Big trees 'n' rumours

Mark_B.

Mark_B.

Location
Basel, Switzerland
Big trees \'n\' rumours

I was speaking to some friends up in nothern California recently, they were telling me a story I initially found hard to believe. Apparently, according to the story, in the Humboldt area a logging firm came up against some tree sitters, whilst logging old growth redwoods. They hired in climbers (arborists?!) to climb up these trees, knock the tree sitters about and get them down, or rather "extract" them.

Does anybody know anything about this? I find it very hard to believe, but after having checked on Google (try "Humboldt"+"tree sitters"), something does seem to be going on. If you look closely at the photos, I'd hazard a guess that they might indeed be arbos.

I really don't see how one can extract an unwilling person from 30 meters up. Hell, the dummy in aerial rescue is awkward.. and he's not even struggling. From a professional point of view I'd also question- should the story prove to be true- the wisdom in getting actively involved in such activities.

Anyway... if anybody had any info to shed a little more light on this issue I'd appreciate it.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

Know the whole story and actually what goes on before making any judgment calls. These are tricky cituations and the tree sitters are putting themselves in danger, not the climbers climbing up to take them out .

By the way , I'm not saying that anyone is making judgment calls, but as one fella said, the stories are very slanted from the sitters point of view.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

why would you want to kick someone's ass at 125 ft.? I think that as professional arborists we would do well to remove ourselves from this kind of thuggery. we should mind our own business and let big timber take care of its own problems. not to mention the fact that there is plenty of forest available for wood products without taking out old growth giants.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

It's not just old growth harvest that these people protest. In Oregon several protest activities are over commercial thinning in stands that are far younger that that; the truth of the matter is they want to halt all logging on public and private lands. This is the same attitude that we see when political powers place hazardous industries in poor, minority neighborhoods. That's the "not in my back yard" mentality. These folks don't see the bigger picture...if we sate our appetite for wood fiber in the third world, we increase environmental damage because those places don't have the luxury of strict environmental laws governing logging practices like we have here in the US. By not managing our own resources to meet our needs, we sacrifice the environmental health of the planet.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

Tree activist have had thier way for a long time now. Stopping timber companies from harvesting trees that they own. hundreds of thousands of dollors come to a halt each day , employees dont get payed for the days they dont work. When theres no money being made a larger chain reaction occures. Less money is spent in the community, wich means a depressed economy and so on and so forth. You get the picture I'm sure. I've seen many a small towns and some larger towns just wither up and die because of the activist cause.

I have nothing against tree sitters and I commend them for pro longing and somewhat preserving what they feel is a just cause. They have made thier point for many years, but it's time that they are in return fought against and thier activities subdued. { I dont mean phyisically beating them} That is never the case anyway, no matter what you read.

The whole realm of this arguement dealing with tree sitters is about Money, standing up for what people believe and making a statement, which works in both direction from the timber companies to the sitters.

These sitters are not being taken out of the old growth , residual, and secound growth necessarily because the timber companies want to log thier timber, but rather they are trespassing, climbing on sub-standard gear and creating a huge liability facter for the timber companies.What happens when one falls ? whoes responsible?

What ever organization puts these people in the trees, must feel that the tree is worth more then the life of that person. Some have fallen to thier deaths. why? because they had a crash course in climbing and sent up with sub- standard gear, that they dont even know how to use. We all know what it takes to climb a tree and climb safely wether it be recreational or work . These people do not. At least a good portion of them dont.

These are facts and not slanted diolog. One must outway what is more important , Life or a tree which will grow back. People dont.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
the truth of the matter is they want to halt all logging on public and private lands

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is overgeneralizing, but if it's true, I still feel thankful for them. Without people going to the extremes, the middle looks radical. In the era of Bush, all trees could become bushes. Same as any big philosophical divide--the nuts at the edges get the rest of us thinking about matters that we might not otherwise, and through compromise they accomplish something, though it's rarely what they asked for.

k
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

These are facts and not slanted diolog. One must outway what is more important , Life or a tree which will grow back. People dont.

[/ QUOTE ]
A tree will grow back, but often a logged forest will not. Even on pulp farms, where they assiduously plant replacements as they go along, the result is a tree farm, not a forest ecosystem. It may be true that even forests will restore themselves eventually, but it may come after we kill a lot more people indirectly through global warming, loss of wildlife habitat, and similar unintended side effects.

You want to save one life even if you have to sacrifice a tree. I want to preserve as many lives (human and otherwise) as possible by retaining the ecosystem they depend on. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, but I believe we have to approach forests and logging differently if we want to protect planet earth.

k
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

If there is extreme off balance, sometimes extreme pull to the oppossite side brings to center, intended balance. Whether dropping a tree with balanced pulls across hinge to center face, or correcting some other off side pull to balanced target.

i think the diminishing ancient wonders of our world should be pro-tected, a tree's future value should outwiegh it's present value; and we should revel in the fact that we have yet to screw this place up so bad; that something can live that long in spite of us! Like a beacon of hope, of life winning out; a respect for the stories a tree would tell of what it has seen over centuries.

Is their more wealth in taking such a wonder down so it stands above you majestic no more; or standing in wonder at it's life? Do people really need to hang their kill on the walls........or as the walls themselves, to show that which they have taken down? To have stripess and show power? Is that really, life mastery?
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

&gt; person. Some have fallen to thier deaths. why? because &gt;they had a crash course in climbing and sent up with sub- &gt;standard gear, that they dont even know how to use. We all &gt;know what it takes to climb a tree and climb safely wether &gt;it be recreational or work . These people do not. At least &gt;a good portion of them dont.

Here in Tasmania a similar fight is going on with perhaps more desperation, less public attention, and the proverbial sketchy trees (old growth dead top eucalyptus).

I think you highlighted a good point about the crash courses and substandard equipment. Tree sitters are on a mission, and are willing to risk their life for it. I;m doing a research project that has the budget to have fresh gear and no terrible need to be unsafe...but the activists here delight in their risk taking. It is a paramilitary effort, of course. But its their riggers that are taking risks with other peoples lives, bringing in donated ropes and using gear with no knowledge of its history. And there is lots of reefer smoking going on, no doubt....Perhaps there is a role for the arbo to play by talking to those riggers and calling them on such unsafe practices. I'd caution about getting involved in such direct responses, however.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

Thank you for clearing some things up for me. It's not big lumber cutting old growth for big profits without regard to the environment, it's a supreme benevolent act of saving the tree sitters from their own stupidity and forever removing these tall hazards from the planet. Once all trees are removed, other foolish climbers will be unable climb up there again with sub-standard equipment and possibly be injured or killed. I applaud big lumber for their efforts in keeping us all safe.
Stupid trees, all they do is suck the oxygen out of the air anyway.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

Wow Treespyder, that is powerful stuff, oh, if only we could get this message across to all those people in the world who take the money for their mass destruction.
These thoughts and I'm sure many others are of course going through the minds of many Tree sitters, and anyone involved in campaigning in our disturbed world.
You see to make people take notice sometimes you have to resort to desperate measures, demonstrators have committed suicide to get their point across, and let's face it, it is the best way to get front page advertising! Rather a drastic way to go, but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. I helped in a rescue of animals from a laboritory many years ago, if anyone could have seen the state of these pathetic creatures after the agony they went through, it would have made most of you tough tree climbers shed a tear. Do we need to spray bleach in an animals eyes to see if it burns? I think not, most of these unfortunate animals were later distroyed, a happy release fo them. Sorry I'm wandering a bit, I'm not taking anyones side on this but my point is, we all have something to give and take from this world, maybe we should try to give a bit more than we take??
Oh and by the way, I think it's the trees which supply your oxygen, enabling you to be able to talk crap all day???
L.W
Some lead, others follow!
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

LW wrote:
"Oh and by the way, I think it's the trees which supply your oxygen, enabling you to be able to talk crap all day???
L.W"

OK, you are right, I looked it up on the internet, they do make Oxygen, but they do foul up other things in life. Let's say you want to go for a walk and admire the mountains, those stupid trees are always in the veiw, especially those Redwoods, because they are so darn tall, they screw up the view for miles. Just when you want to look at the beautiful mountains, there's some dumb tree right in the way, that's not even thinking about the poor birds that have to fly all the way around them when they are trying to get somewhere.
Trees also totally ruin sunbathing too. Right when the heat of the day is about to give you your best tan, bam!, more stupid shade.
Gutters too, those damn leaves and stuff always clog up my gutters. Then comes fall and I have to rake up my neighbors leaves, I know they are not mine because I cut all my trees down (I didn't know about that Oxygen thing back then).
Anyway, just shot those darn tree huggers with a tranquilizer gun and get back to the business of getting rid of all those stupid trees!
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

Ho Ho very funny, you watch someone doesn't take you seriously, you might find you're the one with the tranqualiser dart (up your ass!!!!)
Your shot I think?
L.W
Some lead, others follow!
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

My first post was a rebuttal to klimbing fool’s assertion that the lumber companies are removing the tree sitters for their own safety.
At first, I missed his sarcasm. It was so subtle that I thought he really believed the nonsense he wrote. Then I realized nobody is that dense. The intention of my post was to be more sarcastic, thereby letting other folks who missed his sarcasm, know we were both being sarcastic.
When you missed that, I realized that not everyone reading these posts spoke English, some are using translation software, so I laid the sarcasm down extra thick. And it worked, because you finally got the joke(s).
I hope this clears it all up.
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

I thought a joke was supposed to be funny, you know, make people laugh? Try this, "What's the differance between BSC and PMT?" Answer, One is a serious bovine complaint, the other is "mad cow decease"!!!!!!!!!
We all need to laugh more, power to the people with a smile on their faces, (oh god, I'm turning into a hippy too!!!!)
L.W
Some lead, others follow!
 
Re: Big trees \'n\' rumours

BAck in 1985 a man named Charles Hurwitz of the MAXXAM Corporation targeted A respondsible, hard working, family oriented lumber company for corporate takeover. He took power of the company, plundered it's employee's pensions and perks, tripled their harvest and began to clearcut the companies forestland (a practice not previously used by the company, for the ecological risk it presented).
In the 18 years since, the big mill has been shut down, and the company has started harvesting gravel off of the Van Duzen River, making it flow underground for most of the summer. They have clearcut most visible stands surrounding the towns in the region, making it not only ecologically sterile, but a horrible eyesore as well.
The 120 inches of annual precipitation have washed away much of the ultra rich soil on the clearcut sites, silting the local streams, making poor habitat for migrating fish.
The lack of large trees to absorb all of that rainfall results in more frequent flooding in an already flood prone area and many more landslides than normal; one of which destroyed the small town of Stafford along the EEL River.
The Farmers and Timber Barons of the late ninteenth and all of the twentieth centuries have cut around 97% of the original Redwood Forest that stood tall for millenia. That is only about 130 years, can't the last 3% be spared?
As for Micheal Oxman or my Cousin Eric Schatz, if you mercenaries come pulling on my line, make sure your health insurance premiums are up to date, because one of us is coming down the hard way. "Arboreally yours" isn't that your website Mike? Do you know the definition of the word "arboreal"? Here it is, according to the Random House Dictionary, 1. of or like trees 2. living in trees.
These people just want to be arboreal, just like you, and you are get paid to force them not to. What pursuit of happiness is that? Are you a hypocrite or just a sellout?
What is more honorable than risking your life for something that can't defend itself, betters the world, and to do it all for free. None of these treesitters are paid for their time, nor reimbursed for anything, including terrorism inflicted by hired mercenaries.
There are Redwood trees still living that have been growing since before Christ walked the Earth. I bet half of you wouldn't climb those trees IF you were paid, and you criticize those who do it not for glory, but for the simple fact that it MUST be done. Don't know what else to say, only that there is a book called "The Last Stand" by David Harris. It will objectively edjucate those of you interested in learning more about this issue. Some new things have happened since it was written, so you may have to look further for this information.
I hope I was able to add some insight to this discussion as I grew up in the middle of Humboldt county and lived there for twenty years of my life. Most of my friend's parents worked for the Pacific Lumber Company at one time or another. I think they are pretty ashamed of what it has become.
One last tought, If we don't take care of the trees as arborists, who will?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom