N they climb trees and live in tents there and stuff. Seems like a massive waste of time to me.
Old growth trees are a key part of the ecosystem where they are which would never be recovered in our lifetimes, even if loggers re-planted the same types immediately (which they never do). These trees are key to a lot of animal habitats and have over the years become a good store of carbon) Those nudists protecting them are the last line of defense usually. Do they need to be naked? Probably not. Are they helping the cause? If you want to live a life with an environment, absolutely.
It annoys me to no end when people say stuff like "There are 100x more trees now than there were XXX years ago!". Yeah, but almost all of those trees are young and don't support the ecosystem of the trees that we've already cut down. And that is ignoring that most of those trees are going to be cut down again, before they start actually having any significant benefit compared to the old growth.
Last line of defense to what end? It doesn't work. Shit gets delayed for a few days but then it's business as usual. As if the workers give a fuck about some naked hippies banging some bongo drums outside the logging site...
Tree sitting works, dingus, if you make things difficult enough you can eventually get these companies/governments to stop
Tree spiking is praxis and very based. Do that instead of getting naked, or I guess you can do both I know you ecological minded folks just like being naked in the woods.
With that said, tree spiking injures working class sawmill workers cuz the lumber companies care about as much about employee safety as they do natural resources
idk how to square that.
if the jacks collaborated and refused to work when spiking is disclosed or something?
Looks like one guy got hurt badly by it once (which is also the only reported injury), and that was used to justify making it a federal felony. So maybe just put up warning signs if you're interested in doing this, I guess? I wouldn't want to hurt a worker while trying to prevent resource extraction.
Why wouldn't you put up signs? The whole point is to stop the trees from being logged
:shrug-outta-hecks: You'd think it'd be obvious. You don't have to spike every tree to convince them to move on that way.
Hell, you might not even have to spike any trees. You could just bluff em if all you need to do is buy time.
it does, but like a little eco terrorism ain't exactly there to play nice. once people get hurt, they're going to stop the logging pretty fast. I'd say tell them you're gonna do it, but if they continue I mean this is a fight not a polite discussion
these problems can be addressed pretty well with a bit of KNapanese Jotweed, strategically planted
There is a gradual escalation of levels of violence, it's not all-or nothing. One is positioning your body to demonstrate you are willing to act. Another is pushing and shoving. Another is blunt weapons and shields, another is sharp and less-lethal weapons, another is firearms and explosives and modern military tactics.
By engaging in a slow escalation, you are participating in a kind of gentleman's agreement, respecting the lives of your adversaries and demonstrating your values of mercy and justice. When someone escalates directly to live fire, they show that they do not ascribe any value to the lives of people they struggle against. Typically it's the fascists and imperialists who do that.
Any time spent outside the directive of the capitalist hegemony is cool with me
Meh. I live in forested area and the people who tend to freak out about the trees are people not from here. Trees need to be cleared, simply as a fire hazard. A great number of the trees only exist because of improper forest management, like putting out every fire.
What is? This is my observation. If you dont manage the forest it will burn down.
The existence of old growth seems to contradict your idea that unmanaged forests burn down. They burn alright, but that's part of the ecosystem.
Forestry schools are full of chuds, so you gotta take them talking about management with a massive grain of salt.
You're right that the primary cause of the severity of forest fires in the last 20 years after climate change was that we spent a century over-fighting them, but a close second is all the clear-cutting and terracing done in the 80s. Fuel overgrowth is wayyyyyy down the list, and the timber industry has just latched on to the talking point as a way to get western libs to buy into more logging (including old growth, which absolutely does not need to be "managed" except for keeping the chuds from fucking it up).
There's an obvious difference between taking wood from heavily forested areas that are fire hazards, and removing the forest
Of course there is but there has to be a happy medium.
I'd rather controlled burns than uncontrolled forest fires tbh.
Controlled burns good, allowing the "selective trimming" of national forests bad.
Absolutely. There's a bunch of ecology books about first nations and indigenous use of fire and how they used it to shape turtle island before the settlers arrived. Its pretty cool.
Many extractive industries have a cost-benefit analysis they operate by. Usually in the West they're not willing to kill people outright. And if a pipeline gets sabotaged enough, for instance, they'll decide that sustaining the operation isn't worth it.
