. We made a cantle out of yellow poplar – once. It split from the nails when Rod was rawhiding it. (Replacing a cantle on a tree that far along in the proces is not fun since we not only use screws but a very strong wood glue as well to attach the sections together.) The same would easily happen to maple or birch or oak nailing into wood as thin as a cantle gets towards the edge. And oak, despite its hardness, splits easily along its grain. We tried it one time as the hardwood in our forks and decided we were not happy with it for that reason. The weight factor would also come into play big time if an entire tree were made of a hardwood like maple or oak. So, like everything else involved in building trees, you are doing a balancing act in your choice of wood. But the quality of the wood you choose to use should never be compromised.

For us, seeing the horse is the ideal - so long as we have a tree or three of our own to try on. (Trying on other maker's trees, while interesting, doesn't really help us a lot in figuring out how ours will fit. Something about differences between tree makers or something like that... ) While we are at the point now where we can look at a horse and say, "I think a this and that will fit him" there is still optical illusion that will get you now and then, especially in regards to rock. Different lighting, shadows, coat length and even color of the horse can affect how you see his back and we need to stay aware of that. Seeing a horse gives us a good idea. Trying on trees to check actual fit would be the "gold standard" but very few of the trees we build stay in our immediate area and some go a long way off. So seeing the horse they will fit is a real luxury. This is where Dennis Lane's system really shines because you can actually compare a standard shape between horses. It is amazing how you will look at two horses standing in front of you and say, "They are way different" but when you put the cards on them, they measure the same. Or vice versa. As Jon has said, there has never been an industry standard for comparing shapes of horses. Dennis's system has the potential to be that. We have only made a few trees so far based on information from the Lane system, but they have worked well from the feedback we have received. (We don't make our trees to fit the shape of the cards. We make trees the same way we always have, but use the system to determine which measurements we will use to get the fit we want for that shape.) So we see this system as having the potential to be as useful as seeing the horse in person, and possibly as good as seeing the horse and trying on trees, but that may be pushing it a bit...

Just in case anyone is interested, we have been able to get our backlog under control and are now open to taking new customers. Our trees cost $550.00 Canadian plus shipping. We take US cheques for the equivalent amount based on rates at the time. Our current wait time for a tree is around the 3 month mark. You can contact us by PM or our website has our contact information.

Ian, We have had both the Equimeasure and the Equiform sent to us. This type of system can work, but they are both short. Equimeasure has, I believe, a longer one or an extra piece to measure for a western tree. The instructions on the Equiform were sent to us and the owner had followed them. It started the form basically at the front of the shoulder blade so it ended mid rib cage - short even for an English saddle. She sent pictures which helped us figure out what to do for the back half of the tree. The disadvantages of any of these systems, besides their cost, the cost and hassle of shipping and the practical "one time use" thing is that they are very difficult to truly get correct as evidenced by the "just mark which side you'd like it to fit" comment above. They are helpful for sure, but there can be inaccuracies in them. Honestly, the wires and drawings have worked the best in our experience. The price is right. They still need to be mailed but at a much cheaper cost than a box. If you draw on cardboard or a stiffer material, you can then cut out your drawing, put it back on the horse and check out your accuracy. If you didn't get it right the first time, you can redo it right away. As well, if you keep a copy you can, over time, observe changes in your horse's back. We also ask for the "side lines" or "rock lines" when people send these to us. A top line helps for a lot of things, but it doesn't necessarily correlate to rock. The beauty of Dennis Lane's system is that it gives these things without the "messing about". You don't need to wonder if the curve moved as you were taking it from the horse to the paper. You can recheck any number of times. The system can be used many horses. And while there is an initial cost to obtain it, there is no cost to get the information to the tree maker. Let us know how you make out with the different material - how easy it was to use and how accurate you feel it was. You never know when someone else will want to do the same thing!

We had 15 or so people at the gathering in High River on the 20th. I looked around the group and thought that if all the knowledge that was in that group could be compiled, we would have a gold mine! Or be more confused, because there are always conflicting opinions... Anyway, the demonstration was great and whether people decide they want the system for their own use or not I think all could see where it would have a real benefit for the industry. 7 out of 11 people who hadn't seen it before got a copy of the cards, so that is a pretty high acceptance rate, especially amoung well established saddle makers. Well worth taking a look anyway.

David, I am struggling to understand your entire philosophy of saddle fit. I know how much easier it is to see fit with a bare tree than with a real saddle. Pictures are harder yet. I looked at the site you linked. I saw three small pictures side on, which I copied and enlarged so I could try to get what you are talking about. I understand that you would like to place a person at position A in your pictures. Studying the pictures on the Whitney site I see him as sitting at least at B, and in different body positions. This is where my frustration is coming in. A picture of a saddled horse being ridden doesn’t tell me what the shape of the bottom of your bars look like. It doesn’t tell me how you judge where to set the tree. It doesn’t tell me how you rig it to hold it in that place. I have seen your drawings of rocking chairs as your example of how a tree bar should be shaped and used to show rigging types. But drawings and the links you have given do not give us a real picture of your idea. That is what I and a number of people on this forum have been asking from you – real pictures of your trees, where you mean them to be placed on the horse and how you rig them to hold them there. It would really help us understand better. And once we understand the “what” we will be better poised to understand the “why” which I am even more unclear on but which is vital, as we all understand. I appreciate you commenting on our knowledge of tree making, but honestly, we are no different than the other hand made tree makers we know. From what I have read in your bios on your site, the ESI site, your old post in the member gallery etc. you have come to the saddle making business from the production end of things. While we don’t know a lot about that way of making trees and saddles, we do know that it is a lot different than what hand makers do. A worker in a production company probably is more interested in his paycheck than saddle fit. I imagine most of the time of the owner and manager is taken up with keeping the equipment running, the employees working, business moving and trying to come up with new customers. If there is an R and D department, it is pretty insignificant. As far as I can gather, this is what you are referring to when you talk of “the industry”. A hand maker is different. You spend a lot of hours alone in the shop shaping wood or leather. When you individually hand shape the bottom of every bar you make (to specific patterns) you think a lot about shape, fit, horses, riders, and occasionally what is for supper… The saddle makers we deal with also THINK!!! They spend a lot of time alone working with leather, and thinking about what they do. And most of them have hundreds and thousands of hours with their backside on the top side of a saddle. That gives you lots of thinking time too. (This is where the Dorrance brothers worked out their philosophies on horses and riding – thinking during thousands of hours in the saddle over all types of ground doing all types of jobs.) Also, your name and reputation goes out with every one of the 10 to 20 saddles or 150 trees you make a year. One unhappy customer is too high a percentage and can cause too much damage to your reputation and business to ignore. So when we talk with saddle and tree makers, we don’t talk about “what my daddy told me to do” (I assume you recognize the quote). We talk about real life, real trees, real horses and how things are really working – or not. We talk anatomy, movement, etc, maybe not in academic terms but in functional ones. I doubt this happens in the production world, but it sure does in the hand made world – and these are the people on this board. I am not sure that you are understanding your audience correctly here. Human nature is interesting. Our perceptions vary depending on our viewpoint. You say you are feeling attacked. I honestly don’t see a personal attack on you anywhere in this thread. (Alan Bell and yourself are the only ones who have used the label “kook” and Alan obviously wasn’t attacking you.) I do see some people who are frustrated because they have repeatedly (in earlier threads as well) asked you for clarification and none has been forthcoming. On the other hand, your comments on “a real horseman” (and the one you pointed to seems to fit the criteria) could easily be interpreted as saying that none of the people participating in this thread are “real horsemen”, and by saying that you only make for people who are “seeking the higher levels of horsemanship” you may be interpreted as saying that everyone else doesn’t care about horsemanship. If that were so, it could be construed as major insults by a lot of people who spend their lives sleeping, eating, breathing horses, saddles, and how they connect. I hope this helps you understand a bit more of where I and others are coming from. Please help us understand what you are saying by clearing explaining, with pictures, your “big picture”. Then we will have a correct and common basis for considering your position. Thank you.