Submitted by Plonsky2 t3_11cjbd3 in Washington
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
[deleted]
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.
[deleted] t1_ja4an7p wrote
[removed]
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. https://www.yakimawa.gov/
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments