From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: EF!, chain saws, safety precautions
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:15:19 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <22206@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>In article <19905@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) 
>writes:

>>As to the subject of "ecofacists" and killing:

>>Folks from or associated with Earth First! and other groups have posted
>>here and in talk.environment about the various ways of spiking a tree.
>>There's been plenty of controversy surrounding this practice, including
>>media talk-shows featuring these radical environmentalists.  Logging
>>companies claim this can kill an unwary logger.

>Hm.  There was an article in the EF! Journal about a year ago, the author
>of which I have forgotten, in which the author and cohorts went to *two*
>major chainsaw manucaturers and asked about safety precautions on their 
>products.  The chain saw people flat out stated that the chains & guards
>were designed in such a way that if the chain were to break, there is no
>way it would kill the person using it, or one standing nearby for that
>matter.  They did also state, however, that the chain saw would be ruined
>and would need to be replaced.

So why is it that EF! thinks that spiking is supposed to be an effective
tactic in scaring loggers out of forests?  Or are their warnings to timber
companies just an expression of concern over the wellbeing of the chain saws?
You can't have it both ways.  If it's dangerous then EF! is trying to hurt
people (and damaging people's lives is EXPLICITLY what EF! claims to be
in the business of doing anyway!) and if it isn't , then spiking is 
ineffective and ought to be ignored.

>Admittedly, the article was biased, but then again I am not so sure I would 
>trust the unsupported word of companies whose business obviously suffers when 
>trees are spiked.  The only way they will ever get public support against 
>tree-spikers is to claim that the spikes kill people.

Oh come on.  Lumber companies have a LOT of support from the public every time
some ignoramus destroys their equipment.  You are fooling yourself if you think
that the general public supports the kind of vandalism EF! promotes.


>>The spikers have since countered that they always warn the companies of
>>which grove has been spiked, but without telling which particular tree.
>>Their claim is, and I _have_ heard this on the radio, that it's then the
>>logging companies fault if someone is killed.

>I would more blame the chain saw manufacturer, who guaranteed that this would 
>not happen.  How do I know this? - you might ask.  Well, I don't.  BUT if
>*I* were a logger I sure wouldn't buy any kind of chain saw that could *kill*
>me if the chain snapped!  Spikes aren't the only things that snap the chains!

Get real.  Would you drive the kind of car that could possibly kill you?  What
if it would only kill you if anti-driving maniacs put oil slicks on sharp
curves?  Would it then be YOUR fault (or the car manufacturer's fault) for 
the accident?  You are just trying to avoid responsibility for the intentional
damage these criminals do.  The world is a dangerous place and accidents
sometimes happen, but when someone INTENTIONALLY causes an accident (fatal or
not) then THEY are at fault.  Don't blame the victim.

>No matter, really; all of this blame is meaningless, as no-one has yet been
>killed from a spiked tree.  I personally don't think it will ever happen;
>unless it's a setup or a freak accident, a defective chain saw.

Someone has been severely injured though, and in any event, if your claim 
is that spiking is not dangerous, then it is also something we ought to
ignore.  You can't have it both ways.

>>That's like sprinkling tacks on a mountain highway and posting a warning
>>sign.  If someone blows out a tire and goes over the edge, they can be
>>killed.  Claiming its the victim's fault for ignoring the sign is a
>>rationalization of *_enormous_* proportions.

>Not quite; usually there are people there on site at whatever grove.  If you
>sprinkled tacks on the highway, posted a warning sign, and then had a bunch of
>people (illegally, probably :)  ) blocking the roadway, carrying their own
>signs, and then someone drives through these people, and past the sign, in all
>weather tires, then your analogy might hold a little better.

That's not the case after the protesters go home and the spikes are left.  It's
also not the case when there is no warning or only a phone warning (of the kind
Dave Foreman recommends).  In any event, you are ignoring the fact that these
EF! criminals are destroying someone else's property.  Whatever the
circumstances, that cannot be tolerated.  Would you consider it OK if someone 
warned you that he was going to burn your house down before he went ahead?
I suppose it's better than not giving a warning, but it's still wrong.

--Brian
Xref: sparky ca.environment:892 alt.save.the.earth:1180