FORESTS’ FUTURE: A few questions for you

| Environment | West Seattle news

A storm like the one that moved through last night reminds us about the fragility of some of our greenspaces. So it’s a good day to note that your thoughts about King County’s forests are being sought in a survey. Here’s the announcement:

Our spectacular forests store carbon, cool streams, and provide recreational opportunities. As we work with communities to develop a 30-year plan to expand forest cover and improve forest health, we’re conducting a public survey.

What is most important to you? Should we prioritize the role of our forests in confronting climate change? Or planting trees to improve air quality? Or promoting healthy forests in King County Parks? Or enhancing wildlife habitat? Or something else?

What are the most important actions King County can take with partners over the next 30 years? Should we focus on improving the health of existing forests or preserving additional forestland? Should we plant trees in areas where there is lower tree cover or should we plant more trees near rivers and streams?

We invite you to take a few minutes to take the brief survey to share your ideas for how we ensure that future generations continue to benefit from healthy, vibrant forests.

Isee February 1, 2020 (3:24 pm)

Adding more tree’s is meaningless unless there is a maintenance budget big enough to take care of them. Commenter’s here alway’s stand on their soapboxes when tree’s are trimmed for view’s but dissapear when asked what they are doing to keep greenbelt’s and/or parks clear of underbrush. Park’s need enough money to take care of what they have, or will add in the future as there will NEVER be enough volunteers to keep tree’s/parks healthy.

Jim February 1, 2020 (4:23 pm)

So true, ISEE. So many of us talk the talk, but few walk the walk.

John February 1, 2020 (5:29 pm)

ISEE is correct. The city would not dare such a survey as it has settled on largely ignoring its million dollar tree maintenance backlog in favor of saddling property owners with tree restrictions that combined make little difference, but fulfill the desired effect on ignorant good intentioned ‘tree lovers’ and Plant Amnesty.

Lorax February 1, 2020 (7:14 pm)

Man, you guys are a fun bunch. “Ignorant well intentioned tree lovers” really? Would you all rather that the County made no effort? Not that your collective wining means anything. The rest of us will carry on doing what we can…

Jim February 2, 2020 (1:57 pm)

You are anonymous. Lorax. But by “carry on doing what we can..” I hope you meant you are one of those volunteers that joins our work parties in the green spaces.

wssz February 2, 2020 (5:03 am)

Lorax — I agree. I took the survey and really appreciate the thoughtful questions. It’s very good to see an effort to develop a 30 year plan for our forests. The most labor intensive work is done by the County, but then ongoing support is often needed at the neighborhood level by volunteers. It’s up to us to do our part at work parties to do ivy eradication and control other invasive plants, plant new trees, and add mulch. Tools and guidance are provided. When a lot of neighbors pitch in, a ton of work can get done quickly. Results — our forests are healthier, and steep hillsides are better protected from landslides because of the stabilizing effect of trees. And our native birds have safe places to live and raise their young.

anonyme February 2, 2020 (6:04 am)

By “ignorant good intentioned ‘tree lovers’ and Plant Amnesty” are you referring to the many professionally trained and educated arborists and horticulturalists who comprise the membership of Plant Amnesty, as well as the “tree lovers” club? And where did you get the idea that these “ignorant” groups were happy with the lame and unenforced tree restrictions that you have been “saddled” with? WE are not. They are woefully inadequate. Ironically, several of the comments above display a profound ignorance of arboriculture and even forestry, which is geared toward commercial use of forests and scientific and environmental importance. The one comment that is accurate is that tree management is underfunded at every level and that the Seattle stance is hypocritical at best – much like this survey. Our forests are dying worldwide, and a thirty-year plan is at least thirty years too late. This survey is yet another empty gesture.

JohnnyD February 2, 2020 (3:03 pm)

My parent’s lived on a Genesee side hill considered a “slide risk”. After mom passed away 3 years ago we needed to trim tree’s on the bank to improve the view before selling. Note-those tree’s had been topped by us for 50 years to keep the view. It was VERY easy to do. We got, and filled out the 28 pages of forms-gave the city the permit fees and 10 day’s later they handed us the permit’s to cut. No questions asked.

Sorry, comment time is over.