I knew many “timber cutters”. My grandfather in Ukiah, Oregon drove a lumber truck and showed me the operation. Lumberjacks are very well trained. Historically, they have been under a lot of pressure to cut timber quickly and sometimes take short cuts. It is a dangerous job. In the old days you might meet your quota and still not be paid. If the quality of the lumber you cut was not good then you were not paid. You could work all day and not know the end result until it was too late.

Being a “Topper” is something that I would not attempt. Climb high into the sky with your spurs and safety belt, to within about 1/3 of the way of the top of a Yellow Pine. Cut a notch in the trunk of the tree and place your “spring board” into it. Stand on the springboard and proceed to cut off the top portion of the tree without getting killed. Be sure that your climbing spurs are sharpened properly.

Working at the Mill is very dangerous also. As a tree is being pulled into the Mill to be sawn, the chain might break and take off the legs of anyone in its path. Every lumberjack I have ever met was tall, lean and hard as steel.

Once I went up to the 90 foot mark with spurs and a safety belt. There were two types of spurs – a bit dull and sharp. The sharp ones went into the bark easily but could be very dangerous. You might get stuck, so a lot of guys used dull spurs so they could pull them out more easily. Once was enough! :)


>My first instinct is that soldiers are better trained for their job than timber cutters are for theirs.
>
>>Surprisingly, the only comparable job in my mind would be convenience store clerk or policeman as far as the risk of enemy fire. I find it interesting that a soldier in Iraq has a better chance of survival than a Timber cutter while I don't know of any terrorists targeting timber cutters...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nice. I was not sure on how to put it all together. Thanks. :-)
>>>>Ok, the death rates are listed per 100,000. Let's look at the numbers:
>>>>
>>>>Total active duty: 1,411,287
>>>>Total Guard/Reserve: 66,000
>>>>Total Reserve Full Time: 234,629
>>>>Total For Computations: 1,711,916
>>>>Total Active Duty all Components: 2,659,000 (I won't use this number)
>>>># of Military Deaths in 2004: 1887 (it was 1410 in 2003 but we'll use the higher number)
>>>>
>>>>Deaths per 100,000 in 2004: 110
>>>>Deaths per 100,000 in 1999: 32.4
>>>>End Strength in 1999: 1525942 Deaths 788 Ratio: 51.63
>>>>
>>>>Last year, the military lost 310 service members and employees to car crashes alone
>>>>
>>>>That puts yr 2004 at number 2 (after Timber Cutters which were at 117.8) and ahead of Fishers
>>>>and yr 1999 (a typical year) at (#5 on the list after Metal Workers & before Roofers)
>>>>
>>>>31,000 convenience store clerks are shot every year (I had no idea)
>>>>
>>>>The problem with the combat related deaths is that they cover 1 May 2003 to the present which encompasses multiple years. For a true comparison, you have to break it down to the number of deaths per 100,000 for the same year. The most recent statistics I found numbers for (which I posted) were for 2003.
>>>>
>>>>http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Except that you are linking to a money cnn report from 2003. If you link to the current one from August 2006 here, you'll see partway down the page, the following statement:
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>The BLS does not count combat deaths in its survey;
>>>>>if it did, the military would undoubtedly have qualified
>>>>>as America's most dangerous job last year.
>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect the Bureau of Labour Statistics didn't include combat deaths in 2003 either.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Those are actuarial statistics based on per capita rates. The military doesn't even make the list. They have less of a chance of getting killed in their profession than those on the list (statistically speaking). The apologist crowd will just ignore the facts and make up their liberal gobbly-gook (sp?). The libs don't want facts and logic, they want "make-me-feel-good" emotionalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have you looked at the internet for dangerous jobs? I did a google and found 2 different sites that list 10 of the most hazardous jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/
>>>>>>>http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/03/0903worksafe.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>how many jobs other then the military have over 1 million (not sure of the exact number) employed at the same time? Timber cutters lost 84 out of 100,000 in 2002.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You said this:
>>>>>>>>"the military is no more dangerous than most other professions"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not sidestepping anything by saying I think you're wrong and that is ridiculous. (yeah my spelling stinks...heh)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What other professions here in the USA lost 105 people last month due to the nature of the job, hummm? I assure you that "most other professions" did not loose 105 people due to the nature of their job. What does this have to do with driving your car? ...unless you're a truck driver or something....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Again, without side-stepping the argument:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Statistics show that you have a greater chance of being killed or seriously injured by driving your car than you do by being in the military. Therefore, driving is more dangerous than being in the military.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>P.S. The word is "ridiculous"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Tamar:
>>>>>>>>>>>... the military is no more dangerous than most other professions.....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's ridicilious.