Redwood Forest Defenders Occupy Treesit Platform in the Strawberry Rock Timber Harvest Plan
According to Redwood Forest Defense, this photo documents Green Diamond Resource Company’s “even-aged” management of areas up to 30 acres. The term “even-aged” was adopted after contention around “clearcut” forestry tactics occurred. Both forestry practices destroy canopy-connectivity, as evidenced in this photo, an element essential for maintaining much needed wildlife habitat.
Press release from Redwood Forest Defense. (Please remember that this is not neutral reporting but a press release from one side of a situation.):
Green Diamond Resource Company (GDRC), a private timber company, has started industrial logging operations in the Strawberry Rock area, a site culturally significant to the Yurok tribe. The group, Redwood Forest Defense is currently occupying the forest and a treesit platform has been raised into the canopy. The group is calling for GDRC to halt all logging in the area immediately.“We are here to defend the forest against this contentious logging plan, even amid the coronavirus pandemic. We are risking our lives and ask that Green Diamond stop logging so that we can continue to quarantine at home,” stated Meredith Dyer, a forest defender.The forest defenders cite new scientific studies detailed in the journal, Scientific American, among other sources, that claim destroyed habitat creates the perfect conditions for viruses, like the coronavirus, to emerge. “The coronavirus outbreak is part of the climate crisis. Green Diamond is directly responsible for destroying forest habitat and forcing animal populations to seek out human-dominated spaces, thus exposing humans to new strains of virus and disease,” says Dyer.GRDC operates under a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) which creates certain parameters and limitations in cutting but does not include more up-to-date needs such as climate change. “Green Diamond’s HCP is a farce. They cut using ‘even-aged’ management which is just another name for clearcuts,” says Dyer, “You need to see this, the redwoods they’ve hacked down, it’s like a slaughterhouse.”Logging in the Strawberry Rock area has a long history of resistance. Beginning in 2012, logging operations were successfully stopped by forest defense tactics until the timber harvest plan expired in 2018. The company is now attempting to log the area under a new plan which was approved, after more than a year of delay, in November 2019. “We intend to occupy and protect this area until Green Diamond agrees to stop cutting here in perpetuity.”
- Green Diamond Resource Company’s Timber Harvest Plan map (THP 1-18-00157-HUM). The unit labeled “A” is currently being occupied by forest defenders.
- The redwood forest in Unit A is currently under threat of logging. Trees in the area are up to a few hundred years old, many are labeled as “wildlife” trees.
- Another photo of “even-aged” management.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
All that area has been clearcut before. That’s third or fourth growth. You all live in wood-framed houses, some of which might have been built from that very timber. Go back in them and stay there.
Bushytails, I agree with you 100%.
Hey Martin, what about the martens?
Let the trees grow,[edit]! Just cuz I live in a house made of wood doesn’t mean I need to perpetuate and support extractive and exploitive forest practices. not to get realy hippy dippy on ya but what about the Humboldt marten and other species in the forest – how psyched would you be if someone came and bulldozed yer house – NOT
Yep. I got mine so screw everyone else who might need wood. That’s the attitude!
WHOOSH!
I agree with you a thousand percent in that. It’s just all-around bad for the environment so, so in return it affects us. Not only that but this is cultural significance to YUROK tribe, you’d be inconsiderate douchebag to clear-cut
What they should honestly do is get all the local tribes together and involved since it is there original land and we’re the best stuartist of the land could ever ask for. Much love for all, and More for the evil greedy people, so hopefully they realize before it’s to late
the darker green is 2nd growth, the rock is surrounded by 2nd growth. areas of 3rd growth is not ready yet and GD has no interest in 3rd.
I support the harvest of timber to build local homes. No lumber should be exported more thana couple sates away however, not until the forest return to at least least 50% of their historic range.
The problem with this argument is that means no one in the middle part of the country could build a home or fix a barn or rebuild a deck.
We have some of the most productive (i.e. fastest growing) forest in the world. Unless you want everyone to move here to build houses we’ll need to export the lumber elsewhere.
They can build homes, just not with the mass production method of fir sticks that is common now. There are many alternative building materials and methods. The middle of the country can also produce timber, they may have to convert some farmland back into forest, even the great plains had trees in many areas once.
You do realize that the plains were settled without imported lumber from the Pac NW?
It’s great that our forest grow relatively quickly here. In that case, we should have no problem letting them recover before we continue allowing massive exports at the cost of our forest, to enrich a small number of people.
[edit] Did they have mass city’s and populations to take up the space where trees used to grow “while settling the plains?” Hm.
It’s got to be rough having an agenda in this age of Covid…. where no one cares about your tree sitting, what with trying to stay alive and not transmit a disease and all…
Maybe go home to your parent’s basement and try again when the world’s not in crisis. I still won’t care, but you might garner a little more interest.
i bet treesitting is a pretty awesome way to self quarantine tbh
One of the most honest comments I have ever read on here. So true….Go home kids, go home grow up, come back and run a CCC crew and be productive towards the resources. Clear cuts suck and they are legal. Cutting across size classes would be more ecologically based and have higher returns for timber over the long run, but the company is not in the wrong legally….
Bushytails speaks true. There may be a couple of old wolf trees in there but as far as habitat value, it’s the same as hundreds of thousands of cutover redwood timberland. Strawberry Rock has a little recreational value (but the view’s much better from nearby Trinidad Head, a state park). Let’s focus on places like Rainbow Ridge where there’s really something to save.
I dont think we have to chose between stopping even age management OR preservation of old growth.
Market incentives! Wish I knew! Redwood lumber is essentially junk unless it’s all heart, and those little trees produce very little heartwood. Sapwood occupies the outer 3″ or so of a redwood’s trunk, so little logs end up with sap on almost every stick. The rot resistance that made redwood prized is absent; sapwood rots like pine.
Can’t imagine how they sell that stuff. Though, when I worked for a mill, we sent inferior stuff out of state, where no one knew better. It was still real redwood fencing!
I keep thinking managing for 300 year old logs would be a great business plan for a company with a long range investment vision, an insurance company, say.
In a pandemic China would just shoot them, or make them break rocks with a sledge hammer for the rest of their life’s. Maybe that’s why China has virtually stopped their spread.
Draconian measure are a big part of how China controlled this, but the per-adaptation of Asia thanks to SARS.
The coronavirus outbreak is part of the climate crisis.
seriously? i mean i like a good conspiracy theory from time to time but this…
The forest defenders are right…..
Destroyed Habitat Creates the Perfect Conditions for Coronavirus to Emerge
COVID-19 may be just the beginning of mass pandemics
John Vidal, Ensia
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destroyed-habitat-creates-the-perfect-conditions-for-coronavirus-to-emerge/
“A number of researchers today think that it is actually humanity’s destruction of biodiversity that creates the conditions for new viruses and diseases like COVID-19, the viral disease that emerged in China in December 2019, to arise—with profound health and economic impacts in rich and poor countries alike. In fact, a new discipline, planetary health, is emerging that focuses on the increasingly visible connections among the well-being of humans, other living things and entire ecosystems.
“We invade tropical forests and other wild landscapes, which harbor so many species of animals and plants—and within those creatures, so many unknown viruses,” David Quammen, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Pandemic, recently wrote in the New York Times. “We cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.”
INCREASING THREAT
Research suggests that outbreaks of animal-borne and other infectious diseases like Ebola, SARS, bird flu and now COVID-19, caused by a novel coronavirus, are on the rise. Pathogens are crossing from animals to humans, and many are now able to spread quickly to new places. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that three-quarters of “new or emerging” diseases that infect humans originate in nonhuman animals.
In 2008, Jones and a team of researchers identified 335 diseases that emerged between 1960 and 2004, at least 60% of which came from non-human animals.
Increasingly, says Jones, these zoonotic diseases are linked to environmental change and human behavior. The disruption of pristine forests driven by logging, mining, road building through remote places, rapid urbanization and population growth is bringing people into closer contact with animal species they may never have been near before, she says.
The resulting transmission of disease from wildlife to humans, she says, is now “a hidden cost of human economic development. There are just so many more of us, in every environment. We are going into largely undisturbed places and being exposed more and more. We are creating habitats where viruses are transmitted more easily, and then we are surprised that we have new ones.”
Jones studies how land use change contributes to the risk. “We are researching how species in degraded habitats are likely to carry more viruses which can infect humans,” she says. “Simpler systems get an amplification effect. Destroy landscapes, and the species you are left with are the ones humans get the diseases from.”
The difference between now and a few decades ago, Fevre says, is that diseases are likely to spring up in both urban and natural environments. “We have created densely packed populations where alongside us are bats and rodents and birds, pets and other living things. That creates intense interaction and opportunities for things to move from species to species,” he says.
TIP OF THE ICEBERG
“Pathogens do not respect species boundaries,” says disease ecologist Thomas Gillespie, an associate professor in Emory University’s Department of Environmental Sciences who studies how shrinking natural habitats and changing behavior add to the risks of diseases spilling over from animals to humans.
“I am not at all surprised about the coronavirus outbreak,” he says. “The majority of pathogens are still to be discovered. We are at the very tip of the iceberg.”
Humans, says Gillespie, are creating the conditions for the spread of diseases by reducing the natural barriers between virus host animals—in which the virus is naturally circulating—and themselves. “We fully expect the arrival of pandemic influenza; we can expect large-scale human mortalities; we can expect other pathogens with other impacts. A disease like Ebola is not easily spread. But something with a mortality rate of Ebola spread by something like measles would be catastrophic,” Gillespie says.
Wildlife everywhere is being put under more stress, he says. “Major landscape changes are causing animals to lose habitats, which means species become crowded together and also come into greater contact with humans. Species that survive change are now moving and mixing with different animals and with humans.”
Gillespie sees this in the U.S., where suburbs fragmenting forests raise the risk of humans contracting Lyme disease. “Altering the ecosystem affects the complex cycle of the Lyme pathogen. People living close by are more likely to get bitten by a tick carrying Lyme bacteria,” he says.
Yet human health research seldom considers the surrounding natural ecosystems, says Richard Ostfeld, distinguished senior scientist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York. He and others are developing the emerging discipline of planetary health, which looks at the links between human and ecosystem health.
“There’s misapprehension among scientists and the public that natural ecosystems are the source of threats to ourselves. It’s a mistake. Nature poses threats, it is true, but it’s human activities that do the real damage. The health risks in a natural environment can be made much worse when we interfere with it,” he says.
Ostfeld points to rats and bats, which are strongly linked with the direct and indirect spread of zoonotic diseases. “Rodents and some bats thrive when we disrupt natural habitats. They are the most likely to promote transmissions [of pathogens]. The more we disturb the forests and habitats the more danger we are in,” he says.
Felicia Keesing, professor of biology at Bard College, New York, studies how environmental changes influence the probability that humans will be exposed to infectious diseases. “When we erode biodiversity, we see a proliferation of the species most likely to transmit new diseases to us, but there’s also good evidence that those same species are the best hosts for existing diseases,” she wrote in an email to Ensia.”
That is addressing habitat loss, where human habitation replaces natural habitats. Sustainable forestry does not move people further into nature. It’s also about pristine forests and undisturbed areas, while this is harvesting somewhere that was last logged in, what, the mid ’80s? Later? And, aside from its non-relevance to the topic, it’s just a few people’s opinions, nothing resembling a peer-reviewed study or anything else that can be taken as fact.
Also, you really don’t need to spam a book into a forum post. A link is plenty.
Human habitation has replaced most natural habitats – this information is super relevant. For example, you can hear the highway from Strawberry Rock and there are houses and an entire town within walking distance from the trailhead. The main point is that humans force animals to relocate. Coyotes, rats, bats, hawks, owls, so many other creatures are forced to adapt to urban and suburban spaces because we are industrial logging in their natural habitats.
I don’t know the last time Strawberry Rock was clearcut, but there are still big trees in the area and it should be allowed to recover and harvested selectively to promote ecological diversity, canopy connectivity, and respect for local tribes.
If you hike up there (yes, I’ll admit to trespassing on more than one occasion), you’ll be hiking on logging roads from the ’80s and ’90s, surrounded by trees from the ’80s and ’90s. The exact age varies with where you are, but none of it is old growth, and I don’t think there’s even any second growth anywhere in the area, except for maybe a few trees along streams.
These particular logging operations will not result in human habitation replacing natural habitats. The areas they are logging will be replanted, or enough existing trees left to keep growing, and will stay natural habitat. That habitat will be temporarily degraded, but by logging discontiguous chunks, the overall effect is minimized. It will not be turned into urban and suburban human areas. Thus, talking about the negative effects of turning areas into human habitation (which there definitely are) is not relevant to this situation.
but what about the negative effects of allowing these areas to remain as “human habitation” and not providing recovered spaces for animals to return to? I think the point the forest defenders are trying to make is the wider issue of the climate crisis that is most definitely upon us. Green Diamond uses their clearcutting on a 45 year rotation which doesn’t allow habitat to recover and further degrades soil health, releases carbon and contributes to climate change https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160415125925.htm
If you actually try to understand what they are saying it’s this: there are too many people on the planet who are making too many demands on ecosystems and that’s going to cause problems.
It’s not a logging problem per se. It’s a population problem and the associated consumption problem.
That’s a nihilistic response. I believe it may be possible for the size of our human population to exist on earth and not destroy it. We can’t continue on the path we are, that’s for sure, by clearcut logging habitat areas. The pandemic is terrible, but a lot happens when we stay local and stop extracting: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/20/nature-is-taking-back-venice-wildlife-returns-to-tourist-free-city
Nihilistic? I think you might need to look that one up. I’m simply saying that people require resources to live. When populations expand, like the global population has been (pushing 8 Billion now), more resources are going to be demanded. And when you push to get more people out of poverty (which we should) they are going to consume more goods (because that’s how we measure poverty). There’s nothing nihilistic about it. Indeed some folks of a religious bent argue that we should continue to increase population, and hence consumption and the destruction of ecosystems, until the final apocalypse comes and everyone gets a fairy-tale ride up to whatever their particular vision of paradise is.
So to put it simply, you cannot have an infinitely growing population of anything on a finite planet because eventually that population will get large enough to destroy the supporting ecosystems. That’s what the Scientific American article was alluding to.
🕯🌳The only other thing that destroys the surrounding habitat to go grow besides humans are viruses. 🕯🖖🐸
Cy Anse –
Your argument about the use of resources misses the mark. Currently, our environmental crisis is driven by the unruly greed of corporations and mismanaged governments – not poor people getting out of poverty. Many rural poor communities use sustainable farming and timber harvest methods out of subsistence necessity – we can thank the humble for keeping reasonable traditions alive. There are copious opportunities for corporations, governments and wealthy individuals to do right by the environment but it seems like the people in power are driven by profit margins instead of recognizing the ‘natural capital’ of the sustainable revolution that we could foster together. Naomi Klein’s book On Fire offers a series of essays that convinced me that there is hope for creating a sustainable future with renewable resources, if only we could quell the greed and get our government on board.
This overpopulation argument is aligned with eco-fascist rhetoric. The perpetrators of recent mass shootings in El Paso and Christchurch, NZ cited environmental concerns like this in their manifestos. Also, the horrific history of eugenics – or forced sterilization – is drenched in this deeply problematic ideology and historically promoted by white supremacists.
What would America be like if we funded sustainable infrastructure instead of bailing out fossil fuel companies?
“To the humble, whose invisible choices are healing the world.” – from “The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible” by Charles Eisenstein
You are using the US context for what is a global issue. The problem alluded to in the cited article is concentrated in the tropics and sub-tropics where it is people trying to move out of poverty who are doing the work in the forests. They are logging, burning, hunting and trapping wildlife to sell in the market, and converting forest to fields and pastures. To make enough to survive and support their growing families. Not blaming them as individual choices but the collective impact is what’s driving the damage.
Are some corporations taking advantage of this? No doubt. There are some evil, greedy shits who use the excuse of shareholder demands for dividends as their rationale. But those companies are doing it because they can sell a product to a consumer. If there are no buyers, there wouldn’t be any way for them to make a profit. The more people there are, the more consumers there are. The more money people have, the more they consume. We in the US should know, we’re the leaders in overt per capita consumption of wood products.
It isn’t an issue of eugenics. It’s an issue of culture—people around the world striving to mimic the US consumption culture that floods the media. People hiding other agendas behind the math has always happened but that doesn’t change the math itself. If you want a sustainable economy based on the planet’s limited resources you must either stabilize or reduce global population or you must reduce individual consumption to near subsistence levels. We have already usurped huge swaths of the planet to support the current population. The highest productivity land was converted first and now we’re moving on to the most fragile and least productive from a long-term perspective. Most of us don’t want to hear that because we want to justify having more kids.
Definitely not my mom, thankfully.
xo
The best part is that sustainable timber harvesting is actually a tool to fight climate change, as wood as both a building material and a fuel is a carbon-neutral renewable resource. This has actually caused a minor revival of wooden construction, with cross-laminated-timber highrises and such now becoming a thing.
These are the same people who object to renewable energy too…
This isn’t true. Cutting trees releases carbon and also destroys any possibility of that tree – while living – of storing and sequestering more carbon. There is some arguments that young forests are noted to sequester more carbon and then they level off but this doesn’t take into account soil depletion, habitat destruction, and other ecological components necessary for healthy forests and maximum carbon sequestration. We need to leave forests intact and canopies connected, do able, but not within the current framework of industrial logging.
The amount of carbon that can be sequestered is limited by the amount of sunlight to drive photosynthesis, which is why the age of the trees doesn’t have much effect – there’s only so much sun hitting so many acres. New trees will store and sequester carbon too. Soil depletion depends on the rate of harvests vs rate of leaf litter buildup and such, and is more complicated than I’ve looked into, so I’ll go with what the experts say. Using rotating smaller areas instead of logging massive swaths at once minimizes the effect of habitat destruction.
While logging does have legitimate negative impacts, it is still our only sustainable, carbon-neutral building material. Concrete has quite high carbon output, steel requires mining and non-renewable deposits, plastic (as used for vinyl siding and such) is of course a petrochemical product, aluminum has a huge huge carbon footprint despite being abundant, etc. The waste from producing lumber is burned as biomass fuel, which is carbon-neutral, and displaces fossil fuel energy production.
there is no such thing as sustainable timber harvesting. this is the maple creek drainage where there are a few 2nd growth areas left that will be harvested. after that the only trees of interest left are in the drainages that the permitting agencies previously deemed no take. the 3rd gen areas are 20-40 years away from now to harvest. less rain and fog means lower growth rate, its a reality that has been observed.
There is sustainable timber harvest. If you really believe there is not, you are too narrow minded to waste any time or breath on. Your poor kids.
Meanwhile liberals are blaming climate change and deforestation on humans while trying to save as many humans as possible while wiping their ass with toilet paper made from trees. These are our new leaders….
From your mom is dead on though. Too many humans depleting natural resources is the EXACT reason why covid 19 is here AND will continue to be here. You think this virus is bad? Just wait another 10 years. In the end Mother Nature will get its way, she is just trying to shake its parasites, there is no stoping that.
“Preparedness is a state of mind, survival is of the fittest. Mother Nature doesn’t care either way.”
(Me)
🕯🌳Define liberals, please?🕯🐸🖖🇺🇸 Clearly. 🕯🕯
Climate Change=Migration=Disease
This isn’t some conspiracy theory, its a demonstrable fact.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/05/nato-joins-the-pentagon-in-deeming-climate-change-a-threat-multiplier/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says
I don’t even see how the word “conspiracy” even applies here, unless you’re talking about the conspiracy of Petroleum Companies to cover up climate change, which IS demonstrably true and still ongoing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Sustainable timber production fights climate change.
Yeah, that makes sense. The coronavirus is the fault of logging, and not the fault of some dilhole in China eating a raw bat. Let me guess AIDS is because of people using Roundup right?
logging…. therefore coronavirus. makes sense
Huh. Using wood-framed building techniques to justify clear-cutting at the expense of us all.
What year is this?
And what’s the message for someone who’s in contract for a property downstream of the clear cutting? With a structure of recycled materials btw (by no means the only one in Trinidad)…
Hey, don’t look at me. I built with steel studs. Daughter says that puts me on the cutting edge of the’ environmental movement’.
I say start the saw, rev it up a few times and start cutting whatever trees they are occupying. If they come down, arrest for trespassing. If they don’t come down, no need for arrest. These worthless parasites have been breaking the law for years to force their ideas. Remember, the definition of terrorism is any act that uses physical action to force a political view on others. The fact that the Sheriff’s Office is so lame at handling this is somewhat shocking since Green Diamond has a retired deputy as their head of security. But then again, that was under a more competent Sheriff.
And for those of you who keep trespassing to hike to Strawberry Rock, remember it is private property. At best you are guests, so use a little respect. Remember, it is also a crime if you don’t have permission from Green Diamond.
Strawberry Rock was stolen from the Yurok. Green Diamond should be a better guest.
Stolen or sold?
First, the article in Scientific American is a news/essay piece, not a peer-reviewed science article. While I respect the opinions of some of the individuals mentioned in the piece, it’s not hard science.
Second, what they were referencing was converting previously untouched areas, mostly in the tropics and sub-tropics, into agricultural fields and the related aspects of marketing wild-caught animals to the general public for a variety of reasons. Neither of which applies to the industrial lands Green Diamond manages.
Third, what Green Diamond is doing near Strawberry Rock is the same thing virtually every industrial forest company does to increase fiber production efficiently — focus on even-aged management on some of their lands while using the rest for uneven-aged management. Both strategies have pros and cons and it takes someone with a lot of education and experience to figure out what’s best for a particular site. These folks who are protesting do not have that education or experience. The folks at Green Diamond and the 2 third-party certifiers who have verified their management strategies (The Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative) do have both the education and the experience to make that call. I’m going to go with their judgement on this.
Lastly, the only reason these folks are protesting is because it’s convenient. Strawberry Rock is a popular, if illegal recreational site and it’s fairly easy to get to. It’s not much different than the folks who were protesting HRC’s logging in Rainbow Ridge (which was uneven-aged management) because it was in their backyards, so to speak.
The Strawberry Rock area was previously untouched until Simpson Investment (now known as Green Diamond Resource Company) started logging there. We aren’t separate from this stuff in this region. Redwood Forest = Temperate Rainforest
The whole area was untouched until ancient peoples started moving into the area somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000 years ago so if we’re going back in time to place blame, let’s go all the way back. The aboriginal tribes hunted, burned, cleared, utilized the forest to the extent of their technology to survive. The big difference was the level of available technology to access and use the wood and the relatively small and dispersed populations.
It’s not that different now in terms of motivation — we have to exploit the environment to survive whether that means harvesting trees to build shelter or clearing forest to grow crops. The big difference is the disconnect in developed countries from acquiring the resources directly and utilizing the end products. And of course that there’s a shit-ton more of us now demanding more stuff.
That doesn’t mean we could or should abuse the land or ecosystems to satisfy short-term desires at the expense of long-term sustainability. But harvesting trees, even even-aged management, is something we need to do to survive. If we don’t do it here, where trees grow remarkable fast, we’ll have to do it somewhere else. Probably somewhere that is far more fragile than the redwood ecosystems are.
And we can, and should dramatically reduce the amount of resources we waste. But pretending the Strawberry Rock area was somehow pristine is disingenuous.
That’s bullshit. I remember when that logged over land belonged to Lousiana Pacific which was Georgia Pacific before that and Hammond Lumber Before that. Simpson (Green Diamond) was way late to the game.
“these folks are protesting is because it’s convenient”
It’s actually funny… In the past, I agreed with a number of logging protests. Some timber operations really were clearcutting pristine oldgrowth, bulldozing fresh road cuts straight into streams, violently attacking protesters, failing to replant, completely destroying habitat, and generally actually doing irreparable harm.
But now… They’re not. We have reputable third-party certification agencies combined with extensive permitting and oversight, and a generally better culture among the timber companies. Every protest lately has been advertised (which is what it really is) with lies and FUD. False claims about the nature of the timber being harvested, false claims about the methods used, false claims about the species present or the effects thereupon, false reports of threats and false reports of attempted violence, what-ifs with zero backing evidence, and generally just an entirely false narrative with no relation to what’s actually going on.
Is it convenience, or something else? Wanting to protest something, but not having anything worth protesting? A genuine honest mis-understanding of what they say? A belief that timber companies need to be kept on their toes? Trying to seek the (well-deserved) honor of protesters past for their own glory?
“I agreed with a number of logging protests”
awwww you do have a heart 🙂
You should do your own research on so-called “reputable third-party certification agencies” and find other opinions to the dominant one in regards to FSC https://fsc-watch.com/
I agree that third-party agencies like FSC and SFI are important to uphold sustainability standards and not just have a free-for-all destruction of our environment (like you were saying above), but it really looks like they’re running amok and not actually able to hold companies accountable.
For example, Humboldt Redwood Company continues to log in northern spotted owl habitat despite not meeting their habitat conservation plan management objectives for more than 3 years. At the current rate of decline the northern spotted owl will be extinct within the next two decades. Our environment cannot handle more losses and those third-party agencies should be malleable enough to put protections into place to save them.
Right on, From Your Mom. LOL I crack myself up!
Long before greedy humans were cutting roads deep into habitat, these connections were widely understood and accepted. There are multiple frameworks that connect the dots between man-made disasters like the climate crisis, zoonotic pandemics, and industry’s lack of respect for this planet.
To wrap your head around it, there’s one hard requirement: you have to not rely on resource extraction industries for your survival.
Green Diamond thinks it’s not their problem. One thing is for sure: it’s someone’s problem.
Unlike most extraction industries, timber is entirely renewable. Unless you’re a teen those trees aren’t any older than you are, and the next generation of trees will be there for the next generation of people to renewably harvest as well.
Yep busytails. Plant a redwood and wait 1,000 years. You have old growth. I’m not too worried about the trees, they will be here LONG after our ignorant dumbass’s disappear from greed and arrogance. Here is a pic of a redwood that I have cut down three times, jacked at with a machete and repeatedly dump wood ash and hot grease on, new shoots this spring! I’m pretty much giving up and realizing that it will over take my redwood deck when I’m dead n gone.
Once again, comments have morphed into the weeds. I wonder how many of you folks know how to get there? Have you been there? Probably not. Have a tall glass of stfu
Why is it that every time you point out the flaws in a enviormentists logic they end with “stfu” like they won the battle? The real funny thing is all the environuts have done is push smaller loggers out of business by overregulation in the form of bureaucracy. They lived here had homes here and raised families here. So yeah they have a shit about the enviorment. Now you’re left with the corporations who can still afford to do business and don’t care about anything really. So you know congratulations, you made everything worse, if you don’t believe, me it’s the same thing that’s happening to the weed game right now.
my two cents worth, new opened forest canopies are a boon for owls, hawks, and other raptors, giving them hunting space. deer and elk don’t mind the new grassy meadows either. as for trees, new firs grow where there is ground sunlight, till the oaks ect. take over, and shade out the evergreens, you know, the continuing transitional forest evolution. earth will heal with or without us , it doesn’t care, if we’re too many, like to many rats in a cage, we’ll eat each other, and the rest of the world will be fine without us in time.
They haven’t used redwood for framing lumber for over 50 years…
🕯🌳Thank you for your common sense comment. 👍🏽🌈🖖🐸🕯
STOP, sustainable forestry means to have all different kind of ages at the spot and only cut a tree here and there, taken out by horses. When will they learn? Teach them Motherfuh!!!
The ironic part of all this is that without logging strawberry rock would have no view.
We should check in with Yurok people about the accessibility of this sacred site. Should anyone visit there at all? The 2012 forest defenders advocated for protecting a 1-mile radius of wilderness around Strawberry Rock.
They should call Lear Asset Management…look how well it ended for the forest defenders in scotia..they are all going through jury trials and the company logged everything they had a permit for…get a life forest trespassers
Learn to swim
This is a reality check for all of us. The fragile life that we are, have we organized ourselves to understand and live here, knowing how fragile and transient our life is – have we planned for a life like that? Or are you living in a make-believe world of your own, thinking you are going to be here forever? This is a reality check as to who we are.
Let us make use of this. If you could not enlighten yourself by yourself, at least use the virus. It is making you realize – just like that, someone might sneeze and you will die. It is a good lesson and a good reminder. This is not a time to be panicky, but we need to be precautious. We are taking every possible step that we can practically take in the ashram. Every one of you should cooperate and be part of it. If you see anyone even a little down, make sure they get checked.
Alternative- build a bunch of roads and do select cuts. Wildlife loves edges of clear cuts. Go back to your communal grow or east coast -RFD kids
Alternative- build a bunch of roads and do select cuts. Wildlife loves edges of clear cuts. Go back to your communal grow t -RFD kids