Comments on: Treesitters arrested

Treesitters arrested

TreeHugger — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:24:04 -0800

Yesterday, forest activists Remedy and Wren (among others) were arrested and hauled away in handcuffs. Remedy had spent nearly a year in a redwood tree named "Jerry". She was just four days from her one-year anniversary in that tree. Today, the activists have replaced the tree-sitters with others. Also, Julia Butterfly Hill has written a letter in support of Remedy and her effort.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:24 -0800

You can judge a society by how it treats the mentally ill. Tree-sitters need reassurance and Thorazine, not rough treatment at the hands of cops.

By: jdaura

jdaura — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:00:41 -0800

Watch the tree sitters and northern california hippies in action at earthfilms.org - I think it's a damn positive form of resistance. Not a lifestyle that I choose personally, but somebody has to try and preserve something of the natural habitat before we turn it all into plywood and cattle grazing for fast food production.

By: signal

signal — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:01:47 -0800

Yeah, because there's nothing more insane than doing something to prevent the death of something you love.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:09:24 -0800

Remedy was the same person that ran the tree sitting weblog, right?

By: jsonic

jsonic — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:18:54 -0800

Anyone have any links detailing the day-to-day life of either Remedy or Julia Butterfly? I'm interested in how they obtained food and water, how, or if, they showered, and what they did all day. One of the links mentioned an 802.11b connection, but how did they obtain power for it?

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:25:20 -0800

You can judge a society by how it treats the mentally ill. Then America is a fucked up place, isn't it? On what do you base your diagnosis, Doktor? (yeah, yeah, I know; don't feed the trolls.)

By: jsonic

jsonic — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:26:37 -0800

To answer one of my questions: she evidently had a large battery to power her laptop and network connection.

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:41:18 -0800

Yeah, because there's nothing more insane than doing something to prevent the death of something you love. Well, er, yes, I suppose, but aren't we talking about a tree? (Actually, a tree named "Jerry"). Simplistic sentimentality is not necessarily a noble cause. Insane rhetoric aside, there's more trees in this country right now than there was in 1920 for goodness sake.

By: groundhog

groundhog — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:46:32 -0800

Please tell me the tree's last name is not Garcia.

By: turbodog

turbodog — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:02:02 -0800

I doubt it's Seinfeld.

By: jdaura

jdaura — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:09:20 -0800

there's more trees in this country right now than there was is 1920 for goodness sake. Midas - could you back that statement up with some data, please? I non-logging affiliated website will do. I don't believe that at all.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:30:27 -0800

And while your at it Midas, please keep in mind that "Jerry" is an old growth Redwood. Kindly show us that there are more old growth Redwoods in America now than in 1920. I'm patient...I'll wait.

By: waldo

waldo — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:40:53 -0800

Why do these activists always have such stupid names? I'm all about the cause, but I can't take seriously a girl named "Butterfly," or people named "Remedy" and "Wren." This coming from a guy named "Waldo."

By: ODiV

ODiV — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:42:19 -0800

My thinking on environmentalists is that they are simply early adopters of what the common opinion will be when we have practically no natural resources left, pollution is rampant, and every species of animal is endangered. People will start caring very much about these issues when they become much more present in their daily lives. Personally though, and this is my extremely pessimistic side talking, I'm finding it hard to really care too much. We'll probably kill ourselves off, but that will be our fault and I can't really find sympathy for that. We'll take a chunk of nature with us, sure, but nature is all about death and renewal. The planet, as a whole, will live on.

By: MikeMc

MikeMc — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:15:06 -0800

So this is what the homeless are doing now. Well, I guess it beats panhandling Downtown.

By: hippugeek

hippugeek — Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:16:04 -0800

there's more trees in this country right now than there was is 1920 for goodness sake. Midas - could you back that statement up with some data, please? I non-logging affiliated website will do. I don't believe that at all. I've seen this statistic (or its rough equivalent) before, jdaura, and I'm inclined to believe it. Right now we're benefitting from reforestation legislation that just didn't exist in 1920. It's still misleading, though. For one thing, reforestation doesn't instantly replace the old-growth forests that were lost. And of course, there were far fewer trees in America in 1920 than there were in 1820, and fewer still than there were in, say, 1520. We're just starting the bounceback.

By: jdaura

jdaura — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:30:25 -0800

I see, so it was like a trick comment with the operative deceit being "1920" . . . exactly, I would imagine, the same sort of sleight of hand performed by the logging industry, real estate developers, oil expeditionary groups, et al., to shadowplay their way to short sighted profits and long term degradation of natural resources. I like it, it's smart and packs a PR punch.

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:37:09 -0800

Where were these people when the NIH was debating to destroy the last sample of smallpox? How droll, favoring one form of live over another...

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 02:51:06 -0800

Actually, redwoods aside, there are more trees now in North America than there were in 1700. Which doesn't justify cutting down redwoods, but the above comment doubting such a reality does call into question the general credibility of said comment-makers views.

By: asok

asok — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:15:21 -0800

It's amazing what you can find with a search engine, isn't it? 'I heard Mr. Limbaugh assert that not only is excessive logging not a problem, but that in fact, the United States has more trees now than it did 300 years ago!' 'I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Rush was not only misleading, he was also making it up.' 'Forests with more diverse plant and animal species resist disease and insects better than less diverse forests. One finds the most biodiversity in old growth forests, while recently logged areas have the least biodiversity. This is usually because they have been replanted with a single commercially valuable species; this is the case with Douglas-fir in Oregon, for example. A disease or insect that targets Douglas-fir could therefore wipe out huge swaths of forest when previously it would have affected only some trees in any given stand.' Selling off old-growth forest for timber is something that developing countries *have* to do to pay off their loans etc. A minority world country doing the same can only be a case of greed overtaking common sense, IMHO.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:40:20 -0800

Don't forget that trees cause pollution! (Geocities link)

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:41:54 -0800

And they consistently litter every year!

By: jdaura

jdaura — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:51:27 -0800

doubting such a reality does call into question the general credibility of said comment-makers views. Yes, you're right, all my views are suspect now because I doubted the reality of that statement. Nice underhanded point. Maybe they should have arrested me, too.