[polarbear]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/92474_impact23.shtml

[Mt. Frank]

That is sad. I fear the same fate for us "aluminum loggers" in the airplane business.

[catwoman]

To me it sounds like it'll be a good thing for preserving our forests, unless there's something I missed and the land will just be sold to developers.

[Sandman]

Tough luck, let them cultivate the dirt now, maybe more money in raising vegs anyway. Besides, timber can't be renewed too fast because it just doesn't grow very fast anyhow. Time for loggers to make a job change!

[Timber Cruiser]

The last two posts on this topic slay me. Are you that ignorant of natural resource management or just insensitve to the lives of others? Did you read the article? Can you get past your hatred of logging long enough to consider the impact this is going to have on people? These are working forests, have been for over a hundred years, and they will remain so under the new management. If you think you can deny being responsible for any logging due to your consumption of wood products-maybe you have shares in their pension funds which will now be funded through logging or sale of these lands. Hancock will manage it as part of their investment portfollio. They may accelerate harvest to help pay for the deal and they may break it up into smaller pieces to sell to other timber concerns or even developers. The major difference will be the reduction in high paying jobs with the loss of the mills and company logging and trucking and the stability Weyerhaeuser has provided nearby communities and their families over its many years in operation.

[MCaver]

I feel for the people that are losing their jobs. Believe me, I know what that's like. But if anyone believes their job is safe in this economy they are fooling themselves. How long someone's family has been doing it, as mentioned in the article, has nothing to do with it. Things change and jobs become outdated. As far as the previous comments go, Sandman's tone was rather confrontational, but no more so than yours, TC, and you're working on a lot of assumptions about who hates what and what will happen to the land now. I didn't see anything wrong in Catwoman's post. Forest preservation is a legitimate concern when logging is involved, just as much as jobs of the loggers.

[Loggerhead]

Logging jobs are going the way of mom and pop shops, stone masons, keypunch operators, fur trappers, stagecoach drivers, et al. It's sad, but people have to be flexible. And it's getting these days that the more flexible you are, the better you can stay employed. After all, there were no loggers 150 years ago in these parts. Most of the logs are gone, and what's left can be logged by a much smaller workforce.

[Newt]

It's indeed sad that folks are losing jobs. It's indeed sad that traditions are being lost. Times do change. One thing tho, when you're 50 some years old and all you've done for work has been one thing, it's pretty dang hard to be flexible. Think a 55 year old coal miner is going to be computer programmer? Maybe, but i doubt it. Chances are that McDonalds will hire tho. NN

[catwoman]

Remember, it was a choice they made to be in and stay in that industry.

[Dslayer]

It isn't just about jobs, but it's about a way of life and living in a place where you want to live. Yeah, I guess they should be smarter about the economy and whatever 'choices' they were making, but many of us have an attachment to an area or a lifestyle as well as family in some cases that doesn't make it too easy to flit about place to place finding work. I couldn't give a rat's ass for corporations that exploited Americas resources and workers--but those guys got away with their pile, leaving behind the people and families who did the work and believed that they were a part of something they could depend on for generations. You've got to have some empathy for these people.

[catwoman]

I'm not saying I don't empathize with them. I do! I am struggling myself, though I'm trying very hard to make a go of it in my own business. I'm just saying it was a choice they made to be there. Same with the folks that stay at Boeing or anywhere else, for that matter. I have an ex that's worked for Boeing for 20 years and he knows nothing else. He's had all the chances in the world to venture elsewhere yet he chooses to stay and fret about pending layoffs.

[Newt]

Some people become attached to the company they work for and the type of work they do. Some people feel a commitment and respect for the company they work for. They take pride in the work they do. To some it's not just show up to get a paycheck. Not too long ago a lot of people took jobs that they hoped to retire from. True, not all companies are companies that you can do this with any more and not everyone wants to do this. But by the same token, not everyone is a job hopper or bail out just 'cause things don't look rosey. We all make our choices. They are all right choices. Sometimes they just don't work out. I hope your choices work out for you catwoman. NN

[polarbear]

[strider]

I usually avoid 'political' threads becasue they get too emotion charged and people never change their beliefs anyway, they just end up arguing. However, I am somehow compelled to weigh in here. I''m not sure why, but oh well.... here goes. The timber industry does not exist because there are forests full of trees demanding to be cut down. Loggers fall trees because we, the consumers, have created a market for wood products. It takes loggers to meet the demand. Short term market fluctiations, combined with increasingly efficient (and therefore less labor intensive) harvesting technology are usually the reasons for economic changes in communities that depend on timber jobs. There may be fewer timber jobs now, but the ability to harvest remains constant or increases due to increased efficiency in the harvesting technology. Prudent forest management will keep the pace of harvest equal to the pace of regrowth. The timber companies have to manage prudently and keep harvesting rates within the regrowth timeframes. If they don't, at some point they will experince gaps in production and therefore gaps in revenues. Steady cash flow is a cornerstone of business success, yes? If the particular loggers discussed in the news article had elected to move into other career fields in order to escape a potential future downturn in the timber industry, what would have happened? Other workers would have stepped into those jobs because they pay well. The jobs are probably going away at this point in time because market fluctuations and/or technological advances have eliminated them. The jobs are not going away to 'save forests'. Why do these jobs pay well? Because it's hard, dangerous work and consumer demand for the product creates good profit margins. Those profit margins justify paying good wages to compensate loggers for doing a hard, dangerous job. It seems pretty insensitive to dismiss these peoples' loss of livelihood so casually. Regardless of the reason for losing a job, it's a hard thing to be forced into a life change against one's will and I for one feel sorry for them in their difficult time. You want to save the forests? Eliminate the demand for the product. These people losing their jobs will not 'save forests'. Most if not all of the timber land involved will likely remain timber land, growing trees that will be harvested to produce lumber and paper products. That growth/harvest cycle will certainly continue as long as we, the consumers, use wood products. If 'saving all forests' is your holy grail, the only way to get your cup is to remove the demand for wood products. That won't happen as long as we all use toilet paper, and send Mothers' Day cards, and build houses out of wood, and so on.... I don't see how anyone can blame the loggers for logging. Collectively, it's our fault because we all use the products. I suppose there might be a few folks who are so committed to the cause that they don't use toilet paper.... Can anyone posting to this thread truthfully make that particular claim? Maybe you use terry washcloths and wash them for re-use? If you do so, do you think you can convince the rest of your immediate family to do the same? Maybe your neighbors, or co-workers? Conservation and recycling can mitigate some of the demand, but not all. There will always be a demand, and therefore a market, and forests will be harvested and replanted and harvested again.... Be happy that there are national parks, and national forest land, set aside so we can go and appreciate 'natural' forests. Expecting all forest land to 'go natural' is unrealistic. Timber land is not 'natural forest', it's farmland that grows big plants and has a 60 year crop cycle. My .02.

[catwoman]

Strider and Timber Cruiser, All I said were two things - it might be good for the preservation of our forests and they chose their career path. Your posts had a big tone of arrogance, twisting around my intentions of my posts and seeimingly insinuating that you know how we all live! I live in a very old rental duplex (nobody's used any new lumber on me for a home), haven't bought furniture in over 15 years (none made with wood, anyway), my wooden desk was bought at a garage sale, I reuse and recycle my paper products (oh, except for toilet paper - oh well, got me on that one). Heck, I even reuse my plastic baggies until they're laden with rips or holes--but this isn't about plastic. I never said that the purpose of the elimination of the logging was to preserve the forests. I said it might be good for that. Oh, and one more thing.... I hear drug trafficking is good money and dangerous work, too. But is it a job that's good for our neighborhoods or environment? Can people PLEASE not put words into my mouth! I'm going hiking!