save the trees! - headwaters forest pic
Langrrr at aol.com
Langrrr at aol.com
Tue Dec 8 11:07:58 EST 1998
In article <366CF9F1.CBE2272B at forestmeister.com>,
Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:
> HULTGREN wrote:
> > JZ---
> > I can only assume you haven't been around too many logging operations in the
> > Pacific Northwest (much less large redwood). If you had, you'd know it's
> > like playing on the freeway to be anywhere near an active falling operation.
> > Those idgits knew where they were going even if Chain did not. You pays your
> > money and you takes your chances....they rolled the dice and lost. Now
> > somebody else is supposed to bail them out for their poor choices. Choices.
> > That's the bottom line.
> > --Arne
> > Mt. Shasta, Calif.
> Your attitude, which is very common, is NOT what I'd call a Christian
> like attitude about a human being crushed by a tree as heavy as battle
> ship. That attitude translates into "screw that dam environmentalist
> right into the ground, that'll teach those bastards to fuck with our
> glorious logging operations".
Not at all, Joe. It translates into "Caveat Emptor", meaning that if you are
going to hike several miles onto private property for the sole purpose of
(and this is directly from the Earth First Journal sitting on the table to my
left) "slowing down operations", then you run a serious risk of getting
David Chain's death is a tragedy. But it is not, as the editorial on p.2 of
the EF! Journal says, "murder". It was a tragic accident - and one for whom
the responsibility lies squarely on David Chain's, and EF's shoulders.
> > Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote in message
> > news:365C888E.1B84340E at forestmeister.com...
> > >Langrrr at aol.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > It may well be that the person who took the photo and posted
> > >> > it was lost. :)
> > >> > --
> > >>
> > >> That's a snide remark, related, I presume, to the unfortunate death of
> > David
> > >> "Gypsy" Chain. His death, of course, was not the fault of PALCO, but due
> > to
> > >> his own choices.
> > >>
> > >> - Andrew Langer
> > >
> > >Did Chain choose to die? He chose to trespass as an act of civil
> > >disobedience. Are you so unaware of American history to know that civil
> > >disobedience is as American as apple pie?
Please. I am more than aware that civil disobedience goes to the very heart
of this nation. But, Joseph, that has normally been civil disobedience
against government, not the wanton trespass against private entities.
But, in any case, I have no beef with acts of civil disobedience in general -
I have no problem with people demonstrating outside of offices, marching,
etc. I do have a problem when those demonstrators enter offices, chain
themselves to things, and destroy property.
And, more to the point, I have a real problem when that civil disobedience
breaks the law, and the protestors are somehow upset when something goes
awry. There are reasons why we have laws against trespass. One of them is
to protect the property rights of the individual being trespassed against.
The second is to discourage individuals from trespassing into areas which are
"attractive nuisances", regions which present a threat to life and limb of
the individuals who are not supposed to be there.
> > >Since when is trespassing
> > >punishable by death? That was no suicide mission.
I believe the case can be made that it was, actually. The Headwaters
Appropriations were being signed by Governor Wilson within a matter of hours,
and EF's battle there was soon going to be relegated to a mere irrelevant
sideshow. Thus, tensions were high, and something needed to be done to
derail the situation.
So, Chain and others went into the woods to play "cat & mouse", a game of
hide and seek used to slow down logging operations. They ignored warning
signs and trespassed into a hazardous work zone. They were confronted by a
logger, who warned them once again that he was going to be cutting, and that
a tree might come down on them if they didn't leave the work zone (this was,
after all, an area in which trees were being cut). Not a threat - a warning.
But they ignored this warning, and hid. And David Chain was crushed,
creating the perfect martyr for Earth First. This got them the national
attention they do desperately crave.
He chose to be there. He knew that there was a risk of injury to his person,
possibly even fatal. And yet he made that choice anyway.
> > > The loggers knew the
> > >trespassers were there and proceeded to drop the tree any ways.
That is untrue. The logger had seen the protestors, and then they were gone.
This was a domino tree, by the way - a tree felled by another tree which had
been felled by the logger. What this means is that Chain and Company were
hiding a considerable distance from where the logger was working, and that
the logger could not have seen them as he was working.
> > > No doubt
> > >the loggers will go free, and their defense will be "property rights";
> > >the most holy of holyies- which I think is full of holes.
Oh, that's funny. Did you write that one yourself, or do you have
Letterman's team working for you?
No, their defense is simple - Chain and Company had no right to be there.
They were warned repeatedly. They ignored those warnings and they hid. The
result was a tragic accident.
And property rights is the holy of holies, for without them, no other
liberties are secure.
- Andrew Langer
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
More information about the Ag-forst