Headwaters Forest Video Available
cat at luckymojo.com
Mon Oct 6 00:13:30 EST 1997
Don Staples wrote:
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> > Don Baccus wrote:
> Have you heard the expression "cant see the forest for the trees"?
> Both of you are correct in your statements. However, earlier
> statements were that EF! no longer spikes, yet both of you admit that
> they announce after spiking.
I wrote "announced." Past tense. Don, get used to usenet. You cannot
twist a person's words around. It is all archived and filed in dejanews.
Here is what we wrote:
> > Don S., i agree with Don B. on this point. Earth Firsters ALWAYS
> > announced their spiking -- to prevent the cutting of the trees. And
> > they only were concerned with saving old-growth treres at that time.
It is plian that i am speaking in the PAST TENSE. Later in the same post
> > Remember, their reason
> > for spiking was to STOP LOGGING (specifically of old-=growth), not
> > to harm mill workers who sliced and diced already-dead pecker poles.
Again, the PAST TENSE.
And, if that is not enough proof, go back and re-read the article i
posted from 1993, tthat ran in the Anderson Valley Advertiser, where
Judi Bari formally announced that northern California Earth First no
longer endorsed tree-spiking.
> And are you saying that NO EF!er has spiked and gone on
> about their business without telling some one?
If they did, it was not an Earth First action. By definition.
> The weak statments "we don't do that anymore",
No one here said "we." I used the word "they." No Earth Firsters have
taken part in this discussion. I have been telling you with virtually
every post that i am not a member of Earth First, that they are far too
radical for me to join. However, i will defend them from misinformation
about them. I would defend you if someone posted misinformation about
you too. I have explained over and over again that they published formal
renunciantions of tree-spiking in 1993, that they referred to the tactic
as "misguided," that they entered heavily into non-violence training,
and that everyone who went to the 1997 rally they sponsored had to sign
a card (with name and address) pledging to not engage in any violence,
not drink alcohol, not use any illegal drugs, and so forth. You can call
that "weak," but from where i stand, it looks VERY STRONG.
> "the wobblies still exist" (weren't they axxociated with the American
> Communist Party back in the '30"s?),
Nope. Wrong. Far from it. The wobs were anarchists mostly active in the
northwest before the Russian Revolution. By the 1930s they were played
out. There was neer any alliance between them and the communists or them
and the socialists. Read some labour history -- the wobs were really
radical; they made the commies look like Sunday School kids.
> "anybody could have spiked", etc.,
> indicate that the local picture you both created is shaded by your own
> interests. In effect, a subjective commentary, rather than objective.
Again, i did not "create" a local picture. I was quoting a local
newspaper report from 1993.
> This is not a novel, it is real life, and EF!ers use
> terror, sedition, political deviciveness, all the true tools of
> terrorist to push their goal.
Look, they hold public meetings giving non-violence training before
every rally. What more can you ask? I trust them. They renounced
tree-spiking in 1993, after a long series of public meetings (they are
very public around here) and they have apologized openly in print for
their former "misguided" tactic.
They do not engage in "terror." That charge is ludicrous.
They do not engage in "sedition." That charge is REALLY ludicrous.
They do not engage in "political deviciveness" either, any more than the
Replublicans and Democrats do (a tweo-part system -- how devicive!).
Actaully, from what i have seen of them, they hold rallies and hand out
flyers and about ionce a year they engage in a civil disobedience action
to draw media attention.
> You say they have stopped terror,
I said they have stopped TREE-SPIKING. I did not say they have stopped
"terror" because i don't think they ever engaged in terrorism, at least
not in the commonly acceopted use of that term as one hears it in the
nightly news media. You can re-define "terrorism" if you want to, but
i'm not biting that bait.
> yet I ask, Can you guarentee that all have stopped?
I can't "guarantee" anyone's behaviour except my own, but i can say that
anyone who advocated tree-spiking would be tossed out of their group at
once -- they've said so, many times. Their long term goal is to preserve
old-growth forests, not to harm loggers. Why is this so difficult for
you to comprehend?
> I have no problem with metal ten foot up a tree. Could have been done
> in heavy snow, raising the level of the spiker.
Nope. Guess again. The tree in question was felled in Elk, California, a
little coastal town a couple hours north of San Francisco, a few miles
from my house, as a matter of fact. It doesn't snow here. We are talking
palm trees and redwoods and California poppies, the land of eternally
mild weather, with fog in the summer and rain in the winter, and crops
of giant mushrooms when it rains.
> Or, as has been shown in some of EF!ers own films, rope up the side
> of a tree and spike on the way down.
It was a 20 foot long, 12 inch diameter pole, Don! No one in their right
mind would try to climb a sapling redwood like that! It was a TINY tree,
a mere TWIG! What you've seen folks do with ropes and redwoods involves
trees 200 feet tall, with 12 foot diameters!!!
> Your legitimate protests may change the way the big trees are
> managed, if so, it will have been done in the legal methods, not
> through spiking and silting.
What is "silting"? (Around here, that;'s what clearcutting does to our
streams.) As for legal methods, i personally support the boycott on
old-growth that the Sierra Club is organizing and i believe in BUYING
out forests as a way to protect the old-growth trees,
> Stop protecting the illegal methods as
> being justified.
I have never defended tree spiking. Stop saying that i have. Saying i
did this once may have been a mistake. The second time looks like a
deliberate lie on your part. Lying about what i wrote is a tactic that
will not work, due to the archiving of our entire series of posts in
> Dont cloud the issue with "mights, possibly, could
> have, may be's, probablies", anything can happen, but we are
> discussing the overt/covert acts of EF!ers that endanger the
Your failed fantasies about "snow" and folks rappelling down a 12 inch
pole. only strengthen the fact that there is no evidence that a member
of Earth First spiked that tree -- or even that it WAS spiked while
Yes, a logger was hurt -- but he sued the company for running faulty
euipment and he never blamed Earth First. The police never accused
anyone from Earth First. You seem to think i am "defending" Earth First
here. I am not. I am simply saying that from what i have seen, heard,
and read in the local papers and radio and magazines, it looks like they
didn't do it -- for a number of reasons. If that is "clouding the issue"
to you, well, then you have a very poor grasp of the issue. Sometimes
accused folks are NOT guilty. In this case, with no evidence, no charges
filed, no arrests, no convictions, it looks like Earth First is NOT
GUILTY of spiking that 12 inch pole.
> But, since you are in a "warzone" any tactic is legitimate, right?
Wrong. Go back and read what i have written about this issue for the
past month. It is all available through dejanews. I have never endorsed
tree-spiking and you know it. You owe me an apoology and you owe the
readers of this thread an admission that either you are incapable of
coherently following the text of this discussion or you are lying about
what i have written.
cat at luckymojo.com
More information about the Ag-forst