If slowing down the clear cutting means more in taxes so that schools stay open that need to be open, then so be it. If taking the bulldozer to a couple of Snake river dams mean more in taxes to subsidize wind farms, new updated coal plants, and yes even nuclear plants, I say do it. And if asking timber companies to change their logging practices to help keep soils intact, and watersheds from turning into mudpits, I'll pay more. Why? Because doing whats economically expedient, what is most palatable to the chamber of commerce, will mean giving up quality of life. I don't want to do that.

I'd rather be making 65k a year living a couple hours away from anywhere on the Washington coast, than making 150k a year living in the middle of Los Angeles. If people want to Californicate the west end of this state, just keep cutting, and keep paving over the soils. Won't be long till we're the Northern Republic of La Habra.

And for once, in of all the posts possible, I almost completely agree with timber. Gov oversight is responsible for letting the timber companies go hog wild. Simpson cuts a lot of acreage on public land in Idaho. I never see the plowed up, torn up clear cuts there, like I do here.

Here's a thought, if Weyerhouser created an unsafe condition by the way they managed the cutting, and that can be directly proven to have led to landslides, debris dams, and flash flooding which caused property damage and loss of life downstream, can they be held civilly and criminally liable?