Editor,
As a forester with more than 40 years of education and experience in the field, it infuriated me to read the article in the Whidbey Examiner of March 11, “Acres Clear Cut as Part of Regrowth.”
There are so many factual errors in this article that I hardly know where to begin. For instance, the statements attributed to the logger were unconscionably ignorant and misleading. Red alder can live up to 100 years, not 35-40. Douglas fir often live past 900 years, not 60. There is no significant disease that affects both Douglas fir and red alder. Laminated root rot does not affect red alder (or any hardwood), contrary to the logger’s claim.
If the area is so rife with disease, then replanting with the same species is patently a poor reforestation practice. If the disease was as severe and widespread as reported, then the income derived from harvest would probably not have been enough to defray the expenses of logging, hauling, treatment of logging debris, replanting costs and subsequent reforestation management. Firewood? I doubt that firewood sales would earn enough to warrant logging the property.
The logger should better inform himself about basic dendrology, forest pathology and forest ecology before making such embarrassing and uninformed statements. Your newspaper should make a greater effort to provide credible sources to help inform your readers. “Selective Harvest,” as it is performed locally, is seldom much of an improvement over clearcutting. Keep in mind that Puget Sound lowland forests have been managing themselves quite nicely for more than 6,000 years without our “help.”
The statements attributed to our county assessor were either woefully misinformed or ingenuous. Statements such as, “What they are doing is clearing out the bad stuff and putting good trees back in” and, “It’s about giving back to the community by harvesting the trees and replenishing them” are insupportable. Most, if not all, clearcuts here in Island County return nothing to the community except the increased spread of invasive plants and a greater need for pesticide application; causing blow-down of adjacent neighboring trees; causing soil compaction and increased stormwater impacts, which increase erosion and sedimentation; and burdening the public with the costs of repairing the cumulative ill effects of poor logging … oh, and some minimal permit fees and taxes.
The landowner is probably overly optimistic in expecting that, “In five to 10 years it will begin to look like it always had” and, “In 30-40 years we can do it again.” In five to 10 years, the property will probably be an impenetrable brush-field with few, if any, surviving planted seedlings, rather than a new forest.
If you’re going to log, at least be honest — you did it for the money or as a precursor to eventual development or for the view — or to satisfy the archaic and damaging tax laws relating to “open space.”
Perhaps your readers — as well as the logger quoted in your article — would be interested and informed by reading the 2009 DNR publication, Forest Practices Illustrated.
Elliott Menashe, Forester
Clinton
