- Location
- Humboldt County
Robert,
Thank you for a beautiful and thoughtful post.
Remedy
Thank you for a beautiful and thoughtful post.
Remedy
Treesitter Injured
- Thread starter Remedy
- Start date
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You start to branch off a bit when you start to discuss the creationism thing
[/ QUOTE ]
I never brought up CreationISM (that's a Christian confusion between science and dogma) - I spoke of Creation, that magnificent and holy universe which we (as the hands of the Creator) are meant to protect.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Non-violent activity? Yes, sitting in a tree is non-violent. Illegal trespass which has a known result of forceful eviction may be (in itself)conceived as being violent. Now I don't think anyone should be assaulted here, but protesting on private property and causing an eviction (leagally) would be more violent than not. On the other hand, what if the eviction resulted in the death of the hired evictor? Who then is non-violent?
[/ QUOTE ]
Non-violent civil disobediance is more than merely breaking an unjust law, or a lesser law (e.g. trespass) in order to prevent a greater harm. It is also, for many, a holy obediance to a higher law (e.g. the protection of all life).
I'll return to my previous analogy: what you're saying is that, since the lunch-counter integrators were breaking a state law in a way which was known to bring retaliation, then the sitters are being violent!?! That's as patently absurd as calling tree sitting violent because others might forcibly evict them.
Those others, by making a choice to engage in forcible eviction are choosing to be the "hired guns" of big business - in other words, mercenaries - and in so doing are choosing to take risks and to assume the responsibility for those risks. If a mercenary gets hurt, it is only the mercenary (and those who paid them) who is to blame.
And this begs the question of whether private property and trespass laws are just. Breaking the law is not necessarily wrong, it is merely illegal. The law and justice don't often correspond.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Has a tree sitter been killed by an evictor?
[/ QUOTE ] Remedy opened this thread with a tale of an activist who was killed by a tree deliberately felled in his direction.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Yes, but if we save one Redwood, where are we in the whole scheme of things.
[/ QUOTE ] If we save one old man from being mugged, have we accomplished something important? If we save one tree from being felled, we have done a great deed.
What's important is not even that we succeed in our larger goals, but that we do what is right. The problem in being focused on "success" is that, as we get more desperate, we tend to resort to more desperate measures. If we simply focus on what is right, and encourage others to do what is right, then before long right will predominate over might and greed and lies and violence - and harmony will be restored to Creation.
Idealistic? Not really. Any other path will only lead to self-destruction, which is where the human race is headed. So there's nothing more realistic than doing what is right, one deed at a time.
A non-violent activist was once asked whether he really thought he was going to change the world by his protest. All I know, he said, is that it'll prevent the world from changing me.
- Robert
You start to branch off a bit when you start to discuss the creationism thing
[/ QUOTE ]
I never brought up CreationISM (that's a Christian confusion between science and dogma) - I spoke of Creation, that magnificent and holy universe which we (as the hands of the Creator) are meant to protect.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Non-violent activity? Yes, sitting in a tree is non-violent. Illegal trespass which has a known result of forceful eviction may be (in itself)conceived as being violent. Now I don't think anyone should be assaulted here, but protesting on private property and causing an eviction (leagally) would be more violent than not. On the other hand, what if the eviction resulted in the death of the hired evictor? Who then is non-violent?
[/ QUOTE ]
Non-violent civil disobediance is more than merely breaking an unjust law, or a lesser law (e.g. trespass) in order to prevent a greater harm. It is also, for many, a holy obediance to a higher law (e.g. the protection of all life).
I'll return to my previous analogy: what you're saying is that, since the lunch-counter integrators were breaking a state law in a way which was known to bring retaliation, then the sitters are being violent!?! That's as patently absurd as calling tree sitting violent because others might forcibly evict them.
Those others, by making a choice to engage in forcible eviction are choosing to be the "hired guns" of big business - in other words, mercenaries - and in so doing are choosing to take risks and to assume the responsibility for those risks. If a mercenary gets hurt, it is only the mercenary (and those who paid them) who is to blame.
And this begs the question of whether private property and trespass laws are just. Breaking the law is not necessarily wrong, it is merely illegal. The law and justice don't often correspond.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Has a tree sitter been killed by an evictor?
[/ QUOTE ] Remedy opened this thread with a tale of an activist who was killed by a tree deliberately felled in his direction.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Yes, but if we save one Redwood, where are we in the whole scheme of things.
[/ QUOTE ] If we save one old man from being mugged, have we accomplished something important? If we save one tree from being felled, we have done a great deed.
What's important is not even that we succeed in our larger goals, but that we do what is right. The problem in being focused on "success" is that, as we get more desperate, we tend to resort to more desperate measures. If we simply focus on what is right, and encourage others to do what is right, then before long right will predominate over might and greed and lies and violence - and harmony will be restored to Creation.
Idealistic? Not really. Any other path will only lead to self-destruction, which is where the human race is headed. So there's nothing more realistic than doing what is right, one deed at a time.
A non-violent activist was once asked whether he really thought he was going to change the world by his protest. All I know, he said, is that it'll prevent the world from changing me.
- Robert
- Location
- healdsburg, CA
Remedy opened this thread with a tale of an activist who was killed by a tree deliberately felled in his direction.
-Has this been substantiated in a court of law?
Frans
-Has this been substantiated in a court of law?
Frans
"If we save one old man from being mugged, have we accomplished something important? If we save one tree from being felled, we have done a great deed".
Robbie me boy,
With what left wing liberal yardstick are you measuring? Trees are not humans, they are just large plants . If these plants are soooooooooo important to you, why are you not protesting me weeding my garden or cutting down saplings in the back 40, after all, they are all in the same kingdom?
Robbie me boy,
With what left wing liberal yardstick are you measuring? Trees are not humans, they are just large plants . If these plants are soooooooooo important to you, why are you not protesting me weeding my garden or cutting down saplings in the back 40, after all, they are all in the same kingdom?
I normally don't respond to people who won't show me the simple respect of calling me by my name. I am not "Rescue Robbie", or "RescueNut" or "Robbie me boy". My name is Robert.
And I get very tired of responding to people who need to classify everyone who presents a different viewpoint into some oxymoronic category like "left wing liberal". Because it's evident that they are not interested in an honest discussion, only in putting down those who question their assumptions and prejudices.
But if you really care to know what "yardstick" I'm using to determine the importance of trees, it is based on the millenial-old Native American understanding that, of all the living creatures, trees are most closely related to humans - they are our cousins.
Like humans, trees stand upright with their roots firmly planted in the Mother Earth and their limbs reaching up to the Father Creator. Like humans, the trees are a conduit between Heaven and Earth, maintaining the flow of energy and the balance.
And Native Peoples all over the Earth understand that when humans cease to serve in their proper place, they become destructive and self-destructve. The Greeks called it hubris, the Native peoples call it ignorance, biologists call it a parasitic relationship. That is the current state of affairs.
Only when we demonstrate respect both for each other and for the rest of the fabric of life will the tapestry of the Creator flourish once again.
- Robert
And I get very tired of responding to people who need to classify everyone who presents a different viewpoint into some oxymoronic category like "left wing liberal". Because it's evident that they are not interested in an honest discussion, only in putting down those who question their assumptions and prejudices.
But if you really care to know what "yardstick" I'm using to determine the importance of trees, it is based on the millenial-old Native American understanding that, of all the living creatures, trees are most closely related to humans - they are our cousins.
Like humans, trees stand upright with their roots firmly planted in the Mother Earth and their limbs reaching up to the Father Creator. Like humans, the trees are a conduit between Heaven and Earth, maintaining the flow of energy and the balance.
And Native Peoples all over the Earth understand that when humans cease to serve in their proper place, they become destructive and self-destructve. The Greeks called it hubris, the Native peoples call it ignorance, biologists call it a parasitic relationship. That is the current state of affairs.
Only when we demonstrate respect both for each other and for the rest of the fabric of life will the tapestry of the Creator flourish once again.
- Robert
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
The jump from garden weeds to redwoods is pretty loooonnngggg... Besides, look at the micro and macro environments around the redwoods. Last weekend I spent some time talking to a biologist who is studing lichens on trees. Those are some pretty simple organisms, much simpler than garden weeds by a long shot. He shared insights about the relationships that are being found between the lichens and trees. So, when one tree is cut, there are many more organisms involved.
This reminds me of a bumper snicker I saw many years ago. It read, "Don't worry about the whales, save the plankton" Think of the disturbance to the rhizosphere when a big tree is removed.
Name calling isn't going to keep disussions moving ahead. If it hasn't been obvious, my politics tend toward the granola-eating, hippie, do-little-damage, make-due-with-what-you-have, walk-carefully, end of the spectrum.
This reminds me of a bumper snicker I saw many years ago. It read, "Don't worry about the whales, save the plankton" Think of the disturbance to the rhizosphere when a big tree is removed.
Name calling isn't going to keep disussions moving ahead. If it hasn't been obvious, my politics tend toward the granola-eating, hippie, do-little-damage, make-due-with-what-you-have, walk-carefully, end of the spectrum.
- Location
- Nation wide
I think I'm through with all this. Let's get on to something else. It's like banging your head on a cinder block. Oh well, it's been interesting, to say the least.
- Location
- Humboldt County
In response to:
Remedy opened this thread with a tale of an activist who was killed by a tree deliberately felled in his direction.
-Has this been substantiated in a court of law?
##
The family of David Nathan Chain, who was killed by a falling (cut) redwood in September 1998, filed a wrongful death suit against Maxxam/Pacific Lumber. Evidence was collected, depositions on both sides were taken and trial was set. Days before the case was to go to trial, Maxxam settled out of court. This was a civil lawsuit filed by the family. Criminal charges have never been filed, though many here in Humboldt County, California (where it happened) are still pressuring the district attorney to file charges. We have a relatively new district attorney, different than the one who was in office at the time of Chain's death. That DA immediately took the side of Maxxam/PL, insisting it was an accident (how would he know without a presentation of the evidence?).
The logger who fell the tree says it was an accident, though he was caught on tape shortly before the incident making death threats, like "packing" his pistol from now on, and even saying he was going to fall trees at the activists. The logger said he didn't know they were still there. There is some question about the direction the trees were felled - were they uniform, standard for a clearcut to ease yarding, or were some fallen in the direction of the activists?
There is a new book out on the subject called "A Good Forest For Dying." This not an endorsement of the book, just offering additional information. Here's a link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385506171/qid=1089744997/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6176161-1877732?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Remedy
Remedy opened this thread with a tale of an activist who was killed by a tree deliberately felled in his direction.
-Has this been substantiated in a court of law?
##
The family of David Nathan Chain, who was killed by a falling (cut) redwood in September 1998, filed a wrongful death suit against Maxxam/Pacific Lumber. Evidence was collected, depositions on both sides were taken and trial was set. Days before the case was to go to trial, Maxxam settled out of court. This was a civil lawsuit filed by the family. Criminal charges have never been filed, though many here in Humboldt County, California (where it happened) are still pressuring the district attorney to file charges. We have a relatively new district attorney, different than the one who was in office at the time of Chain's death. That DA immediately took the side of Maxxam/PL, insisting it was an accident (how would he know without a presentation of the evidence?).
The logger who fell the tree says it was an accident, though he was caught on tape shortly before the incident making death threats, like "packing" his pistol from now on, and even saying he was going to fall trees at the activists. The logger said he didn't know they were still there. There is some question about the direction the trees were felled - were they uniform, standard for a clearcut to ease yarding, or were some fallen in the direction of the activists?
There is a new book out on the subject called "A Good Forest For Dying." This not an endorsement of the book, just offering additional information. Here's a link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385506171/qid=1089744997/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6176161-1877732?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Remedy
Rev. Robert,
As an "ordained minister", you must understand the created order of things. God created man in his own image. God gave man dominion over the earth and it is our job to look after it and manage it properly, including trees and plants.
As important as trees are, it is more important that we love our neighbors.
"If we save one old man from being mugged, have we accomplished something important? If we save one tree from being felled, we have done a great deed".
Your thinking and priorities are backwards. God is more concerned that we love our neighbor then he is that we love our trees. In the book Matthew Jesus says, "Are not 2 sparrows sold for a penny?.........you are more valuable the many sparrows". God's primary value is people! It's incongurent with the teachings of Jesus and the heart of God to place more value on vegetation then people. Jesus died for people and to reconcile the relationship between people and the heavenly Father. Matt 22:36-40, in verse 40 we read that the entire witness of scripture is based on 2 points, loving God and loving people. 1 Cor 13, "If I have not love, I have nothing".
As an "ordained minister", you must understand the created order of things. God created man in his own image. God gave man dominion over the earth and it is our job to look after it and manage it properly, including trees and plants.
As important as trees are, it is more important that we love our neighbors.
"If we save one old man from being mugged, have we accomplished something important? If we save one tree from being felled, we have done a great deed".
Your thinking and priorities are backwards. God is more concerned that we love our neighbor then he is that we love our trees. In the book Matthew Jesus says, "Are not 2 sparrows sold for a penny?.........you are more valuable the many sparrows". God's primary value is people! It's incongurent with the teachings of Jesus and the heart of God to place more value on vegetation then people. Jesus died for people and to reconcile the relationship between people and the heavenly Father. Matt 22:36-40, in verse 40 we read that the entire witness of scripture is based on 2 points, loving God and loving people. 1 Cor 13, "If I have not love, I have nothing".
Riggs
Participating member
- Location
- Bryn Mawr , Pa.
up until those last couple posts I thought you had your act together. My spidey sense is tingling now.I guess i can expect a collection plate soon, I hope someone drops a beautiful Redwood on this whole thread. religion . politics and trees, I'm beside myself . Our host Mark was pushed into a corner and he didn't even come out swinging, I can appreciate that. How many posts does it take to make a point? Praise Jesus , the NAACP...Yo Tom close this thread or I'm gonna work on sunday morning.That's the only "remedy" for this crap. pee test for everyone!this is riggsdiculous
- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
Robert,
I have to say that I am pleased by how much thought you put into these posts. I cannot whole-heartedly agree with all of your views, but we are all individuals. I see good and bad to these types of struggles- for both sides. Nonetheless, I have learned something from the posts here and that was what I was hoping for. It has been a good thread in that way.
Still, I can't help but think that if I were a property owner who had plans for the property that I own and pay tax on had a person come onto my land and demand that I not use my land the way I intend to do so, well, I would feel that I were the victim. I would feel that justice was not being upheld and that I was not being represented like the constitution lays out. If someone disagrees with my removing a tree on my property (I know that this is not the same as big logging), and this person protests my decision to do what I wish with my land, are my rights being preserved?
I have to lean with Craig that I hold human life above all else. That doesn't mean that I like all humans better than trees. Fact is I like being in the trees better than I like some people. Still, I think that more tragedies in life are a result from actions of people who have a blatant disregard for the value of human life. It is so common that you would be shocked to come home and not hear of three or more horrific murders or acts against fellow humans. Not good.
I look at my kids and feel in my heart that it is right to value people above all else. I love trees, but people can care for trees and replant them as well. Not as easy to do that with a loved one.
I have to say that I am pleased by how much thought you put into these posts. I cannot whole-heartedly agree with all of your views, but we are all individuals. I see good and bad to these types of struggles- for both sides. Nonetheless, I have learned something from the posts here and that was what I was hoping for. It has been a good thread in that way.
Still, I can't help but think that if I were a property owner who had plans for the property that I own and pay tax on had a person come onto my land and demand that I not use my land the way I intend to do so, well, I would feel that I were the victim. I would feel that justice was not being upheld and that I was not being represented like the constitution lays out. If someone disagrees with my removing a tree on my property (I know that this is not the same as big logging), and this person protests my decision to do what I wish with my land, are my rights being preserved?
I have to lean with Craig that I hold human life above all else. That doesn't mean that I like all humans better than trees. Fact is I like being in the trees better than I like some people. Still, I think that more tragedies in life are a result from actions of people who have a blatant disregard for the value of human life. It is so common that you would be shocked to come home and not hear of three or more horrific murders or acts against fellow humans. Not good.
I look at my kids and feel in my heart that it is right to value people above all else. I love trees, but people can care for trees and replant them as well. Not as easy to do that with a loved one.
- Location
- Bloomington, Indiana
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
... if I were a property owner...and...a person come onto my land...and this person protests my decision to do what I wish with my land, are my rights being preserved?
[/ QUOTE ]
There are instances in which individual rights are superceded by the rights of the whole. For example, one of our most treasured rights is the right to free speech, but there are limits to this. One cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded restaurant, nor 'Bomb' in an airport or on an airplane.
The difficulty lies first in deciding when there is a true conflict of rights (and not just a simple difference of opinion), and second, in determining a fair and equitable solution.
Mahk
... if I were a property owner...and...a person come
[/ QUOTE ]
There are instances in which individual rights are superceded by the rights of the whole. For example, one of our most treasured rights is the right to free speech, but there are limits to this. One cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded restaurant, nor 'Bomb' in an airport or on an airplane.
The difficulty lies first in deciding when there is a true conflict of rights (and not just a simple difference of opinion), and second, in determining a fair and equitable solution.
Mahk
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
As an "ordained minister", you must understand the created order of things. God created man in his own image.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. But it is you who have it backward. The Creator created the trees millions of years before Man created God in his own image. The trees were first and they will be last. Man is but a flea on the back of the Earth Mother and she will shake him off if he continues to destroy his own nest.
You're reading an English translation of a Latin translation of a Hebrew scripture, all of which has been edited and redacted for centuries, and you think you know what God thinks?
Ask the Trees and they will tell you. Each ancient tree is wiser than all the human race.
- Robert
As an "ordained minister", you must understand the created order of things. God created man in his own image.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. But it is you who have it backward. The Creator created the trees millions of years before Man created God in his own image. The trees were first and they will be last. Man is but a flea on the back of the Earth Mother and she will shake him off if he continues to destroy his own nest.
You're reading an English translation of a Latin translation of a Hebrew scripture, all of which has been edited and redacted for centuries, and you think you know what God thinks?
Ask the Trees and they will tell you. Each ancient tree is wiser than all the human race.
- Robert
- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Ask the Trees and they will tell you. Each ancient tree is wiser than all the human race.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am curious about this statement, Robert. Could you elaborate?
Ask the Trees and they will tell you. Each ancient tree is wiser than all the human race.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am curious about this statement, Robert. Could you elaborate?
Mark,
In human culture, before the degeneration of the modern age in which old people are sent to nursing homes to die, elders were venerated for their wisdom.
In the same way, every ancient living being has vast accumulated wisdom which is available to those who know both how to ask and how to listen - skills which we have largely lost in the mad rat-race which we now call living.
I've led both youth and adults in Vision Quests and Men's Quests in which these skills are relearned. One of the most powerful ritual exercises I have offered to others who are authentically seeking answers in their lives involves choosing a tree (or letting it choose you) and sitting down next to it in fervent prayer - a prayer in the form of specific questions - and then listening in the silence for the answers and recording them in a journal. The answers have never failed to come, and they've never failed to be profound. The tree is one of the channels for the wisdom of the Universe that's available to all who are willing to receive it.
This is what authentic prayer has always been - asking a question with all your heart and then humbling yourself enough to hear the answers.
- Robert
In human culture, before the degeneration of the modern age in which old people are sent to nursing homes to die, elders were venerated for their wisdom.
In the same way, every ancient living being has vast accumulated wisdom which is available to those who know both how to ask and how to listen - skills which we have largely lost in the mad rat-race which we now call living.
I've led both youth and adults in Vision Quests and Men's Quests in which these skills are relearned. One of the most powerful ritual exercises I have offered to others who are authentically seeking answers in their lives involves choosing a tree (or letting it choose you) and sitting down next to it in fervent prayer - a prayer in the form of specific questions - and then listening in the silence for the answers and recording them in a journal. The answers have never failed to come, and they've never failed to be profound. The tree is one of the channels for the wisdom of the Universe that's available to all who are willing to receive it.
This is what authentic prayer has always been - asking a question with all your heart and then humbling yourself enough to hear the answers.
- Robert
- Location
- Humboldt County
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
if I were a property owner who had plans for the property that I own and pay tax on had a person come onto my land and demand that I not use my land the way I intend to do so, well, I would feel that I were the victim.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you were a land owner who was abiding by laws and not victimizing your neighbors, you would be unlikely to find yourself in the position of Maxxam.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I love trees, but people can care for trees and replant them
[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot replant old-growth. Old-growth trees support abundantly more life - ferns, plants, salamanders, squirrels, fungi, etc. - than even a mature second growth tree. Old-growth trees store and recycle water, and stabalize steep slopes.
Again, it is not a question of trees vs. people. Deforestation kills people. It's all over the internet - flash floods in areas that have been severely deforested have wiped out whole towns and hundreds of people at a time.
Remedy
if I were a property owner who had plans for the property that I own and pay tax on had a person come onto my land and demand that I not use my land the way I intend to do so, well, I would feel that I were the victim.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you were a land owner who was abiding by laws and not victimizing your neighbors, you would be unlikely to find yourself in the position of Maxxam.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I love trees, but people can care for trees and replant them
[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot replant old-growth. Old-growth trees support abundantly more life - ferns, plants, salamanders, squirrels, fungi, etc. - than even a mature second growth tree. Old-growth trees store and recycle water, and stabalize steep slopes.
Again, it is not a question of trees vs. people. Deforestation kills people. It's all over the internet - flash floods in areas that have been severely deforested have wiped out whole towns and hundreds of people at a time.
Remedy
- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
Remedy,
I guess that we've drifted a bit. My last post was a little off track from where your reply stems. Sorry fo the confusion.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I love trees, but people can care for trees and replant them
[/ QUOTE ]
This statment was not really discussing Old Growth, but was meant more to show my feelings towards how I truly love trees, but I love people more.
I guess that we've drifted a bit. My last post was a little off track from where your reply stems. Sorry fo the confusion.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I love trees, but people can care for trees and replant them
[/ QUOTE ]
This statment was not really discussing Old Growth, but was meant more to show my feelings towards how I truly love trees, but I love people more.
- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
Thanks for elaborating. Now I know where you are coming from on that topic.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In human culture, before the degeneration of the modern age in which old people are sent to nursing homes to die, elders were venerated for their wisdom.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is something that I too agree with (to an extent). I have often wondered how we can discard our elders and try to keep them from slowing us down. It is true that they have a lot to teach us and we should value them rather than pawn them off on caretakers. I always try to spend time with my Grandparents and teach my children to look forward to seeing them and valuing their opinions. Our society is a little off on this note.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In human culture, before the degeneration of the modern age in which old people are sent to nursing homes to die, elders were venerated for their wisdom.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is something that I too agree with (to an extent). I have often wondered how we can discard our elders and try to keep them from slowing us down. It is true that they have a lot to teach us and we should value them rather than pawn them off on caretakers. I always try to spend time with my Grandparents and teach my children to look forward to seeing them and valuing their opinions. Our society is a little off on this note.
- Location
- western Oregon
I think this discussion has been interesting to follow. One question I wonder about is how viewpoints change (or don't) when the protests are over logging in managed second growth stands rather than old-growth, and against forest management plans that offer high levels of environmental analysis and protection when compared to the previously described actions of the private landowner. For this has been the case in several treesit activities here in western Oregon.
I also have observed that forest protection activists have used tactics that cannot be described as non-violent; i.e. outfitting treesit platforms with gravel-filled gallon jugs or sharpened wooden poles hung around the bole of their sit tree accompanied by written and verbal assurances that they will cut these projectiles loose onto anyone climbing up to them in an effort to remove them. Assaults on people trying to do their jobs, not to remove sitters, has taken the form of human excrement smeared on gates and locks, sabatoged vehicles, fire-bombed buildings, and more. All by "non-violent" protestors?
I have also observed protestors that seemed to be strongly committed to forest protection gradually decide to abandon their positions in the face of an influx of anarchist types who show up only to enjoy the opportunity to bang heads with any form of authority, caring not one whit for the cause itself. It is difficult for law enforcement personnel to see any difference, however. The anarchists spout the "save the trees" dogma with no understanding of the issues, all the while hoping for a fight.
Thoughtful posts have been made...how about some that address these things?
I also have observed that forest protection activists have used tactics that cannot be described as non-violent; i.e. outfitting treesit platforms with gravel-filled gallon jugs or sharpened wooden poles hung around the bole of their sit tree accompanied by written and verbal assurances that they will cut these projectiles loose onto anyone climbing up to them in an effort to remove them. Assaults on people trying to do their jobs, not to remove sitters, has taken the form of human excrement smeared on gates and locks, sabatoged vehicles, fire-bombed buildings, and more. All by "non-violent" protestors?
I have also observed protestors that seemed to be strongly committed to forest protection gradually decide to abandon their positions in the face of an influx of anarchist types who show up only to enjoy the opportunity to bang heads with any form of authority, caring not one whit for the cause itself. It is difficult for law enforcement personnel to see any difference, however. The anarchists spout the "save the trees" dogma with no understanding of the issues, all the while hoping for a fight.
Thoughtful posts have been made...how about some that address these things?
