Timber industry shouldn’t need old growth trees to keep going

I have followed with interest the debate in The Herald about old growth, and I’m putting in my oar. The forestry business people have failed to address the issue of nutrient depletion. In an old growth forest, old trees die and decompose, returning nutrients to the soil. If instead trees are shipped out for lumber, etc. every truckload of trees takes some of those nutrients with it. Eventually, the soil is too nutrient poor to grow trees on, a process known as desertification.

My second point is a question: If the system of harvestin and replanting is working, why does the industry need to harvest more old growth than it has already? Just harvest the trees that were planted 40 years ago, after the old growth was clear-cut back then. If there isn’t any new growth available for harvest at this time, the forestry people need to go to work flipping burgers until the harvest on previously logged land is ready.

Doug Wertz

Everett