Doug, at the risk of perpetuating the thread creep, let me say that, with the exception of a few fringe groups [E.L.F., e.g.], I know of no environmentalists that care more for critters than people.  [Many of us environmentalists do, however, place the continued existence and welfare of nonhuman species above the whims and pleasure pursuits of snowmobilers, ATVers, and motor boaters--partly for our own sake as humans.]   Timber jobs are lost as often because of technological advances [e.g. "fellerbunchers] and because of the short-sightedness of big corporations [who buy and sell mills and logging businesses like they were baseball cards] as because of environmental protection.  "Sustainable forestry" is not [Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding] a "buzzword" that really means "hands off, humans!"  As with the fire situation, the timber situation itself -- loss of jobs, etc.-- goes back a century or two.  Folks may be replanting now, but they didn't used to.  And now, there is no way that big 200+year-old redwoods, Douglas firs, cedars, oaks, etc., are going to be replaced when they are cut.  The only way to "maintain the cut" is to keep depleting the forests in terms of board feet, because new seedlings weren't planted when the big trees were cut hundreds of years ago.

Our "war on drugs," BTW, keeps Americans unwilling to allow hemp to be grown for making paper, housing materials, cloth, etc.  Hemp could easily substitute for a lot of our wood product "needs," creating and maintaining a lot of jobs without our needing to log our last remaining wilderness areas or log the commercial forests on such a short rotation cycle.  But the timber industries, I think, don't want that competition.  [This is a whole nuther story, though.]

Genie