Loggers Kill Earth First! Activist

dcraig at rain.org dcraig at rain.org
Sat Oct 10 18:29:18 EST 1998

On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 09:44:57 -0400, Joseph Zorzin
<redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote:

>Your points are interesting but EXAGGERATED. Why the need for black and
>white? Most firms are somewhere in between. Look for the bad firms and
>jump on them, not the entire industry.
I KNOW that, it's an illustration.  It's exaggerated in order to
illustrate that the free market and holding private property as the
highest value does not necessarily lead to "good" forest management as
I define it.  

more snippage 
>Sounds like you have some good ideas, just DON'T EXAGGERATE. I am
>involved with forestry on a small scale in western Massachusetts AND I
>consider myself an environmentalist, JUST AS  MUCH AS YOURSELF. I've
>backpacked all over America, and I appreciate wilderness values, and I
>think there are too many dam people in the world, and for me, yes, the
>Earth comes First, too. But don't exaggerate the evils of the logging
>industry. It's not just A or B; most are in between. Encourage the
>better ones, show that you aren't against all of them, and don't try to
>force down their throats the methods you'd like them to use. Mellow out
>a little. <G>
Thanks for the encouraging response... I think.  I'd like to bring
this thread back around to where it started, discussing the death of a
forest activist.  

Generally speaking I agree with what the activist was doing.  I agree
that the operation, *if* an illegal cut of old growth redwoods, should
have been stopped by civil disobedience if necessary.  The damage to
values that extend above and beyond private property - and there are
many, many examples of this - easily justified the act especially with
the hope that foresters would come in the next day and shut down the
cut.  It's a tragedy to not only the activist, his family and friends,
but also to the faller and his family, and to every logger who was
working on the operation.  But most of all we should remember that
someone cared enough about these trees, this forested area, to risk
his life to stop what was happening.  If we ignore his ultimate
sacrifice without closely examining what he and the other protesters
feel so strongly about that they risk their very lives to protect,
then what kind of society are we?  

The point I'd like to make before giving this thread up is that both
the logger and the activist are our agents, acting in our interest to
some degree.  The conflict that resulted in this death is something
that is ongoing and is part of the very nature of our society.  It is
part of the very nature of *us*, ourselves, the internal conflicts in
our own value systems. Our hypocrisy.  

We want woods yet we want wood.  We want freedom yet we want other
people not to be free to infringe on our rights.  We want private
property to be absolute yet we expect the government to be there to
make sure it *is* absolute. 

Consistently; we try to have it both ways, and in my opinion, that's
why this man died.  



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list