Concerning the May 31 letter to the editor, “Lawsuit over timber sale jeopardizes a good deal,” I discovered some inconsistencies and misinformation. For one, his statement of environmental hardliners is misleading, leaving one with the impression that they are radicals. However the Pilchuck Audubon Society, while being one of the more active when it comes to environmental issues, are not radicals or what I would call hardliners, but well informed, outgoing and a very friendly organization.

The logging road mentioned, is not a logging road, but an old logging railroad grade used sometime between 1902 and 1941 by either one of three that operated in the area, meaning that the forest he walks through is what is sometimes called second-growth old growth, but more accurately called mature growth, which quite often takes on the appearance and characteristics of old growth and is between 80 to 250 years of age.

The mention of mother logs would indicate that the forest was logged prior to 1947 at the latest and more likely before 1930 or even 1920, for very few logging companies replanted or reseeded before 1947, which didn’t become law until the early 1960s. More recent clear-cuts rarely leave mother logs behind, for it would be considered waste. Replanted or reseeded areas quite often are of only one species, Douglas fir, which is the most commercially valuable, and of the same age, where areas that are reseeded naturally and consists of several different species of uneven age. In fact, studies have indicated clear-cuts that have been reseeded or replanted, consists of only 28 to 29 species, trees, plants, mammal, fowl, fungi, etc. While a mature growth and or old growth consists of hundreds if not thousands of individual species.

The statement of more wildlife can also be misleading, for many landowners, state departments and the Forest Service have in the pass used herbicides to kill off competing plants, which deer and other mammals often feed upon, and undertake measures to deter deer from feeding upon their seedlings, which is quite an investment just to have deer eat. The overall consensus is that more wildlife live or prefer old growth or mature forest than second growth that has been reseeded or replanted.

As far as benefits for the public, like many I grew up believing that the sale of timber helped fund schools, but during the term of a Republican president, the state of Oregon was forced to sell timber for less than what it cost to sell it. How widespread this practice was, and was it done in Washington, I really don’t know. But knowing that fact, makes me question the validity of any claim made that cutting these forests, benefits the public.

Don Stobbe

Sultan