🚀 go-pugleaf

>> . . . 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?

=o= Since you make a distinction between loggers and timber
companies (as I do), I'll use that distinction in this
discussion.

=o= The idea is not to scare loggers with something that will
harm them.  The idea is to deter timber companies with something
that will cost them money.

=o= Tree-spikers will tell you that the ideal time for spiking
is well in advance of logging.  Ideally, *years* before the
trees are even put up for *sale* to the timber companies.
According to Dave Foreman, most of the trees that are spiked are
still in the hands of the Federal Government, who are having
difficulty selling them off because they (and their potential
customers) have been tipped off that the trees are spiked.

=o= And when you think about it, it makes no sense to scare
loggers:  they have no control over the policies of the timber
companies and the government.  In fact the only people who stand
to benefit from scared loggers are the timber companies.  It's
no suprise, then, that the timber companies have done all they
can to frighten the loggers, going so far as to distribute to
their employees some reprints of purported Earth First!
documents calling for violence against loggers -- while
*knowing* that these documents were forgeries!

=o= In fact, only one group has actually worked with loggers
to deal with these fears:  the Ecotopia chapter of Earth First!
Not only did they release a statement against tree-spiking in
the north coast forests (where active logging goes on), but they
are working *with* loggers on developing sustainable economic
ventures in that area.
    <_Jym_>

P.S.:  I've made these arguments before, a number of times.
And yet folks keep springing back up with the same nonsense
about Earth First!  Could somebody tell me where these folks
are getting their misinformation in the first place?