IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

why so few hardwoods in the PNW?

Don Baccus dhogaza at pacifier.com
Fri Aug 7 01:24:54 EST 1998

In article <35CA343E.72482C0C at olympus.net>,
Mike Hagen  <mhagen at olympus.net> wrote:
>> Depends on your definition.  If you live in Kaui you might
>> point to the top of the mountain where it rains 450 inches
>> a year on average and scoff at the notion that the Oly
>> Penninsula is "wet", with its paltry 60-120 inches a year
>> depending on locale.

>Those statistics are part of the balderdash the tourism committees and
>retirement boosters put out.  We attempt to counteract that sugar: it
>tends to encourage Condos to grow where they shouldn't.  They're off
>by at least a factor of two both ways. 

>Precip on the north Olympic Peninsula ranges from <10 in the depths of
>the rainshadow to 250++ up in west side forest country. And its higher
>up in the park.  They purposefully put the towns where it didn't rain
>so much.

Beg to differ, the Park is fucking rugged, and they put the towns where
any sensible person would, near big water where ships can come.  

As far as the rainfall variance, I was pulling numbers out of my hat
(on Kaui, you can visit a coast where it rains like 12-14 inches a
year, too, I just didn't mention it because we were talking RAIN, not
DESERT).  250++ but even higher in the Park for Oly?  OK, sounds like
we're in a race with Kaui for the National Record.

Now - why isn't this publicized?  NPS conspiracy?

Or are your numbers just, perhaps, a little exaggerated?

?Even so, the weather stations run low on rainfall because
>they are all at old military airports, which are on the coast and a
>goodly ways away from the towns.

While true, the absence of measuring stations in the Park isn't
proof that 250+ rainfall happens (which would be far greater than
any other PNW coast range that we know of).  If measuring stations
don't exist, where does this 250+ figure come from?

>Last year's unofficial rainfall for
>the town of Forks was 156", I believe.  Mine was only 92" and I
>appreciated the near drought. 

So why was the Forks count unofficial?  It's not that hard to establish
a reliable methodology that is accepted.  Why doesn't Forks do this?


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net