🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep14.221234.14896@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>>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?

>Exactly, dear boy. They wish to make it NOT cost-effective to harvest
>timber.

But if that's the goal then spiking fails too.  It makes it more expensive, but
not cost-ineffective.  In any event, if you read the writings of EF!ers,
they make it pretty clear that THEY think cutting spiked lumber is dangerous, 
and that this fear of danger is what's supposed to keep the loggers out, not 
cost of replacing a few chains and sawblades.

>That's all they are doing, is trying to stop habitats from being harvested.

Come on now!  What they are doing is destroying property which does not belong
to them, and trying to egdanger the lives of loggers.  You are rationalizing
the criminal behavior of people who want to control resources by violence 
rather than by consent.  These folks are criminals.  It matters not what cause
they are comiting their crime in the name of.

--Brian