Headwaters Forest Video Available

Don Baccus dhogaza at pacifier.com
Wed Oct 8 09:25:21 EST 1997

In article <61fdsg$9b11 at malun1.mala.bc.ca>, kats <kats at prcn.org> wrote:
> To be quite honest with all of you, I think tree spiking is a really lame
>way to try to stop logging - the people that suffer the most are those who
>work seasonally as loggers (big bucks for 3 or 4 or 5 months a year) and
>their families.  When are you going to get it straight?

Um, neither Catherine nor I support, nor have ever supported, tree spiking.
We've both said that.

We both have also said we won't stand for EF! being castigated for the
incident in question when there's is absolutely *zero* evidence that they
had anything to do with it.

>I realize most of
>you in this group are American, but here (Canada) it is a waste of time
>targeting industry.  The government makes ALL  the rules.  We should speak
>to them first, don't you think?

Ummm...in both of our countries, industry strives to control the governmental
process which leads to the rules.  Actually, the industry in Canada has
been more successful than the industry here, because by fighting industry
in the US we got laws like the Endangered Species Act and our National
Forest Mangement Act passed in the 1970s, laws with teeth as the industry
learned to their chagrin here in the Pacific Northwest in the late 1980s.

Canada, sad to say, though not lacking forestry laws entirely, lacks laws
with teeth that provide adequate motivation for conservation of your
forest-dependent wildlife resources.

>Terrorrism of any kind is totally unacceptable.  Should we enlist terrorist
>tactics to run our forests?  Our environment?  I don't think so....We have
>screwed up our environment and our people on this planet - maybe we should
>try to work together to fix our fuck-ups....

Again, I don't support tree spiking.  I also don't support declaring groups
guilty of a deed when there's no proof they did it.

And, I reject the notion that spiking is terrorism, as practiced by EF! Spiking
was intended to keep loggers out of timber sales.  I think most of those who
advocated and practiced it truly believed, at first, that the timber companies
and USFS would stay out of spiked sales rather than risk injury.  This was
incredibly naive on their part, and really very little spiking went on after
the first well-publicized efforts, even before the formal renunication.  Even
the naive EF! types realized pretty quickly that the tracts would get logged
anyway, so that therefore the tactic doesn't work.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list