Make Like A Tree And Leaf!

[amadeus]

What do you think of the people that climb up trees that are to be cut down and say they "protest" there?

Are they breaking the law, or protesting for their beliefs there?

I for one say that if they climb up the tree and phsyically try to sabotage the progress of our land, then I say throw 'em in the can.

 

[Switch625]

It depends, actually.

If they just physically impede the progress of logging activities by placing their bodies in the way of saws and other machinery, then they are just excercising their right to protest. Civil laws can handle the fallout from that; criminal action is not appropriate.

On the other hand, spiking trees they know are to be cut is without question a criminal act that deserves jail time.

 

[joespaniel]

I say fire up the chainsaw.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Switch625
It depends, actually.

If they just physically impede the progress of logging activities by placing their bodies in the way of saws and other machinery, then they are just excercising their right to protest.

Wouldn't the argument against that be that they are trespassing on private property?

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Wouldn't the argument against that be that they are trespassing on private property?

There are laws to deal with that, aren't there?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Wouldn't the argument against that be that they are trespassing on private property?

Depends.

I've done negotiating work with loggers and blockaders in BC, and every protest I ever saw was on crown (e.g. public) land, meaning that they had the right to be there until a court said they didn't.

R.III

 

[gr8ful wes]

If it is public land it is fine with me. Private land, illegal. but I do appreciate their conviction.

Anyone hear about the new loose restrictions on logging the Sequoias. too bad, unfortunate.

 

[philippe]

We know protesters here.THere was a forrest around Brugge that was called:lappersfortbos.
For 14 months poeple occupied the forrest for not being cutt down for an compagny.after 14 months the cops came in and destroyed the capments and mistreated every protester.
a camaraman was hitted by a stick by a cop.
I am for protesters.Go protect the trees guys!

 

[newfangle]

Instead of throwing them in jail, as you would have most people Mr. Sharpe, why not at least TRY to understand their cause. "Progress of our land?" That is simply nonsense. You ever think that perhaps clearcutting forests to make way for urban sprawl is not really a good thing?

 

[amadeus]

People can't live in the ocean, newfangle.

 

[gr8ful wes]

no they cant, but they can live in high rises and stay in the friggin' city.

 

[Immortal]

I dont know, its a grey area. Stopping them from protesting oversteps the rights of people to disagree. However I hate tree huggers, I cant really make a decision.

 

[stormerne]

My eldest daughter is 29. You could call her an eco-warrior. She's done this sort of thing and she has made a difference. I admire what she does and why she does it. I wouldn't follow her example but that's my choice.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by gr8ful wes
If it is public land it is fine with me. Private land, illegal. but I do appreciate their conviction.

You mean their belief, or their arrest?

Yep trees suck, lets get rid of all of them, I don't understand why people would think a stately tree looks better than a stump or best of all a brand new clapboard condo. These people are the new terrorists. And we have "Healthy Forest" legislation on the way to help us out with the trees anyway...

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
People can't live in the ocean, newfangle.

What an irrelavent and baffling comment. Feel free to take up an interest in effective urban planning and ecology so you may better prepare yourself when you decide to post things like this.

 

[amadeus]

There's a difference though between sound economic and environmental policy and the neo-luddites that go out and chain themselves to trees.

 

[newfangle]

Let them. They have every right to. As long as there is no risk of injuring another person, I say do it more.

There are extremes on both sides, rm. Just ignore them both and think for yourself.

 

[amadeus]

Extremes on both sides? I don't seem to recall anyone burning down a Greenpeace office or putting bacon bits in their beet juice. The only ever kinds of things I've seen are these guys spiking trees and blowing up McDonald's restaurants.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

The existence of those McDonalds IS the extreme. When I was young we played on a forested hill which was then demolished and made into a housing development in an already overcrowded town. Some extremists have money, can employ people, and have government approval, some don't.

In Jacksonville Florida they wanted to build a new McDonalds but the land had protected trees on it. McDonalds' decided they could eat the 9,000 dollar fine for destroying a copse irreplaceable trees. All the law can do is charge them the 9k. Doesn't that disgust you more than a mental infant tying themselves to the high branches...?

 

[meldor]

I want both a and b.

I have no problem with civil disobediance, that is what our country was founded on. If people want to slow down the logging by living in the trees, until someone comes to move them, let them.

The only ones I don't care for are the ones willing to harm other humans in their protest.

While humans have used a lot of trees, there are actually more hecters of trees today than there were 50 years ago. Granted a lot of those trees aren't "old growth".

There are some choices to make as well dealing with thinning verses allowing natural fires. Saving the old growth forest doesn't do much if it all burns down. On the other hand, flat clear cutting doesn't allow the forest to have a mixture of young and old trees.

We have now been to both extremes, maybe now a good long term workable solution can be found.