+1

Not for it. One bit.

If you folks are into living in houses made with only steel, or want to wipe your asses with shells instead of toilet paper, go ahead, support it.

I bank the Quinault Valley. I bank the people who work in those forests. There are MANY small businesses that depend on working in those forests. Those forests provide MANY living wage jobs. Is it easy? No. Are there a sh!t ton of trees in the area? Yes. Is it a renewable resource. Yes. 40-50 year cycle for tree harvets in that area. Do you honestly think that loggers wish to destroy the environment that provides their living? Do you know that there is continuing education required for loggers? Probably not.

Huge sections are already devoted to national park land, and then when you add into that the roadless areas in the national forests, the area unaffected by logging gets even larger.

Think you'll be able to hunt there? Wrong.

This is a campaign run by city folks who might visit the area a few times a year that will have a large inpact on the people who live there 100% of the time.

Might sound good on the surface, but it isn't in application. City folks are all about feeling good about how they saved country folks from themselves. Stay in the fuckin' city.

One final observation, who the hell is this tree hugger extrordinaire, "Fishologist"? Make sure you check the knotholes for bees.

Sorry to step out of my normally reserved position on things, but people who have no standing in a particular region causing upset to those who do live there really is a pet peave.

Similar "motto" used to fight off efforts to stop the netting of our dwindling fish stocks. Motto should be "Cut em n kill em till there ain't no more". Would be more truthful but not as good PR.

So when all of this goes through, I think it would be really fun for all of the loggers who work during the week should get boats and start guiding. Talk about exploiting the op....

Let us locals have our say here ( not just here, but on this . Please don't manage our lands from across the state. I work at the forks hospital and there is talk about laying off 40 people ( not sure how many of you have been to fch, but a layoff of 40 people would be devestating). The hospital receives tax dollars right off the top of timber products sold from our area. Who remembers the logger on the old thrifty paper bags? Do you think a decrease in logging would affect them? Then there are all of the dnr layoffs and budget cuts. Logging truly is the lifeblood of our town, and whether or not you think it takes away from the beauty of our peninsula, that is for us to say not people who see it twice a year when they come kill our fish.

Believe me, we know how pretty it is here; that's why we live here. The eternal argument of economy over preservation always boils down to appropriate and responsible management. Is the land that is up for sale already logged? If not is it second growth that has proven that it is in fact renewable, or is it old growth that could not be logged because nobody has the equipment to log it anymore? Is it timber that is not merchantable because of state regulations in place (Rmzs)? How will this deal improve my community? Once again, let's think about who should have A say?

interesting to see what peoples views on this are. i have to agree with dogfish and solducsinker. I work in the timber industry in forks, and have been following this since the beginning, and i think its a horrible idea. Washington state forest practice plan dictates what timber can be harvested and what cant. loggers dont want to kill every tree here. aside from work we spend more time outdoors than 90 percent of members on this site. we work in timber because its a lifestyle, not a career, that we chose.
why allow this land to change hands? if its old growth its essentially untouchable, and more than likely worthless timber. if its national forest and not old growth, it may be commercially thinned, but never clearcut, and in 5 years you wouldnt be able to tell the difference. bottom line is, by letting this land change hands we run the risk of loosing access forever. if it stays under forest service or state ownership, its public. anything else, and people on the OP start losing.

I'm all for it. For one, the amount of land added isn't that large of a sum. Secondly, has anyone actually looked at the land ownership map for the OP?

Most of all, it keeps outsiders from building houses on the land when the timber companies decide to start selling the land off, *cough* easterners, *cough* californians. You know who you are.

Since the dawn of "civilized" humankind, forests, fish, and wildlife have historically taken a back seat to more pressing socio-economic concerns.

Pugetropolis was once a pretty wild place. Must "progress" always trump everything?

Maybe let the underdogs win this round... just once?

Hell, why don't they send you logers to reform school, it would help everyone on this board out.

why not just let the locals decide. too many times we have been outnumbered by the I-5 corridor voting population on issues that have litlle or no bearing on their evry day lives, but drastically change ours. most of us chase to live here because we like the area just the way it is, and we dont want change. if you want a change, tear your house down, plant some trees, andsell your place to an environmental interest group.

fishologist, spell logger, do it slow so it sinks in, then do some history homework. our industry didnt "pop up" overnight. kind of what put the territory on the map. aside from the fur trade, timber is what brought people here

I would like to see that $90 million go towards keeping my tuition costs from skyrocketing further...maybe they could fill in a little of that budget gap and give 'er a few years to think about Wild Olympics.

Forks is all logged out anyways, might as well look for some other place to trash.

Really, slow-drifter?

So, if you feel that these forest are all YOURS please feel free to pick up the tab.

moravec, your thought are too logical. why fill in the budget gaps when they could spend money on land that actually generates income, then render it useless by "preserving" it. the trees on this land were originally set aside to help pay for schools among other things, which would help keep your tuition cost down

didnt say they were all MINE, but myself, and people like me have a vested interest in keeping OUR forests healthy, and therefore sustainable, in order to generate an income from them. basically, respect the locals opinions on this, we will be directly effected by the outcome, whereas most of you wont notice any changes other than a sign on the side of the road next time you come through town

Note to self: Put the OP back on the to do list. Might be worth the trip up north again in a few years. Anyone know a good motel, restaurant, tackle shop and guide near Forks?

Half the area affected looks closer to Seattle than Forks. Not only that but the area affected is as close to national park as you can get which is as close to the headwaters as you can get without going into the park, very dangerous. Unless you live in the center of the national park I wouldn't consider yourself local enough to be able to tell me not to put my money where my mouth is.

Only problem is "who is working"....not log mills that were going 24/7, or plywood mills.....I watched ship load after ship load leave Grays Harbor.....now high unemployment abounds.

Chain saws and the lumber way of life should have been slowed in the 70's, 80's, and 90's but NO...tried to cut it all and ship it over seas....now we suffer!!!!!!!!!

Siera Pacific, Local, Dahsltrom, JK Forest Products, Willis Enterprises, and many other lumbers mills in the area are still pumping out finished lumber and chips.

Yes, Weyco shut their two mills in Aberdeen, but there still are many viable forest product producers in the harbor.

I'd like to see that $90 million left in the taxpayers pockets, then I might be able to afford a Discover Pass.