You must log in or register to comment.

porkchop_sandviches t1_ja3oodx wrote

I just went to a presentation about why it's so crucial to preserve the few legacy forests we still have left. This is heartbreaking honestly


Rndmwhiteguy t1_ja4n4c5 wrote

What do you mean by legacy forests?


queenweasley t1_ja52sl8 wrote

Probably old growth, full of ecosystems and such. As opposed to new growth which can be grown specifically for logging


AltOnMain t1_ja54ojk wrote

I think they use the phrase legacy forest because the term old growth doesn’t really apply to these forests. They are older than some, no doubt but in terms of the natural stand progression or “life” of a PNW forest they are still kinda young. Maybe like teenager or mid 20s if we are using a dog year analogy.

I think the phrase old growth has sort of fallen out of favor as the focus in forest conservation has moved to cultivating complexity rather than old trees


galacticwonderer t1_ja6lm5c wrote

There is a truly fantastic podcast called the timber wars put out by oregons local public radio. It explains everything from the scientists side, the lawyers side, the loggers side, and the politicians side. In it you learn about the tussle for old growth forest. It’s really valuable ecologically and economically. They plant trees after cutting them down but forests don’t recover, it’s a whole ecosystem of different trees at different growth stages. All sorts of stuff relying on all sorts of stuff that takes a lot of time to come into existence. Wild fires already threaten these habitats.


AltOnMain t1_ja54bpo wrote

There’s merit to the argument that these forest shouldn’t be cut, but it is important to remember that USFS and WA DNR have set aside really a lot of land to be “wild”.


yeahsureYnot t1_ja43qoi wrote

ITT: people not realizing that DNR and USFS simply exist to manage a "crop" we call timber as a revenue source. They are not here to promote healthy ecology. They do that somewhat but it's mostly side pet projects.


punkmetalbastard t1_ja44ur0 wrote

You have a good point here. A lot of people look at the For Service for their recreation duties or conservation efforts but their main function has been to facilitate timber sales. They are under the Department of Agriculture, after all


PepeLePuget t1_ja4i44w wrote

Not so fun facts:

The US Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture

WA Department of Natural Resources gets most of its funding from forestry and geoduck harvesting

Edit: the DNR claim was cribbed from Wikipedia. Official data is here


AltOnMain t1_ja556xq wrote

That may have been true of USFS 30 years ago, but as someone who bought log sales from USFS in the past, it’s just not the case in the PNW any more. Considering how much land USFS owns, they effective do not manage the land. I would be surprised if USFS applied some sort of management including hazardous fuels reduction (light thinning) to more than 0.1% of its land in WA in a year.

DNR on the other hand does have some set asides, but a lot of it’s land - maybe even most of its land is managed in a way that is similar to industrial timberland.


newt_girl t1_ja3jtzk wrote

That's tragic. I did some survey work up in that area, beautiful forests. A real shame, considering all the clear cut DNR land to the north and the Weyerhauser scars to the south.


SatoriPt1 t1_ja48p5l wrote

Hey can you pls tell me how to get into surveying work without any experience?


aagusgus t1_ja4avb7 wrote

I'm a land surveyor. If you're reasonably fit, like the outdoors and can walk 5+miles a day while carrying 40lbs of gear, just drop off a resume or email virtually any land surveying firm in the State and you'll be hired. There's more to it than that, but we're an industry that is desperate for workers.


SatoriPt1 t1_ja4gjw3 wrote

Good to know. Any other tips for sprucing up the resume to make it more surveyor-centric? Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it.


aagusgus t1_ja4ib0x wrote

Anything related to math is good, we do a lot of trigonometry, geometry and basic calculus. Anything related to drafting and AutoCAD is a huge plus, being able to draft now a days is almost more important than the math aspects. Construction background can be helpful, about half the work we do is related to new land development projects. History related topics are also good, we do a lot of research reading old deeds and maps, and interpreting historic documents. Map reading abilities are also important. Plus all the "normal" stuff, like being able to use excel, word, and communicate like a competent adult.


SatoriPt1 t1_ja4k0en wrote

This is perfect. Thank you so much for your time, enjoy the rest of your Sunday!!


w4rpsp33d t1_ja3x2ft wrote

Just awful. Hilary Franz was a disaster as a councilwoman on Bainbridge and just keeps failing upwards.


lluvia_dulce t1_ja43swx wrote

She's honestly the worst. If you go on her Instagram she's always touting her conservation strategies. I troll her and call her out on it.

I think she's almost certainly going to run for governor and I fear she might get it.


aztechunter t1_ja3l8e9 wrote

...they couldn't just raise 50 cents in taxes?


bonbam t1_ja3rd2c wrote

The city of Vancouver just narrowly passed a tax levee to benefit our public schools. It worked out to a whole whopping $1.99/1k assessed on property taxes (which was replacing a $2.01 levee, so we actually gained money) and still people were acting like they were being forced to become homeless.

Never assume people would rather pay a negligible amount in taxes; even if you tell them if $1 for the whole year they will act like you're trying to be some authoritarian dictator. Absolutely exhausting.


scough t1_ja42vgd wrote

I always vote in favor of these levees, but I can also understand why people are sick of the feeling that they're being nickel and dimed. WA literally has the most regressive tax system in the US that disproportionately affects those with lower incomes, while the rich get to skate by with around a 2% effective tax rate. WA very heavily favors corporations and the rich.


[deleted] t1_ja445h9 wrote



bonbam t1_ja4prfo wrote

I wasn't saying the approved levee was negligible, that was in reference to the .50 cent tax the person i was replying to said. Could have made myself clearer.

I agree that 1k is not negligible; i also think we are super lucky to not pay state income tax and that the state needs to make up the money somewhere. I'd rather pay this property tax increase in that framing, which is how i tend to view these things.


Librekrieger t1_ja4gu2f wrote

That measly $2 is actually $1000 per year for any house within 10 miles of where I live. Ask me to pay $1000 this year for something, and it better be something I really support. It isn't a "negligible amount".

I don't automatically vote to give $1k a year to "education". Nobody should. The measure must clearly state what the money is going to be used for and it better be a good reason. Otherwise I have other things I could use that $1k for.


SparrowAgnew t1_ja5vrjx wrote

Don't say the dreaded T-word or you'll upset the wealthy elite.


Timetohavereddit t1_ja6l68q wrote

That’s not how that works, they don’t care about the budget and how much they can use on the city they care about the pay check they will receive themselves


WhiskeyBravo1 t1_ja3tjey wrote

We bought a house with forested acreage that had been clearcut twenty years ago and it makes me sad. Many trees that have grown in those twenty years aren’t healthy and are slow to grow. Some are still so young their tops snap off in any windstorm. And I think of those photos at MOHAI of the giants that have been felled. It is tragic.


BeaverInTheForest t1_ja6s2uk wrote

More than likely, there are things you can do to improve your forest health. Have you reached out to your local county extension or DNR Small Forest Landowner Office? There are a ton of excellent resources and many are free or offer cost-share or even dividend opportunities. I encourage you to reach out!


Fupatown t1_ja4bnwr wrote

The pasayten wilderness area is 500,000 acres of untouchable forest land thats probably of similar or older age. But but yes tell me more about why we shouldn't use 100 acres of one of the only truly renewable resources we have. In terms of Forest management, 100 years is not that long of a time scale when trees can live for 500 years. Think of all the carbon stored in them. If they're cut down and used to build houses that carbon will be stored in the beams of a house (think housing shortage) and a new tree will grow and store more carbon in its stem. Young trees grow and sequester more carbon than old trees as the try to outcompete each other. Look it up it's true. If you have 100,000 acres of land in various conditions you could cut 100 acs/year for 1000years before making it back to your first patch. And dnr/USFS have a lott more land than that. Sorry for the rant but we should be using every renewable resource we have. Oil will run out but trees are forever.


seacamp t1_ja57l4y wrote

Finally, something a bit more sensible in these comments. Not only are they harvesting a renewable resource, they are specifically targeting fractured timberland that doesn't provide as many benefits as continuous parcels (e.g. wildlife corridors). While I do agree that older stands of trees tend to provide better biodiversity due to their very composition, simply harvesting only stands of young, monoculture trees doesn't solve our financial or ecological issues. If people don't want to use this renewable resource in safe and responsible manners (of which I believe this is), they'd better get ready to spend a hell of a lot more in taxes and also in funding to help maintain these areas (no, Smokey Bear and his outdated teachings aren't gonna cut it).


yungcarwashy t1_ja4h5lk wrote

Although it’s sad to see old trees go, you make the most reasonable point here


avitar35 t1_ja40bwl wrote

I know people are mad but this is literally part of DNRs job scope, auction off mature timber. The problem comes in when the replanting of those trees does not happen or they are not cared for well enough for them to survive. Thats what needs to be addressed. The unfortunate reality is we need timber to build and we have a homelessness problem thats created a need for affordable housing, we cant do it without the wood.


[deleted] t1_ja43dwn wrote



avitar35 t1_ja463xe wrote

I honestly do not know enough about this particular plot to start making huge judgements. However I do know the article says none of the "old growth" trees predated 1900, and that in instances where they do find old growth those trees are restricted from harvest. This is also on the Lewis/Pacific county line, not exactly the Hoh rainforest.


wpnw t1_ja4cd51 wrote

This article is definitely trying to sell the sensationalism here. This sort of timber sale by the DNR happens all the time, and it almost always happens in areas where there hasn't been actual old growth for a long, long time.

Far better that it happens somewhere relatively isolated and surrounded by private land and other commercial timber farms than along roads or trails that the public frequents, imo.


seacamp t1_ja57skp wrote

What a straw man... This is not "old growth temperate rainforest" up for harvest.


Important_Page_9275 t1_ja5dp5m wrote

It is not old growth, it is second growth timber. The timber industry does not want to harvest old growth timber. There are only 2 mills in western Washington that even take a log over 32" diameter. If we do not harvest timber responsibly where we are able, it will just be done other places in ways that are much more harmful to the environment. The amount of people saying how this is horrible, all while sitting in the comfort of their wooden houses in an area that used to be a forest but is now a city kind of astounds me.


Fupatown t1_ja5f8en wrote

The forest was harvested ~ 100 years ago is that "old growth"? Reality is old growth is a concept like any other and there are forests being managed that way (Nat'l parks, wilderness areas, etc) however timber is one of the only truly renewable resources we have. Consider this, the forest was harvested a century ago and I'm going to take a guess and say that they probably didn't do any tree planting or sustainable practices of any kind. Now 100 years later it's come back in full force and this time when we harvest it'll actually be managed post harvest and carefully done as opposed to back then. Do you think the forest will grow back to a similar condition in 100 years from now? Forest management is on a different time scale than human life times and I think the general public doesn't realize it...


AdventureBum t1_ja43chu wrote

This isn’t about homeless shelters. It’s about profit, like everything else.


darlantan t1_ja58x6h wrote

> The problem comes in when the replanting of those trees does not happen or they are not cared for well enough for them to survive.

When we're talking about old growth forests, there is no "replanting them" in any meaningful way. They grew in conditions that may no longer exist, and would take multiple human lifetimes to regenerate even if they were replicated. You may as well be suggesting that the fossil fuel problem be solved by hatching more dinosaurs.

Replanting and regrowing is valid for areas that have already been logged, and there is certainly an argument for responsible forestry with areas designated for repeat harvest, the same as any other crop.

Unlogged/old growth areas, however, should be considered inviolate at this point.


Psychological_Rip913 t1_ja41jmr wrote

The cost of that wood will be high. Organizations building homeless shelters won't be able to afford it.


avitar35 t1_ja41y8d wrote

And yet they do. We've had two remodels of homeless shelters here in Tacoma that opened just this *last year. State and federal funds are provided via grants to do it. Theres a billion+ just for homelessness in the state capital budget this year, and thats before final tally from fiscal cutoff.


erleichda29 t1_ja4f219 wrote

Homeless shelters don't solve homelessness. I do not understand continuing to build shelters instead of public housing.


avitar35 t1_ja4vu3c wrote

Maybe they do, maybe they dont. Fact is funding is/has been being set aside for a plethora of building projects with the hope of curbing homelessness.


Psychological_Rip913 t1_ja42dhl wrote

They need to build these homeless shelters in Eastern WA.


avitar35 t1_ja4993m wrote

Agreed. But it’s significantly cheaper to buy them bus tickets to Seattle, which is their current way of addressing the issue.


CheckmateApostates t1_ja4bwei wrote

You need to lay off the pipe if you think Spokane would actually spend the money on a bus ticket for a homeless person


avitar35 t1_ja4vkw7 wrote

I must've missed the part where I called out Spokane directly. I know this is how Ellensburg and Yakima operate. Frankly, its way less expensive for the bus ticket than to fund shelters, blankets, etc.


CheckmateApostates t1_ja5glcu wrote

Ellensburg and Yakima are in Central Washington

Edit: btw, Ellensburg is the home of Central Washington University and the City of Yakima literally says on its website that it's in Central Washington.

Wenatchee, WSDOT, and State Parks also distinguish Central from eastern, so idk man


avitar35 t1_ja5o20s wrote

East of the cascades is eastern wa, west of the cascades is western wa. This is how it’s commonly referred to.


CheckmateApostates t1_ja6utg3 wrote

Commonly referred to by people who don't live east of the Cascades or know the geography of our state


Plonsky2 OP t1_ja4c8r2 wrote

Are "they" not the same as "you"?


Psychological_Rip913 t1_ja4d4pp wrote

I am referring 'they' as in the homeless organizations. I have not seen or heard of any in my area.


queenweasley t1_ja52p6f wrote

How about we just continue logging new growth? For fucks sake.


Fupatown t1_ja5fjex wrote

100 years since the last logging is new growth


darlantan t1_ja56xhx wrote

You can't convince me that the WA DNR's primary role is anything but a publicly-funded holding front for private lumber & paper interests. Tons of land is essentially walled off from the public behind gates that you can ostensibly get access through, but if you try you'll find you can never actually reach anyone who can/will unlock them. I have spent literally a month of workday lunches trying. Paper & lumber company operations basically get to do whatever the fuck they want, and old-growth like this is being sold off despite being literally irreplaceable.


james_tacoma t1_ja4bung wrote

we need more green minded people in politics. this is disturbing to say the least.


[deleted] t1_ja4c61a wrote

But democrats run WA. The greenest of them all


SparrowAgnew t1_ja5w353 wrote

WA is the proof case that the democratic party as a whole doesn't give a shit about leftwing politics or the environment outside of a feelgood talking point.


KyloYen t1_ja60aym wrote

What this article totally neglects to mention is that we cut down forests like these constantly for real estate development without batting an eye, the only reason this gets any attention is because its specifically the government doing it.


ajdrc9 t1_ja5wlsp wrote

This makes me sad. ☹️


Trashjiu-jitsu_1987 t1_ja4gdhb wrote

Ahh, what a genius idea. Let's cut down a resource that pulls carbon from our atmosphere. What could go wrong!?


Maxtrt t1_ja60wue wrote

They wrote an article over 100 acres! Seriously? That's 0.156 square miles. They cut down that much each year just for good forestry management and firebreaks. A Forest fire like we get every would burn that much up in an hour or less. Even after they cut down the trees they plant more than they cut.


Plonsky2 OP t1_ja6alga wrote

Someone wrote a whole book about that. He called it The Hundred Acre Wood. No mention of it being clearcut, though.


Tpaste t1_ja6ujkb wrote

Reminder you can email the people responsible for this it’s a quick google search away.


afishda t1_ja6vvzi wrote

Are forests need to be managed!, but clear cutting is the wrong answer beyond financial gain's.


bedlog t1_ja4j6ez wrote

This is insane, DNR is allowing logging in the Chehalis Watershed of 100 acres, so Olympia can make pretty government buildings and then the school districts get some $ and then Lewis County gets some $. All trees deciduous and evergreen all hold large amounts of water when it rains. So when it's done aka logged, Cannonball Creek will get run off, it will spread into the Chehalis and further cloud the river system for fish and humans. Not to mention the fact that trees just sit there absorbing carbon.