Dave D,

Of course timber companies donate to political campaigns, just like most major and minor industries do. Everybody's out to protect their interests. You realize that laws are made by and for those who benefit from them, right? Most laws are not passed for the "public good."

Vince,

Todd's point about most damage resulting from practices that occurred under the Forest Practices Act prior to 1987 is important. The FPA since then is the most restrictive by far in the nation I believe. But there's nearly a century of work that occurred under no environmental protection, and the landscape is still far from being recovered.

I should have mentioned above that those DNR payouts were related to mudslides off DNR clearcuts that killed people in their homes. If no one had died, they would have trusted the legal system to get them off for just property damage.

Makai,

The SF Skok is more than a perfect example of what not to do. It's also an example of what strong political connections can accomplish. Simpson arranged a give away of US National Forest timber for the company to manage as though it were private forest land. Ironically it was called a "sustained yield" unit, and of course it's just the opposite. Probably the most devastated forestland in the state. But it sure helps to have friends in high places, and the folks at Simpson did, all the way to the White House.

Timber,

That's a cool machine. How large a stem can it handle? Looks like about 12 or 14" sticks, little more than pecker poles.

Pisco,

I know that forestry is a small part of the state economy. But it takes a forest practice action in order to clear land and convert it to a car dealership, a shopping mall, a condo complex, etc. Even most western WA ag land was once forested. Forestry is everywhere and permeates much of what occurs in WA. And those forest actions may not cause much environmental harm in and of themselves, but permit subsequent activities that bugger up the landscape for profit, and result in increased flood risk.

Comparing Thurston and Lewis Counties is more than just a difference in competence and stewardship. Both are about preserving status quo. The most flood hazard areas in Thurston Co. aren't ripe for prime development, and that's probably as much coincidence as it is intelligent planning. The main developed areas in Lewis Co are in the Chehalis River flood way and flood plain. Rather than move upslope, the city and county fathers want to maintain the status quo and keep developing where they always have, and besides, it's so handy to I-5, which is no coincidence, since the freeway was routed to pass near the cities. If the major development in Thurston Co. had occurred in a major floodway, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they would have done the same as Lewis Co. and continued to develop where it made poor environmental sense. The human capacity to remain committed to non-viable relationships with the land (and just about anything else) should never be under-estimated.

Sg