- Location
- healdsburg, CA
Wow look at all those green lines, sorry folks!
Treesit Lawsuit Gets Bigger
- Thread starter Remedy
- Start date
moss
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Carlisle, Massachusetts, U.S.
Non-violent protest is a cherished American tradition, nothing radical about it.
The extractors no matter what their intent end up appearing like corporate thugs in the video. How can it possibly be worth the money to go up in a redwood and risk your life wrestling with a screaming kid? It makes no sense.
It's no defense to say that you had to get nasty with the "climber" when he started to threaten your safety. You had no obligation from a safety point of view to continue when the kid started to squirm on you. A cool-headed safety analysis says back off and let things calm down, don't escalate. You're primarily responsible for your own life up there not his. If you were looking at it as a rescue, every scenario I've ever heard of says you can't rescue a conscious person against their will. If the person was about to jump off a bridge and you had a means to save them that's one thing but from what I heard in the video the kid was trash talking and not actually posing a suicide threat. He looked very much like he wanted to live.
-moss
The extractors no matter what their intent end up appearing like corporate thugs in the video. How can it possibly be worth the money to go up in a redwood and risk your life wrestling with a screaming kid? It makes no sense.
It's no defense to say that you had to get nasty with the "climber" when he started to threaten your safety. You had no obligation from a safety point of view to continue when the kid started to squirm on you. A cool-headed safety analysis says back off and let things calm down, don't escalate. You're primarily responsible for your own life up there not his. If you were looking at it as a rescue, every scenario I've ever heard of says you can't rescue a conscious person against their will. If the person was about to jump off a bridge and you had a means to save them that's one thing but from what I heard in the video the kid was trash talking and not actually posing a suicide threat. He looked very much like he wanted to live.
-moss
- Location
- healdsburg, CA
"The extractors no matter what their intent end up appearing like corporate thugs in the video. How can it possibly be worth the money to go up in a redwood and risk your life wrestling with a screaming kid? It makes no sense".
Not for you to dictate what gets another person up in the morning. Some folks feel that it is a good idea to perform a job that others would find distastful. After all the extractors can do it safer than anyone else out there. Would you rather an Accountant perform your extraction, or a highly skilled Arborist?
" It's no defense to say that you had to get nasty with the "climber" when he started to threaten your safety."
Soooo, you are saying when your safety is threatened to let it continue? Sorry dont understand what it is your trying to say.
"You had no obligation from a safety point of view to continue when the kid started to squirm on you."
That could very well be the difference between you and the extractors. The extractors have a sense of duty that REQUIRES them to perform their job, and do it safely, where lesser folks would faint or run off screaming.
"A cool-headed safety analysis says back off and let things calm down, don't escalate. You're primarily responsible for your own life up there not his. If you were looking at it as a rescue, every scenario I've ever heard of says you can't rescue a conscious person against their will. If the person was about to jump off a bridge and you had a means to save them that's one thing but from what I heard in the video the kid was trash talking and not actually posing a suicide threat. He looked very much like he wanted to live.
-moss"
O.Kaaay, have you overlooked the FACT that they were up on a small platform +/- 150' UP IN THE AIR? You say "he looked very much like he wanted to live"
Do you understand that what you are saying? Suppose YOU made a decision that a sucide did'nt want to jump, so did nothing and then the person jumped? Could you live with yourself? Honestly? This is a young person in the prime of his life. I would want to do anything I could to ensure that many years lay ahead for this person.
This web board was created by Arborists and deals with most issues facing Arborists. From SAFETY in the tree, to RIGGING techniques, and the hardware associated with it, to Tree Health and many more topics related to the tree world. Jeny has a golden opportunity to sway many folks toward her cause by using this board. She does not need to lie by ommission or not fully report the facts of the treesitters cause. After all, most Arborists are already tree advocates.
Look, my personal feelings on this (and I have never stated this before on this board) , are that Ox, the person Jeny is talking about, is a loose cannon. He did somethings up there that were not pleasant. That still does not make him guilty of breaking the law, OR of even being 'wrong' by what he did.
What I object to is the 'Hate Mongering' espoused by Jeny. This is unfortunate because the topic is a good one, it is pertaint to our present day, and it is a worthy one to fight for.
I personally have learned alot from the responses from the members of this board in replying to Jeny's posts. CaryR's response to the Marbeled Murlet posts some time ago comes to mind right away.
Frans
Not for you to dictate what gets another person up in the morning. Some folks feel that it is a good idea to perform a job that others would find distastful. After all the extractors can do it safer than anyone else out there. Would you rather an Accountant perform your extraction, or a highly skilled Arborist?
" It's no defense to say that you had to get nasty with the "climber" when he started to threaten your safety."
Soooo, you are saying when your safety is threatened to let it continue? Sorry dont understand what it is your trying to say.
"You had no obligation from a safety point of view to continue when the kid started to squirm on you."
That could very well be the difference between you and the extractors. The extractors have a sense of duty that REQUIRES them to perform their job, and do it safely, where lesser folks would faint or run off screaming.
"A cool-headed safety analysis says back off and let things calm down, don't escalate. You're primarily responsible for your own life up there not his. If you were looking at it as a rescue, every scenario I've ever heard of says you can't rescue a conscious person against their will. If the person was about to jump off a bridge and you had a means to save them that's one thing but from what I heard in the video the kid was trash talking and not actually posing a suicide threat. He looked very much like he wanted to live.
-moss"
O.Kaaay, have you overlooked the FACT that they were up on a small platform +/- 150' UP IN THE AIR? You say "he looked very much like he wanted to live"
Do you understand that what you are saying? Suppose YOU made a decision that a sucide did'nt want to jump, so did nothing and then the person jumped? Could you live with yourself? Honestly? This is a young person in the prime of his life. I would want to do anything I could to ensure that many years lay ahead for this person.
This web board was created by Arborists and deals with most issues facing Arborists. From SAFETY in the tree, to RIGGING techniques, and the hardware associated with it, to Tree Health and many more topics related to the tree world. Jeny has a golden opportunity to sway many folks toward her cause by using this board. She does not need to lie by ommission or not fully report the facts of the treesitters cause. After all, most Arborists are already tree advocates.
Look, my personal feelings on this (and I have never stated this before on this board) , are that Ox, the person Jeny is talking about, is a loose cannon. He did somethings up there that were not pleasant. That still does not make him guilty of breaking the law, OR of even being 'wrong' by what he did.
What I object to is the 'Hate Mongering' espoused by Jeny. This is unfortunate because the topic is a good one, it is pertaint to our present day, and it is a worthy one to fight for.
I personally have learned alot from the responses from the members of this board in replying to Jeny's posts. CaryR's response to the Marbeled Murlet posts some time ago comes to mind right away.
Frans
- Location
- Humboldt County
[ QUOTE ]
“Did anyone mention he would have been convicted of a felony if certain people didnt let off because they didnt want him to have a felony record over his head?”
[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn’t charged with a felony because the judge ordered the charges to be reduced. That was after three days of testimony by Extractor Schatz, which included an open-court viewing of unedited head cam footage shot by both Schatz and Oxman. During the viewing, the treesitter’s attorney asked Schatz to stop the tape at the time the treesitter allegedly tried to unhook Schatz from his safety gear. Schatz was unable to pinpoint an assault. The judge did not find the Ox had been assaulted.
Who put whom in danger? Extractors blame treesitters for being up there in the first place. Treesitters blame extractors for coming up to take them down (“no matter what,” as Schatz says). The extractors are bummed that they face lawsuits, but they made the decision to step into a huge public spectacle when they agreed to receive thousands of dollars to remove protestors to clear the way for old-growth logging by Pacific Lumber, a company with a history of lawless and destructive logging practices. If Extractors didn’t foresee a lawsuit that would challenge these practices, then they didn’t think through their decision carefully. The offensive hidden cameras, previous criminal records, “loose cannon” extractor(s), and a serious question as to whether Pacific Lumber even owned those trees make for an interesting lawsuit.
We didn’t start the lawsuit. Pacific Lumber sued us first. Those “radicals” on the road who got arrested and slapped with a lawsuit had to be let off “with prejudice” because they were sued solely for their opposition to what Pacific Lumber and the Extractors were doing. The cops, who handed out zip ties and their own handcuffs to Extractors, had to apologize for going over the deep end and illegally shutting down a public road on the day the extractions started. These events had “lawsuit” written all over them.
Despite the bickering going on about whether Extractors were professional or dangerous or safe or what, the lawsuit will largely focus on whether the extractions were legal in the first place. If they weren’t then there won’t be much arguing about the details. If they did not have legal right to carry them out in the first place, then it doesn’t matter HOW the extractions occurred.
Frans, I appreciate your admission that Oxman is a loose cannon. You are not the first (or even second) arborist to point this out. Whether or not you agree, a lot of people thought Ox was way out of line during the Ramsey Gifford extraction (shown in the video). It appeared very arrogant for PL and Extractors to reward Ox for such behavior and to let the extractions continue without closer scrutiny. Especially given the outcome – two very steep and ugly clearcuts above logging-damaged creeks that nowadays flood people’s houses, property and roadways every year because they are so choked with sediment).
I don’t think all of the Extractors are terrible people. I even had a good conversation with a couple of them one day in front of the treesits. But I don’t agree with what they did for PL, and I definitely think some of their tactics were excessive, aggressive, and highly questionable. It certainly raises eyebrows that critical portions of footage are missing. What was the point of the peeping-tom cameras if it was not to document how treesitters were zip-tied and restrained? Was it just to record the Extractors telling treesitters how safe, skilled, and respectful the Extractors are? Well, I know that’s not true because they recorded themselves doing some pretty outrageous stuff.
[ QUOTE ]
“Would you rather an Accountant perform your extraction, or a highly skilled Arborist?”
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you rather be punched in the face by a doctor or the milk man? The treesit extractions were not some inevitable occurrence. PL paid Extractors tens of thousands of dollars (at least) to remove treesitters under legally questionable circumstances. They appear to have been hastily planned starting the day after the District Attorney filed a $250 million lawsuit against Pacific Lumber, which got lots of national attention. PL threw a couple legal documents together to make it look legit and then started their own media campaign to coincide with the extractions, making inflammatory accusations against activists. At least one radio station pulled the ads off the air because so many people were complaining about them.
I’m sure both sides are never going to agree on everything. But at least both sides will have an opportunity to present their case to the court. The court of public opinion, however, will continue to be split no matter the outcome of the jury.
“Did anyone mention he would have been convicted of a felony if certain people didnt let off because they didnt want him to have a felony record over his head?”
[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn’t charged with a felony because the judge ordered the charges to be reduced. That was after three days of testimony by Extractor Schatz, which included an open-court viewing of unedited head cam footage shot by both Schatz and Oxman. During the viewing, the treesitter’s attorney asked Schatz to stop the tape at the time the treesitter allegedly tried to unhook Schatz from his safety gear. Schatz was unable to pinpoint an assault. The judge did not find the Ox had been assaulted.
Who put whom in danger? Extractors blame treesitters for being up there in the first place. Treesitters blame extractors for coming up to take them down (“no matter what,” as Schatz says). The extractors are bummed that they face lawsuits, but they made the decision to step into a huge public spectacle when they agreed to receive thousands of dollars to remove protestors to clear the way for old-growth logging by Pacific Lumber, a company with a history of lawless and destructive logging practices. If Extractors didn’t foresee a lawsuit that would challenge these practices, then they didn’t think through their decision carefully. The offensive hidden cameras, previous criminal records, “loose cannon” extractor(s), and a serious question as to whether Pacific Lumber even owned those trees make for an interesting lawsuit.
We didn’t start the lawsuit. Pacific Lumber sued us first. Those “radicals” on the road who got arrested and slapped with a lawsuit had to be let off “with prejudice” because they were sued solely for their opposition to what Pacific Lumber and the Extractors were doing. The cops, who handed out zip ties and their own handcuffs to Extractors, had to apologize for going over the deep end and illegally shutting down a public road on the day the extractions started. These events had “lawsuit” written all over them.
Despite the bickering going on about whether Extractors were professional or dangerous or safe or what, the lawsuit will largely focus on whether the extractions were legal in the first place. If they weren’t then there won’t be much arguing about the details. If they did not have legal right to carry them out in the first place, then it doesn’t matter HOW the extractions occurred.
Frans, I appreciate your admission that Oxman is a loose cannon. You are not the first (or even second) arborist to point this out. Whether or not you agree, a lot of people thought Ox was way out of line during the Ramsey Gifford extraction (shown in the video). It appeared very arrogant for PL and Extractors to reward Ox for such behavior and to let the extractions continue without closer scrutiny. Especially given the outcome – two very steep and ugly clearcuts above logging-damaged creeks that nowadays flood people’s houses, property and roadways every year because they are so choked with sediment).
I don’t think all of the Extractors are terrible people. I even had a good conversation with a couple of them one day in front of the treesits. But I don’t agree with what they did for PL, and I definitely think some of their tactics were excessive, aggressive, and highly questionable. It certainly raises eyebrows that critical portions of footage are missing. What was the point of the peeping-tom cameras if it was not to document how treesitters were zip-tied and restrained? Was it just to record the Extractors telling treesitters how safe, skilled, and respectful the Extractors are? Well, I know that’s not true because they recorded themselves doing some pretty outrageous stuff.
[ QUOTE ]
“Would you rather an Accountant perform your extraction, or a highly skilled Arborist?”
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you rather be punched in the face by a doctor or the milk man? The treesit extractions were not some inevitable occurrence. PL paid Extractors tens of thousands of dollars (at least) to remove treesitters under legally questionable circumstances. They appear to have been hastily planned starting the day after the District Attorney filed a $250 million lawsuit against Pacific Lumber, which got lots of national attention. PL threw a couple legal documents together to make it look legit and then started their own media campaign to coincide with the extractions, making inflammatory accusations against activists. At least one radio station pulled the ads off the air because so many people were complaining about them.
I’m sure both sides are never going to agree on everything. But at least both sides will have an opportunity to present their case to the court. The court of public opinion, however, will continue to be split no matter the outcome of the jury.
- Location
- healdsburg, CA
Once again you have failed to catagoricaly answer the points I have made. Maybe I am beneath your consideration? What ever the reason is, you have once again avoided plainly answering my points. Which you also did in private e-mails we shared some time ago.
Remember the facts presented to you RE: Marbled Murlet topic on Treebuzz some time ago?
You also had no good answers to Cary. Unstead you changed the topic.
Reminds me of politics 101:
"When confronted with a question you have no answer for, change the subject".
I am of the private belief that you do more harm than good at this point.
Cheers
frans
ps: do you know the meaning of your moniker, 'remedy'? Due to you not understanding the word 'organization' I will elucidate:
Remedy- something that cures or relieves a disease or bodily disorder; a healing medicine, application, or treatment.
Have you lived up to your moniker with this board, Jeny?
Remember the facts presented to you RE: Marbled Murlet topic on Treebuzz some time ago?
You also had no good answers to Cary. Unstead you changed the topic.
Reminds me of politics 101:
"When confronted with a question you have no answer for, change the subject".
I am of the private belief that you do more harm than good at this point.
Cheers
frans
ps: do you know the meaning of your moniker, 'remedy'? Due to you not understanding the word 'organization' I will elucidate:
Remedy- something that cures or relieves a disease or bodily disorder; a healing medicine, application, or treatment.
Have you lived up to your moniker with this board, Jeny?
- Location
- Burnaby, BC
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if it was police officers removing someone from an office "sit in" and an individual became violent towards the officers ... do you think they would attempt to restrain him gently?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not what happened. Extractor Eric Schatz testified under oath that the extractors grabbed the treesitter first. The extractors initiated a physical struggle.
[/ QUOTE ]
my questions(s) to you were not addressed nor was the quote from my previous reply to you complete (which potentially changes the context of the original statement)
Was the person asked to remove themselves prior to the extractors entering the tree? If so, then there was opportunity to avoid ALL conflict in the first place.
[ QUOTE ]
if it was police officers removing someone from an office "sit in" and an individual became violent towards the officers ... do you think they would attempt to restrain him gently?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is not what happened. Extractor Eric Schatz testified under oath that the extractors grabbed the treesitter first. The extractors initiated a physical struggle.
[/ QUOTE ]
my questions(s) to you were not addressed nor was the quote from my previous reply to you complete (which potentially changes the context of the original statement)
Was the person asked to remove themselves prior to the extractors entering the tree? If so, then there was opportunity to avoid ALL conflict in the first place.
Mangoes
Participating member
- Location
- Greater Toronto Area
This thread is like a bad rash.
It's inevitable that the resources available will be consumed. Look at Europe. It would be arrogant for any 'activist' to believe that there weren't activists in ancient Europe. You folks a bagering one another over significant issues, but not important issues. My wife works for a not for profit child sponsorship organization. She has travelled to places and seen people living in unimmaginable squalor. You folks need to look at the bigger picture. People die every day from a lack of necessities, not a lack of big trees. If we cared for the other person first, nature would in turn benefit.
It's inevitable that the resources available will be consumed. Look at Europe. It would be arrogant for any 'activist' to believe that there weren't activists in ancient Europe. You folks a bagering one another over significant issues, but not important issues. My wife works for a not for profit child sponsorship organization. She has travelled to places and seen people living in unimmaginable squalor. You folks need to look at the bigger picture. People die every day from a lack of necessities, not a lack of big trees. If we cared for the other person first, nature would in turn benefit.
- Location
- magalia california
jimmy , there are always asked to come out of the tree prior to extractors removing them . But do you think they are going to come out on thier own ?
- Location
- Burnaby, BC
maybe they should have just started cutting the tree down as it seems they were going to anyways and let the guy jump when he felt good and ready rather than having him escorted (forcibly) to the ground. I dunno, I wasnt up there so I cant tell you what the best way to handle the situation was, from what I see on the tape, I cant get too mad at the extractors and I dont feel too bad for the extractee. Too bad they cut those big trees down, hopefully this fight can make the next one a bit easier or more effective.
- Location
- healdsburg, CA
This thread IS like a bad rash- thank you for pointing that out.
I am bored with it
Thanks to all at this forum for putting up with my comments
Frans
I am bored with it
Thanks to all at this forum for putting up with my comments
Frans
TreeCo
Carpal tunnel level member
I find it amazing that so many arborist show so little concern for old growth trees and so much concern for the rights of property owners.
It is this trend that has forced the tree sitters actions.
It is this trend that has forced the tree sitters actions.
- Location
- Humboldt County
[ QUOTE ]
Was the person asked to remove themselves prior to the extractors entering the tree?
[/ QUOTE ]
The treesitter asked to leave the tree, but the extractors refused to let him. How's that for a twist?
Frans,
I don't find your definition of "organization" sufficient to lump me in whomever you chose. If I failed to answer your allegations of hate mongering, it was because I was trying to offer real information rather than respond to insults.
Take care,
Remedy
Was the person asked to remove themselves prior to the extractors entering the tree?
[/ QUOTE ]
The treesitter asked to leave the tree, but the extractors refused to let him. How's that for a twist?
Frans,
I don't find your definition of "organization" sufficient to lump me in whomever you chose. If I failed to answer your allegations of hate mongering, it was because I was trying to offer real information rather than respond to insults.
Take care,
Remedy
Hey guys i just watched the video and i can just say i`am so dicussed by by what i see there! Whats the discussion all about?!Our job is working with and for trees, right?! We are Arborists thats at least what where suppose to be. My live is trees, i love trees and most of the people i meet who work with them are amazing people and i meet a lot! I will continue to work FOR trees cause i love what i do. I`am ashamed of that people who are able of such an violence call themselves Arborists! Thanks for all the info and hey Dan thanks for some great statements here! For those who know me, sorry that i take that personal but i guess i have to!
Take care
Thilo
Take care
Thilo
[ QUOTE ]
The treesitter asked to leave the tree, but the extractors refused to let him. How's that for a twist?
[/ QUOTE ]
Like I've said, I can see both sides fairly clearly and am glad I don't have to choose between them.
I feel confident in saying from the comfort of my Hoosier (where all old-growth timber is well protected) armchair that if I'd taken the task of removing the treesitter and after a preliminary offer for him to come down on his own had to climb up to fetch him, his descent would be as a package hog-tied and lowered by me.
I say that because I feel it would at that point be entirely my responsibility that he get safely to the ground and I would no longer entrust the liability to him. Heaven forbid he gets hurt on my "watch". And you can be damn sure I'd be wearing a video camera to chronicle the event in case anything ever came of it where it would be my word against his. He is in a public-enough place that any "right to privacy" would be forfeit, and my right to self-protection against possible frivolous or wrongful litigation would otherwise trump it.
I really don't see the point in treesitting anyway. If it's not yours you cannot protect it in that manner and you place not only yourself in jeopardy, but you draw others into harm's way as well. There should certainly be fear to any reasonable person of ramification for such reckless endangerment of self and others.
Good luck, Jenny.
Glen
The treesitter asked to leave the tree, but the extractors refused to let him. How's that for a twist?
[/ QUOTE ]
Like I've said, I can see both sides fairly clearly and am glad I don't have to choose between them.
I feel confident in saying from the comfort of my Hoosier (where all old-growth timber is well protected) armchair that if I'd taken the task of removing the treesitter and after a preliminary offer for him to come down on his own had to climb up to fetch him, his descent would be as a package hog-tied and lowered by me.
I say that because I feel it would at that point be entirely my responsibility that he get safely to the ground and I would no longer entrust the liability to him. Heaven forbid he gets hurt on my "watch". And you can be damn sure I'd be wearing a video camera to chronicle the event in case anything ever came of it where it would be my word against his. He is in a public-enough place that any "right to privacy" would be forfeit, and my right to self-protection against possible frivolous or wrongful litigation would otherwise trump it.
I really don't see the point in treesitting anyway. If it's not yours you cannot protect it in that manner and you place not only yourself in jeopardy, but you draw others into harm's way as well. There should certainly be fear to any reasonable person of ramification for such reckless endangerment of self and others.
Good luck, Jenny.
Glen
NickfromWI
Participating member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see the point in treesitting anyway. If it's not yours you cannot protect...
[/ QUOTE ]
Raise awareness, and maybe, just MAYBE change legislation that allows lumber companies to kill certain precious trees.
[ QUOTE ]
Jerry B. indicates in his new book that old growth is renewable and shows several pictures of big beautiful 100 year old second growth redwoods.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cory, c'mon now. The only way to replace a thousand year old tree is with another thousand year old tree. Just because more trees have grown where the giants once were, that doesn't mean that the resources have been renewed.
I say the treesitters are doing the right thing. There is no way for them to accomplish the right thing without taking drastic measures. I agree that the trees need to be protected. From the little that I've read in the past, it seems the lumber companies are not playing fair. But the true responsiblity lies with the consumer. No demand, no tree cutting, right?
When's the court battle?
love
nick
I really don't see the point in treesitting anyway. If it's not yours you cannot protect...
[/ QUOTE ]
Raise awareness, and maybe, just MAYBE change legislation that allows lumber companies to kill certain precious trees.
[ QUOTE ]
Jerry B. indicates in his new book that old growth is renewable and shows several pictures of big beautiful 100 year old second growth redwoods.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cory, c'mon now. The only way to replace a thousand year old tree is with another thousand year old tree. Just because more trees have grown where the giants once were, that doesn't mean that the resources have been renewed.
I say the treesitters are doing the right thing. There is no way for them to accomplish the right thing without taking drastic measures. I agree that the trees need to be protected. From the little that I've read in the past, it seems the lumber companies are not playing fair. But the true responsiblity lies with the consumer. No demand, no tree cutting, right?
When's the court battle?
love
nick
Okay, so it can raise awareness.
Certainly, felling the tree is the most harm that can befall it. But what's with hoisting up plywood and/or planks to build a platform and with tying tarps, tires, and other forms of litter all over the place? Does that do the tree any good at all, or only harm? These trees are delicate ecosystems unto themselves, aren't they? Wouldn't the more right thing to do be to barricade it at ground level?
There are things which are fundamentally wrong, and fundamentally right, on both sides of the equation here.
Providing for nourishment and other upkeep of the sitter for an entire year has to cost something. Couldn't funds be raised sufficient to offset the value of the lumber in the tree and it therefore be bought out from the lumber company?
The whole thing is tragic from every direction...
Certainly, felling the tree is the most harm that can befall it. But what's with hoisting up plywood and/or planks to build a platform and with tying tarps, tires, and other forms of litter all over the place? Does that do the tree any good at all, or only harm? These trees are delicate ecosystems unto themselves, aren't they? Wouldn't the more right thing to do be to barricade it at ground level?
There are things which are fundamentally wrong, and fundamentally right, on both sides of the equation here.
Providing for nourishment and other upkeep of the sitter for an entire year has to cost something. Couldn't funds be raised sufficient to offset the value of the lumber in the tree and it therefore be bought out from the lumber company?
The whole thing is tragic from every direction...
moss
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Carlisle, Massachusetts, U.S.
[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't funds be raised sufficient to offset the value of the lumber in the tree and it therefore be bought out from the lumber company?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a tough one, first they're logging public land. I don't know how the financials work there, does PL lease the land from the gov to cut it down?
It would be very tough to raise the funds to equal how much Maxxam/PL will gross from clearcutting redwood, right? Money grows on trees that's why they cut them down unfortunately.
My question is why can't they do managed selective cuts instead of taking everything down in an area? I guess that would be too sane and wouldn't make money fast enough.
-moss
Couldn't funds be raised sufficient to offset the value of the lumber in the tree and it therefore be bought out from the lumber company?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a tough one, first they're logging public land. I don't know how the financials work there, does PL lease the land from the gov to cut it down?
It would be very tough to raise the funds to equal how much Maxxam/PL will gross from clearcutting redwood, right? Money grows on trees that's why they cut them down unfortunately.
My question is why can't they do managed selective cuts instead of taking everything down in an area? I guess that would be too sane and wouldn't make money fast enough.
-moss
Mangoes
Participating member
- Location
- Greater Toronto Area
People are still starving to death 12 post later, and not one person bats an eye....
moss
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Carlisle, Massachusetts, U.S.
[ QUOTE ]
People are still starving to death 12 post later, and not one person bats an eye....
[/ QUOTE ]
We can all agree that starving to death is a bad thing. Now if the world is paved over we'll all definitely starve to death. Clearcutting old-growth is not just taking down trees, it's taking out an ecosystem. It's fair enough that some people take a stand against eliminating the remaining old growth. So where do you hold the line and say that's enough? Sooner or later the dots will connect and you'll see a direct relation between irresponsible deforestation and starvation.
Isn't it fair to ask: why not do selective cuts instead of bringing everything down in a particular grove?
-moss
People are still starving to death 12 post later, and not one person bats an eye....
[/ QUOTE ]
We can all agree that starving to death is a bad thing. Now if the world is paved over we'll all definitely starve to death. Clearcutting old-growth is not just taking down trees, it's taking out an ecosystem. It's fair enough that some people take a stand against eliminating the remaining old growth. So where do you hold the line and say that's enough? Sooner or later the dots will connect and you'll see a direct relation between irresponsible deforestation and starvation.
Isn't it fair to ask: why not do selective cuts instead of bringing everything down in a particular grove?
-moss
