Logging Co-op

[timberjake]

I often drive 60 miles to wherever we are cutting and while on that drive I see other loggers, also on similar lenght drives heading in the opposite direction to work only minutes from my house.  Although I have no idea how it would work it seems a co-op of some sort could be formed and much of the wasted driving and trucking could be avoided.  Also it may allow a group of smaller producers to compete for the good jobs instead of fighting over the scraps. 

Has it ever been tried?  Could it be made to work? 

[Ron Wenrich]

I don't think that it would work very well under our current system.  Right now, you have a bunch of independents that go out and bid on timber at various places in their operating range.  There usually is a limited amount of sellers, so timber may be available in only certain areas.

Not all loggers use the same markets.  Just because you passed a logger doesn't mean he's bringing those logs back.  They could be going to a market close to the logging job. 

Not all logging crews are created equal.  Some guys do a really good job, some guys have the place looking like a bomb went off.  Who would take care of quality control?

Not all loggers buy the same way.  Some buy by lump sum, some buy by the truckload, and some might miss a few payments.  Who does the buying and who does the selling?

A co-op would work if it was the landowners who got together and used some quality loggers and did some of the marketing on their own.  Pay the logger by the ton or Mbf for their services.  No stumpage fees and no waiting for the check.  But, landowners aren't interested in co-ops. 

Loggers could have a co-op, but it would more resemble a business where a central business would buy timber and sell logs in order to get a consistent product to the landowner.  Few independents would want to go that route.

[WDH]

Loggers, like most of us, are fiercely independent and want to control their own destiny.  That is hard to do alone, and would be even more difficult as a co-op where group consensus would have to rule.  The problem is variation.  Things change constantly.  Mills quit accepting wood.  There are restrictive quotas.  There are weather issues.  All this change buggers things up and creates chaos.  Managing this chaos creates resentment because, invariably, someones ox gets gored.  Then, they leave the co-op.

To work, there would have to be a master dictator who ran the system and made the tough decisions.  That does not make everyone equal, and that lack of equality, along with the stress of variation, makes a logging co-op a very difficult concept to succeed.

Also, loggers are not equal in the eyes of the customer who is paying them to log, or the customer who is buying their wood.  I know that when I have logging down, I am exceptionally particular who I will let log on my land.  In fact, there are only a handful, so in a co-op environment, I would be very difficult to deal with if I could not specify who does the logging.

[stihl46]

Perhaps the better way to look at this issue is like a large business organization.

It is true loggers are independent, work differently and generally have lots of variety in job sites, quality of job and markets.  However I bet their are loggers who have similar styles and goals and would be willing to work together for a common interest.

Imagine we look at this way.  Dan Logger is a one man show that has a cable skidder and buys 100% of his stumpage.  Loggers Luke and Gregg have a similar setup to Dan, but they live 45 miles from Dan.  Another Logger Fred has a Buncher and a crew of 4 that works a 50/50 split of contract cutting and stumpage and is 20 miles from Dan. 

What we have is 3 companies that all compete against each other for work and they all pay overhead and fixed costs.  They travel past each other for work and have various markets they use, but none are big suppliers with big contracts. 

Let's assume all 3 companies have a good safety and quality mantra.

What if they were merge as one company with 3 divisions.  By combining they can save on overhead costs, they can be more efficent with their book keeping.  They have a large volume of timber to bring to the market.  By combining they can benefit from bulk purchases of fuel, parts and equipment. 

Best of all they can tackle any size job based on their man power, equipment and locations.  If a small crew is needed they have that, if they need a large crew to move job quickly there is that.  The buncher allows them to cut lowgrade more efficiently and the hand crew and cable skidders can get those high value, hard to reach, small, unique jobs.   

Since they don't all live in the same town it is easier to allow the company to spread through a bigger region.

They don't all need to go to the same shop each week or even work together each month.  By working together on the BUSINESS end of logging, they will have more time to do what they love and be more profitable and maybe have more free time = FAMILY TIME.

This takes people who can agree on things, who are progressive and who are willing to communicate and work together for a bigger cause.  For the most part they would do their own thing, but give up some of the paperwork freedom and rely on teamwork and compromise to further everyone.  The Company sets the SAFETY and Quality guidelines that they all agree too. 

Together they buy their jobs and together they market their logs.  They share risk, expense and profit. 

Yes that is an idealistic way of looking at this, but if we communicate with each other, we may findout that this type of setup could work.  If everyone is open minded and willing to work together it could workout amazingly. 

Just my 2 cents.
Good luck and be safe

[Ron Wenrich]

I've been around a lot of family run organizations.  Brothers, father & son, etc.  More of those fail over time than succeed.  Someone's gotta be the boss, and that's where you always have problems.  I've seen it too many times.  Too many people pulling in to many directions.  Someone usually picks up his marbles and leaves.

[MDLogging]

I've never put alot of thought into it but I wonder if a trucking co-op would work if several loggers pooled their trucks together, settled on a trucking rate everyone could agree on, and take a small percentage out of your hauling rate to pay one dispatcher that everyone communicates with daily.  We could cut out alot of dead heading on long hauls and theres alot of times when I could use a extra truck for a few days or let one go to someone who needs it.   

[WDH]

The trucking thing can be done and is being done.  We set up a dispatch truckling system in our Company to manage the truck flows from our timberland to the mills (most of them ours).   We have many hundreds of trucks under central dispatch in the South and West.  The loggers really like it now, but did not at first.  Each individual logger has fewer trucking limitations and end up producing more loads.  Also the trucks operate with more loaded miles versus unloaded miles.

Here again, it takes a benevolent Dictator, and we serve that role as the dispatcher.  It has been tried many times, but we have been one of the few to make it work.  I also know two loggers a number of years ago that were operating about 20 truck combined between them.  They pooled their resources, and it benefited both parties handsomely.

[aksawyer]

That kind of co-op was tried for many years in western canada.Contractors cordinated together jobs were divided out acording to areas and equipment according to what was required.The lacking contractors held up the payments for the efficiant loggers.No one was willing to work at efficiant rates but wanted payed the same.It works alot like communism not at all.Aksawyer