The May 10 front page article does a disservice to the timber industry and promotes the waste of public money.As a graduate forester with a 30-year career in the timber industry, I do have some standing to comment on the article.

First, the 216-acre parcel is not ‘pristine forest’ that needs to be saved from logging.The area has already been logged at least once and used for other purposes since its original logging.

Second, I believe the land is on the rural side of the Urban Growth Boundary so it should function quite well as commercial timber land with King County needing only to purchase the development rights leaving the timber to be harvested and replanted.If the intent is to never log the timber, this is a totally unnecessary waste of a valuable resource.

Third, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources is correct and should know that harvesting timber in itself does not create an impervious service.To a lay person, a clearcut logging operation may look ugly, but if done properly the logging will have no significant affect on the ability of the land to percolate water into the ground, minimizing any runoff into May Creek.

Rowan Hinds, Issaquah