Treesitter Injured

You bring up some good points. I don't have answers to it all but can add my 2 cents.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have very little experience with activists and treesits in Oregon, but I get suspicious when there is talk of "high levels of environmental analysis." I don't trust the forest service, or state departments of forestry, to do what is best for the forest and for the creatures that depend on the forest. The goal of these institutions, from what I've seen, is to get the cut out. If they have to decorate it in pretty words, they will. For example, the gigantic Biscuit Timber Sales have been approved in Oregon, and the first five sales go up for auction tomorrow (7/15). These sales have been granted "emergency exemptions" from public scrutiny or participation, because the Bush administration claims the logging is necessary for forest health. These sensitive areas of rich biological diversity have evolved with fire for millennia, even containing some species that are fire dependant. Cutting these areas will not salvage anything, except somebody's bottom line.

I think clear-cutting is an abhorrent practice that should stop immediately, whether the forest is old growth or recovering second growth.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I also have observed that forest protection activists ... 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?


[/ QUOTE ]

Adopting a code of non-violence is not universal in all protest circles. Here in Humboldt, there are regular non-violence trainings, and even trainings on how to be a non-violence trainer. This could be a huge topic all it's own. We don't hear of many treesit extractions in Oregon, and there is probably a good reason for that. Humboldt activists are known for their non-violence, which sometimes results in acts of violence against us.

Some people question whether they should do symbolic vs. affective actions. Generally, direct action is symbolic in that it doesn't stop deforestation (though it has lead to changing child labor laws, giving women the right to vote, etc). A few trees here and there are "saved," but that doesn't achieve what really needs to happen to retain a healthy and functioning environment. What would be affective? These are huge questions pondered not just in activist circles, but by the many who are concerned with what the dominant culture is doing to the planet.

Another question this brings up is: what is violence? If we ask our televisions, they will tell us that poor, generally young men of color commit crime. We watch that show "Cops" and see black men chased down and arrested. We never see corporate CEO's who are culpable in the death and/or suffering of thousands (or millions) getting their doors broken down and being arrested for their heinous crimes. Is property destruction violence? Is destroying a viable, salmon bearing stream violence? Is incapacitating a logging road violence? Even if the logging it will facilitate leads to landslides that directly endanger people living below? These are questions, not answers.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this happens, though I think the use of the word "anarchist" is misused. Mainstream media uses "anarchy" to mean "chaos," instead of the absence of oppressive government. But your point is a good one, which is why I work at promoting outreach and education. If you are going to risk your life and freedom for something, you should be well versed on the issues, in my opinion. There is certainly a lot to be upset and angry about, but disorganized anger doesn’t lead to a positive end, and can alienate those who would otherwise agree with you. That said, I think the police are often guilty of making difficult situations worse. They are not without their biases, having already decided who is the criminal and who is right before they even arrive. Some of it goes back to the question of what is a criminal. I’ve seen the police here uphold the interests of criminals over the rights of the people. When it comes to bigger protests like the WTO, the cops get completely out of control, discharging their “non-lethal” weapons at unarmed women, cornering and beating people, and in some instances, dressing up like “anarchists” and instigating violence or crime. This happened at the G8 protests in Genoa in the summer of 2001. And, of course, there was infiltration by the FBI’s “Counter Intelligence Program,” or COINTELPRO, of political groups in the 60’s and 70’s, which continues today, but is called something else. But that is another story.

Crazy times we live in, eh?

Remedy
 
The question was asked about "constitutional rights" of property owners. Fortunately, Jefferson changed John Locke's "right to property" to the less elitist "right to the pursuit of happiness" in the American Declaration of Independence. Yet this country was founded by property owners with the clear intention of making such ownership the cornerstone of participation in democracy. Common folk have had to struggle long and hard to get their rights recognized.

And there was a crucial re-interpretation of rights in 1886 when the Supreme Court's clerk included a note in the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific decision about corporations being legal persons. This issue was specifically avoided by the justices, but this note was later refered to and became (illegaly) legal precedent.

From that time onward, corporations which were supposed to be time-limited and subserviant to the public good, which were generally forbidden to involve themselves in any way in politics (making contributions was considered bribery), and which could be disincorporated at the will of the state within which they were formed - have assumed all the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights which was intended only for natural people. This later resulted in the Supreme Court decision which equated money with speech and thus determined that political ads and contributions could not be abridged.

This, of course, has led to the current situation in which corporations virtually own the government and write policy, the presidency goes invariably to the biggest spender, and with the help of "free trade" treaties transnational corporate behemoths are exempt from national laws and regulations.

This is why Maxxam and other such corporations can get away with the rape of the world.

Fascism is defined as goverance by a military/corporate partnership which restricts civil freedoms and engages in aggressive warfare to expand its influence and control. The founding fathers warned against this kind of corporate influence as well as the dangers of a large centralized military.

We in the US of A are closer than we've ever been to a fascist state, and the only power that can stand up against such a state is the power of individual conscience and the collective non-violent action of common folk.

There are always going to be those who resort to violence to counter the larger violence of the military/industrial/corporate/financial complex. Desperate people engage in desperate acts. But some violence is well-considered and deliberate, like the "terrorist" actions of the Minutemen who engaged in guerilla warfare against the British regulars.

And some "symbolic" non-violent acts can incite a nation to rebellion, such as the anti-global trade demonstration which we call the Boston Tea Party - which was intended to resist the economic stranglehold of the East India Company.

Today's WTO protesters and tree sitters are the latest in a long history of resistance to the illegitimate (though sometimes legal) power of corporations and government to restrict human freedom and deny us our "inalienable rights". If we cherish our freedom and God-given rights, we must remember that law and justice are two different and often opposing forces. If our rights are truly inalienable, then we must always be willing to break the law in support of justice.

That's how this nation began, and it's the only way we will keep it true its promise. Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton were not "good and loyal citizens" - they were idealists and rebels who believed that government was a necessary evil which derived its just powers from the consent, and for the benefit, of the people.

- Robert
 
Hey Mr. Burnham,

Thanks for bringing these issues to light. All are excellent points. I don't see them as having the ability to be argued against, though I am sure there are going to be a couple people on here that will do their best! Thanks.
 
Remedy--You have missed a few things, and can't see them because of your opposition to harvesting trees, I think.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I have very little experience with activists and treesits in Oregon, but I get suspicious when there is talk of "high levels of environmental analysis." I don't trust the forest service, or state departments of forestry, to do what is best for the forest and for the creatures that depend on the forest. The goal of these institutions, from what I've seen, is to get the cut out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have defined "what is best for the forest and the creatures, etc." by your standards only. You are not the only one with an opinion worth considering. Other thoughtful people believe that some harvest is appropriate. You make the assumption that "getting the cut out" is an unworthy goal, but that is what we should do for at least this reason: if we satisfy our appetite for wood fiber by buying from places on the planet that cannot afford the environmental protections we enjoy here, we are following the "not in my backyard" policy. This is where we should think globally, not locally, as the bumper sticker says.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think clear-cutting is an abhorrent practice that should stop immediately, whether the forest is old growth or recovering second growth.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is another example of your preconcieved bias. I was speaking of commercial thinning of second growth stands. This is the type of harvest that some protests are in opposition of. The goal is wood production, habitat improvement for some species, and if one wished to speed up nature's course of events in achieving oldgrowth characteristics, this is precisely what one might do if active management was a tool one elected to employ. In any event, if these managed stands are neglected partway through the multi-decades long plans under which they were established, they will not respond as a natural stand would, and in some cases will fail to achieve either wood production or oldgrowth characteristics until long after they might, if at all.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Is property destruction violence? Is destroying a viable, salmon bearing stream violence? Is incapacitating a logging road violence? Even if the logging it will facilitate leads to landslides that directly endanger people living below?

[/ QUOTE ]

Included in the attempts (both successfull and not) to incapacitate logging roads that I have seen is the blocking of culverts that control storm runoff. This is not theoretical, I am a witness. When these acts of sabatoge directly cause road fill failures, the result is just the type of massive sediment delivery that the sabatuers decry...are they destroying what they wish to protect to make political hay?
Another method is to trench across an open road, leaving a dangerous trap for any innocent forest visitor, not just an evil logger, to drive into. I can see this as a violent act.

There are places where harvesting timber makes little sense, either biologically or economically. But keeping some of our land base in production of wood where trees grow well, and the land can accept such management on a sustained basis while remaining stable does make sense, and pursuing a blanket policy of no logging, period, is shallow thinking by my measure.
 
Burnham,

I am not pursuing a blanket policy of no logging, though in some areas that is the only environmentally sane option. The area of my treesit is a good example, and all independent science concurs. An Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP) hired by the Regional Water Quality Control Board found that the only way to mitigate nuisance flooding and other negative impacts from unsustainable logging is to immediately stop or significantly slow the logging. The ISRP explicitly stated the five watersheds in question cannot wait for the matter to be evaluated for another year or five years while the cutting continues. But no action has been taken to slow or stop the logging. The ISRP says permanent damage is being wrought on these watersheds, and that they will not recover if immediate action is not taken.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
if we satisfy our appetite for wood fiber by buying from places on the planet that cannot afford the environmental protections we enjoy here, we are following the "not in my backyard" policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, we are not enjoying such environmental protections in Humboldt County. Although there are a vast number of laws on the books that call for the protection of water quality and certain endangered species, and even when these laws have been strengthened by the Supreme Court, Maxxam/Pacific Lumber continues to rack up violations of these laws with impunity. They have incurred 325 violations since March 1, 1999, and that only adds to their 300 violations between 1994-1997. The fines they receive for breaking such laws is nowhere near the profit they make from making the violation. So fees are just a cost of doing business.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
This is another example of your preconceived bias. I was speaking of commercial thinning of second growth stands. This is the type of harvest that some protests are in opposition of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with clear-cutting, and neither do many of the independent scientists I've read. Maybe you can call this a preconceived bias, but I think it's a sound one. I protested a Timber Harvest Plan that called for clearcutting an area of old-growth and second growth forest, mainly redwood and doug fir, above a creek that is listed as "high priority" due to siltation and water temperature, according to the Water Quality Control Board. The people who live in this area have suffered damage to their property, or who suffer risks to their health and safety due to nuisance flooding. I can't speak for all protesters, so you would have to ask one who protested a commercial thin in a second growth stand.

Remedy
 
wow i just found this site yesterday and am looking forward to using this site but did not expect this to come up. call me an environmentalit, i am. im also and ex logger and many of my friends are still supporting their families this way. they are also environmentalists. none of us are extreme right wing wackos. we wouldnt want to see the forest destoyed cause weve all made a living there and that would cut our own throats. often times clear cuts are healthy for the forest. dont beleive me? then youve got a lot more research to do before you condemn it!! this is the only post ill make to this thread so i dont expect a reply . im also a isa certified arborist and enjoy trees and climbing and helping to make the forest and the city more healthy but i dont mind removing trees and certainly dont mind proper logging practices. thanks for allowing me my 2 cents and hope to trade info with you all on other threads

willie


ex logger and proud of it

p.s. id be interested in some info on extractor jobs. you can pm me
 
Urban and rural

Tonight I started out by reading a post on rec.climbing about a carbiner made by HB. In a reply an engineer talked about "stiction" or static friction being responsible for screw gate biners sticking after being loaded. Since I didn't know about stiction I jumped into Google. Somehow, don't ask me the path, I found a link about salmon decline in the NW US. The book is on line so I looked at a chapter that is about the connection and disconnection between urban and rural people. The salmon discussion could just as well be the same discussion as old-growth trees. If we were to look at the issues of both and not the incidents we would have some base commonalities.

Here's alink to one of the chapters. By truncating part of the URL you can get back to the index:

http://www.buchal.com/tgsh/chap7/c15fn.htm#P20_2238
 
Re: Urban and rural

I just read this entire thread tonight for the first time, well, most of it. It's hard not to put my two cents in also on such a strong topic. So..... here it goes, I'll try not to be so long winded. If I am long here, read it anyway, it'll probably be my only post for a long time again, so I'll just lump it all here at once.

On reading the original posted story, my immediate reaction was: "yeah right, like things aren't being exagerated here" and I still think that they were axagerated. 99% of all people telling a story with the intent to influence you in their direction, will distort things. And I think the wording clearly tells me things are being distorted. This is in referrance to the extractors conduct.

A bit about me: I love trees. I like to see old trees preserved (mostly for the selfish reason that they are so majestic and inspire such awe in me). When meeting a homeowner for a large old oak removal; I will go to the effort to try to convince a homeowner not to take down their 250 yr old oak if it is in good health and a safe tree (even knowing that if I condoned it would mean me getting a large removal job). Yet, I will not prevent them from doing what they wish to do on their own property. I will not become a sitter or ralie the neighborhood to protest the trees removal. I will likely turn down the removal job if it's a fantastic tree, but I will not attempt to stop them any further then my attempt to educate them on why to keep it. It's their property, their tree. If I want the right to do what I want to see happen to the tree; then I should have bought the property myself.

The extractors conduct: Even if the extractors use some force. So what, you put yourself in a trespassing situation. You climbed to a height that can be life threatening. I'm sure the extractors have some adrenaline going with the tension of worrying for the sitters saftey and theirs. Even if they somehow didn't value human life, they would at least be afraid of the Hell that would occur if one of the sitters was killed. They have to be in control of the situation and have the upper hand for the desired result; which is the sitter taken out of the tree and still alive. Screw the sitters pride or confort in the extraction.

If I want to harvest the corn in my back field when fall comes; and someone stands in front of the combine stopping me from cutting it cause they don't want it cut, then I'm going to get them to move. If I can't overpower them physically or if I'm uncertain of the result, then maybe I'll pull out the shotgun to inspire them or get the sheriff to move them. Yeah, the shotgun could be dangerous, I could somehow fire a shot and kill them, but not likely, (cause I wouldn't jack a shell into the chamber and I wouldn't take it off of saftey). But you know what, it's my land, and I don't know what type of person you are or to what extreme you will go, and Damn it I'm going to try to have the upper hand. And if I come across as reckless and dangerous and crazy, so be it.
If you tresspass and climb up in a tall tree, you are the one that initiated the situation, accept responsibility! Human safety was not an issue until you trespassed and climbed up in someone elses tree.

Now, if what I do on my land disturbs other properties, then their should be a law that addresses that problem. Maybe silt and sediment run-off is still a problem on the West Coast. I think logging practices here in the East are regulated quite well. No cutting in watershed areas, leaving buffer zones. Heck I witnessed a selective logging opperation in school that had the logs only skidded by horses because of the fear of errosion into the watershed.

Clearcutting and general tree harvesting: Clearcutting is NOT a negative way of cutting timber! Many species will not regenerate unless complete unfiltered sunlight hits the forest floor. The east coast was predominently Chestnut/Oak because of the forest fires wiping out the older growth time to time. Often started by Native Americans. If you think clearcutting is bad, educate yourself. Enrole in a college Forestry Harvesting class. In that class; when you go out to an area that was clearcut 3 years previous and study the abundance of trees growing per square foot and the species growing there, you can't say clearcutting is bad. It creates a vigorous growing environment. And talk about producing oxygen and the long list of goodies trees do; a young stand extremely surpasses what an old growth stand gives. (Now if you wanted to go extreme with the goal to create the most massive abundant life ecosystem, then you could fell all of the mature trees, leave them lay on the ground and rot back into the soil while the stumps prolifically respront and seed germinates with a thick new forest. But extremes are always, well, extreme.) Yes clearcutting can be bad on very steep slopes or other situations. Most things can't be always GOOD or always BAD.

I believe activist have done great things. And maybe often they had to do them before laws and regulations were in place to correct wrong-doings. But many activists are in their own little rightous world and are so blindly working for a cause because it somehow gives meaning to their life. "Yes, I'm a hero, a hero for the trees, and nature and mother earth." No your not. Your out there, way out there, believing in something, giving meaning to your life.

Large tracts of land with old growth redwoods have been saved, thank you to those that accomplished this.

And if you think more should be saved, then try to establish more parks, or laws, or better yet; go buy the freakin' land so you have the right to say what happens to it. But don't trespass and try to have a say in what's not yours. Maybe you can take all of that corporate sponsership you get for sitting and buy 10 or 200 acres of old growth at a time. Make an organization that solicits money to buy forest land. Then when it's yours, you can do as your group pleases with it.

If you want to keep America green with trees.... Then please keep using wood products. The paper companies, timber companies and private landowners will continue to grow trees on their properties instead of covering it with concrete and ashalt or Damn housing developments as long as there is a demand for trees. Trees are a renewable resorce and can be managed just like any other crop. I believe the majority of landowners are no longer raping the land and moving on to more areas to rape. They manage the land, they manage for tree growth, which is what we all want to see isn't it?

I hate when I go into a public restroom and after washing my hands I find just that electric hand dryer on the wall. Then I read the lable on the top, "Dryers are more sanitary and help to save trees from being used". Yeah, okay, whatever, I'm so glad I'm using electricity that was probably produced by coal burning and again TREES ARE A RENEWABLE REASOURCE. Using paper towels will support paper mills and the paper mills will continue to grow vast acerages of trees that are more beneficial to the environment than old growth trees.

Alright, to sum it up: 1.Old trees are awesome and I hope that they are preserved, 2.you don't have the right to stop people from doing what they want with their property unless it harms other properties, and you better do it legally. 3. keep using wood products cause trees grow back and will be managed to grow back.

I hope my points came across somewhat clear and my spelling wasn't too bad. I stayed up extremely late reading this long thread and then typing this. Wow, I'm tired. So sorry for mistakes and any lack of clarity.


I'd like to be an extractor:
I think I'd be interested in helping sitters (tree trespassers) come down out of the trees also. I'd be extremely carefull with them and I'd like to see with my own eyes what happens. Maybe by starting this topic, Remedy unknowingly created a recruitment of climbers on this thread that are willing to stop what Remedy is fighting for. (Actually, I need to clarify that, I am not against what Remedy is fighting for, just the way they do it). I'd be interested in doing this in the winter months. I welcome contact from those that may employ this activity.

see ya,
 
Re: Urban and rural

If you take your shotgun out to shag the people out of your cornfield, like it or not, you start to nudge up against "aggresive or unreasonable force" laws. If you shoot or shoot at, someone in your cornfield you're going to be in trouble. Now much will depend on your local or state courts. Putting someone's life at risk when you aren't threatened has been worked out through the courts for many, many years. A long time ago our society gave the responsibility to enforce laws over to the police and courts.

The extractors, now there is an interesting word, are not deputized or trained to take people out of trees. All of the guys involved in the March '03 incident are skilled climbers, some arbos, some loggers. But, they hired on to do work that they aren't trained to do. I've seen the videos on the web and also about a twenty minute tape that was shot from a nearby tree. Several friends have watched the tape without me telling them what they were going to see. All of them were emotionally drained and upset by what was done. The tactics used by the extractors are scary. And, like people have said, they're only trees. Why put human lives at risk to get people out of the trees. Both sitters and extractors.

What corporate sponsorship are the sitters getting? Would you link me to some information about that? Do you buy any Patagonia gear or clothing? If so, they have one of the most progressive donation programs going. I believe, but I could be wrong, that they donate 10% of their PRE-TAX, yes, before taxes are paid, profits to environmental issues.

Paper towels do come from trees but there is much more total energy and pollution costs from using them instead of air dryers. Sometimes we need to make decisions based on the big picture, not the little one. Sad to say, in some circumstances, disposable is better.

You need to study more about tree growth. Just because there are many more individual trees on a site after a clearcut doesn't mean there is more life. You have forgotten to consider the species diversity is important. Not just trees but saprophytes on the trees on down the way and into the soil where micorhyzae and simple plants and animals live. Turning EVERY wooded area into a "cornfield" of mono-species isn't the best. The world of nature needs diverse nutrients just like humans. Unless humans get a balanced diet including vitamins, we become sick. Is it too far fetched to believe that the world isn't a large organism that humans are part of? This idea somehow doesn't fit into fundamental religion, I don't know why. I don't mean to be discourteous here, believe me. My idea is that humans should do whatever we can to take care of nature, starting with using less. Otherwise, we're going to run out, no matter how renewable trees are.



Agreed, people do distort stories when they tell them. But to think that the same 99% of the people distort the story 99% is wrong. During the whole time that this discussion has been going on in the arbo and tree climbing forums, there has been very little dialog from the extractors. I know most of the people involved in that incident and I can truly understand why a public forum would be a difficult place to discuss their view of the incident.

Runoff and silt IS an issue. Documented and understood by everyone except Maxaam. Well, I'm sure they understand but they don't care.

Clearcutting is the only way to get some species to regenerate. But, like Shigo says, "It's all about doseage." There are places where large clearcuts are damaging. Clearcutting and fire are two things that have been going through some radical re-thinking in the past decade or so. The FS, to their credit, has been quick to study and change their practices. It took a long time to get things moving but they are changing. This is one characteristic of Americans that we can truly be proud and amazed by. The same slow to start but quick to change process happened to the American auto industry when threatened by Japanese cars. This ability to assess and change is part of the American character. The people who continued to be harness makers and farriers instead of re-training to become mechanics were out of a job. The American steel industry took the tax breaks and pocketed the money instead of upgrading their facilities to state of the art, low energy, low pollution processes. Now look at our steel industry. The small companies that built modern factories have found a niche. Too bad the larger companies didn't care about long-term issues.
 
Re: Urban and rural

try "More Tree Talk" by Ray Raphael to learn an unbiased, general overview of factual,researched forestry options. More specifically, read....... damn, can't remember the title, written by David Harris. It is a book written about the P.L. takeover. Excellent reading, both books. I grew up there, in Fortuna, CA. I left for the indignation we bestowed on our local forest. Why the hell am I way over here? I should be home training climbers.
 
Re: Urban and rural

Tom, the activist in 03 who created most of that insident, do you know how he got into the tree ? Was there any audio of the incident going on in that tree that you could here from the clip you saw ?.

thanks
Greg
 
Re: Urban and rural

I have no idea how they got up into the adjacent tree. From the depth of field and zoom in the vid it looked like they were maybe forty lateral feet away. The audio is pretty clear. The video is buried in my goods inside the 40' shipping container so I can't even hope to put my hands on it.
 
Re: Urban and rural

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/movie_0005.wmv

a link to an interesting video. Just saw it today and it opened my eyes to the situation. We had an incident up here in BC a few years ago (3?) of a few loggers going in to the tree activist's camp and laying the boots to a few people and their possessions / camp. Went to court and I think a few loggers got some time and fines.
 
Re: Urban and rural

Wow, thanks for posting that! I have heard about it enough but it sure is different seeing it. Allow me to make some non biased comments...

Treesitter- what an idiot, is your point really worth dying for? relax, you are caught, let them take you down in one piece and you can climb another day. No matter how much pain he was in, he could have ended it by just co-operating. He screams were so obviously for the benefit of the others around. Nobody tells you they are being choked if they are really being choked, simple physics.

Others around- "get away", "climb to the top", "don't let them take you", I'm sorry but it sounds like they care more for the tree than the human life. Why do they all want a martyr so bad?

Eric- what a pro, seriously. You handled yourself amazing in a stressful situation. Talking calmly, always trying to give an easy out to the sitter, never losing your cool. The only thing you could have done better was control Ox.

Ox- I know we did not see the whole video and it was obviosly edited by treesitters but you certainly did not show a lot of restraint in the tree, in fact it looks like you were enjoying it a little too much. BUT... I noticed you they did not show how you lost your sunglasses. I'm sure it was not you who took them off because your hands were busy most of the time. I also saw the guy grabbing at your safety gear. If you are being assaulted (punched in the face?) and the guy is trying to unclip your gear, maybe distancing and detaining with the foot is the best tool. Is it better than the alternative of beating the guy unconsious so he is no longer a threat to your life?

I tell you, this is a lot nicer than how the millitary trained me to immobilize and detain people.
 
Re: Urban and rural

A sleeper hold may have been good but difficult to apply on a rikity platform x number of feet in the air with the person lying down. Finger, hand or wrist locks would have worked nicely, but not every one knows how to do them. The beauty of martial arts locks is that most don't have to hurt unless you struggle. I wonder what training the guys did do before going up?
martialarts2-t.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom