Home > environment > Petition to protect redwood ecosystem

Petition to protect redwood ecosystem

Below is a petition that is making the rounds that would ban “harvest, sale and export of all coast redwoods (Sequoia Sempervirons) and of all products made from coast redwoods.” It was written by MoveOn member Ellis Arseneau.

Too extreme? Campaigns to ban the logging of old grown redwoods, or to ban clear-cutting in California have failed in the past despite strong public sentiment. Of course, the ban on clear-cutting may have passed if not for the bombing of Judi Bari and the massive smear campaign that followed courtesy of the Oakland Police, FBI and their dupes in the media.

From the Petition:

The coast redwood is an endangered species, and needs to be recognized as such, and allowed to regain its original range.

That’s why I created a petition on SignOn.org to the California legislature, Governor Jerry Brown, the U.S. Congress, and President Barack Obama, which says:

Whereas, a great redwood rainforest once covered the west coast, from southern Oregon to midcoastal California, and about 40 miles inland;

Whereas, less than 4% of this great rainforest remains today;

Whereas, the coast redwood environment is a essential to a great number of endangered species, including the spotted owl and several species of fish;

Whereas, the continued decimation of this environment has led to a noticeable change in the climate of the north coast of California, and therefore must also be contributing to global warming as a whole;

Whereas, towns and villages near areas where clear-cutting has been done are now endangered by flooding, mudslides, and the pollution of delicate watersheds;

Whereas, the lumber from coast redwoods is not a necessary commodity, but one easily replaced by other types of lumber or building materials;

We therefore petition the governments of the United States and the State of California to pass a law declaring a 200-year moratorium prohibiting the harvest, sale and export of all coast redwoods (Sequoia Sempervirons) and of all products made from coast redwoods. Such moratorium will preserve the existing ecosystem of the coast redwood, preserve the existing old growth trees, and allow younger trees a chance to become old growth, thus giving the great redwood rainforest a chance to reestablish itself for future generations and for the health of the planet.

Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.

Thanks!

–Ellis Arseneau

  1. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 9:22 am

    The petition should have started with “Whereas I don’t really know anything about the state of coastal redwood forests, but I’m more than willing to throw thousands of people out of work based on an draconian plan I pulled straight outta my ass…”

  2. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 9:23 am

    I which I could like, or one plus 9:22’s comment

  3. July 7, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Exactly, 9:22.

  4. July 7, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Keep in mind before you sign that the 55,000-acre Redwood Forest Foundation ecosystem (http://rffi.org) in Northwest Mendocino, the Garcia River’s 24,000-acre Sustainable Forest Management plan (http://www.conservationfund.org/west/california/garcia), and other cutting-edge forestry reform initiatives created and driven by non-profit activists depend on using, managing and improving our cutover forestlands rather than leaving past messes to fester. We don’t lighten our human footprints by abandoning what we’ve trampled.

  5. July 7, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Was there not an article not too long ago about another own attacking the Spotted Owl accusing its protection may have lead to the abundance of a larger that hunted them? We are basically one State or National Park along the coast, is there more we can do?

  6. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 10:49 am

    “We are basically one State or National Park along the coast”

    …needs a bit more research. Google maps works.

  7. steak n eggs
    July 7, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Comical. The petitioner is living in a vacuum. The geographic extent of forest ecosystem types have ebbed and flowed over millennia. News alert…protecting them as proposed will undoubtedly reduce their extent. Think about it…

  8. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Logging companies have replaced the redwoods with invasive species that are their cash crops. They spray tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals into these forests every year. They trample the land with constant clearcuts, they trample the land with a constant parade of trucks, they don’t slow their roll despite hundreds of millions of acres of forest burning in fires around the nation every year, increasing in intensity as the climate continues to change.

    The sane thing to do as an intelligent, forward thinking society would be to impose an immediate moratorium on all logging, at least in this county, where we are small enough to communicate and mobilize in relative unity. Subsidize the transition of ground level employment, if “jobs” are the concern. Let alternative manufacturing companies rise to prosperity and the cash cropping clearcutters go the way of the buggy whip. For all the hate marijuana growers get in this county and on this very blog, the logging industry clearcuts a whole shit ton more surface area of canopy, dumps a whole shit ton more of chemicals in the forests (WAY more), and actively troll blogs like this to badmouth efforts to curb the insanity of it all.

    A record setting global heatwave and world wide drought, both getting worse every year, should be the wake up call of everybody’s lifetime. Business as usual really is insane at this point.

  9. High Finance
    July 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    This petition would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn’t that so many people will sign it and it could pass if ever it made it to the ballot.

  10. Just Watchin
    July 7, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    If this passed, it could get too overgrown to grow pot, and Humboldt county would have to close up shop!

  11. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    I’d much rather have a deck or a porch or walls made of recycled, inorganic materials that would last a lifetime, than from endangered woods that will inevitably rot, only to be replaced by more of the same. It can be so, that alternative and recycled manufacturing materials are a lot cheaper as well. A LOT cheaper.

    What really needs to happen is forest restoration, not just “less logging” and certainly no more clearcutting.

    The “development community” very seriously needs to slow their roll. There is nothing laugh out loud funny about permanent water rationing and chemical poisoning.

  12. thereasonableanonymous@gmail.com
    July 7, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    This petitioner is way, way out on the extremist fringe. Even among our local “forest defenders,” I don’t think many would advocate an end to all logging of redwoods under any conditions.

    As I recall, for many years the main demands of local forest defenders were to stop logging the remaining old growth, stop clearcutting, and stop logging on steep, unstable slopes.

    Many also advocated slowing the overall rate of harvest so that logging was more ecologically sustainable, while at the same time changing from a “boom and bust” cycle of employment, to a more even level of employment.

    But this petition calls for banning all logging of redwoods, even by the most sustainable methods. That seems to me like an extremely counterproductive approach far more likely to cause backlash than any forward movement.

    Fortunately, as a matter of policy, it’s not likely to get anywhere. Unfortunately, we’re probably going to be hearing about it for years now, in the context of “environmentalists want to stop all logging completely” — even though most environmentalists don’t advocate for that at all.

  13. just middle class
    July 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    So the people who signed this from Arcata and Eureka, which used to be redwood forest, are willing to tear down their houses and plant redwood trees? Bet not.

  14. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    “Unfortunately, we’re probably going to be hearing about it for years now”

    Do you know what is far more unfortunate? The loss of the redwoods in the first place, species extinction, and people like yourself who naysay doable changes that would only benefit the environment, without causing economic disaster, even.

    It hasn’t been a matter of probability for a very long time, but CERTAINTY: WE ARE GOING TO BE HEARING ABOUT INCREASING ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES.

  15. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    “So the people who signed this from Arcata and Eureka, which used to be redwood forest, are willing to tear down their houses and plant redwood trees?”

    Who has suggested such a thing? What are your thoughts on increasing redwood habitat by replacing the invasive species the logging companies continue to replant every year?

  16. anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    It is about time that we do something to protect this endangered species!

  17. unanonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    the spraying is to kill the invaisive species that INVADED after the initial harvest. other than that correction i am pretty much pissing my pants laughing at this dubes lsd babble

  18. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    11:38 = IGNORANT. The logging companies are expanding the range of redwoods by planting new redwoods where they have not been growing naturally. The logging companies have nothing more valuable to plant. The redwood trees are their “cash crop.” Redwood commands about double the price of Douglas fir, and after Douglas fir is cut, it must be replaced with new planting stock because it does not sprout from its stump. Often redwood is that replacement. Redwoods are far from endangered. When cut, redwoods sprout from their stump, continuing to make use of their root systems. This petition idea is simply stupid. It is not based on fact, but emotion. The 4% number applies to the forest that existed before the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago. The forest habitat is in fine shape. Banning redwood harvest would also be a “taking” of private property which would cost billions in compensation. And the later ignorant comment about global warming and drought now occurring, take a look: we had 101% normal rainfall in the Redwood Empire this year, and the heat back East is not showing up here. Tell me this: what will be next? Stopping all logging. Count on it. This is Foolishness.

  19. jr
    July 7, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    “The logging companies are expanding the range of redwoods by planting new redwoods where they have not been growing naturally.”

    That makes coast redwoods an invasive species in that ecosystem. Tress and plants should not be planted where they are not native.

  20. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    “The 4% number applies to the forest that existed before the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago.”

    Ewoks are fiction, like your statement. We call this planet Earth, not Endor. Within the last 150 years, coastal redwoods commanded most of the entire western coast. Just about all of it. Photographic proof is down the street from you at your nearby library.

    The logging companies aren’t “expanding the range of redwoods” in as much as they have already killed them all. Redwoods require centuries at a time to develop the lush, wet habitat, and consequentially related atmosphere that nourished this continent for eons.

    And “sustainable” logging is NOT environmentally friendly. It is talked about but the logging companies do not want the public to see what a freshly logged “sustainable” area looks like. The earth is destroyed, chemicals are dumped, grades culverts and roads are carved into these mountains thousands at a time every year in “sustainably logged” areas.

    The logging companies plantations are like pirate marijuana grows on Superman Steroids. They are the real damage to our watersheds and subsequent health.

    Logging companies are as guilty of damaging, and continuing to damage, the climate as the worst factory emissions. Their non-native plantations are dry, acidic kindling peppered with chemicals and machine damage. The results of their invasive planting is devastating to the point that lawsuits could and should be filed by longtime landowners suffering the results of invasive planting.

    Tell you what will be next? Water rationing in Humboldt between 2013-14. Forest fires like never seen before. Temperatures in california exceeding 130 degrees. Redwoods should be planted everywhere possible. It’s a no brainer.

    Do you work in the timber industry, 3:18?

  21. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    “the spraying is to kill the invaisive species that INVADED after the initial harvest.”

    Which harvest are you talking about…the one that took away the redwoods or the ones they continue within their invasive plantations? The real initial harvest was the loss of the redwoods.

  22. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Record heatwave and drought world wide is not a bumper sticker. How many of you naysayers have children or grandchildren? Your place in history is being recorded through your own words. We can all read what the logging companies have told us in the past as well. “No harm done! Trust us!”

  23. Thirdeye
    July 7, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    MoveOn.org needs to get rid of this Arseneau clown while they still have some credibility left.

  24. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    You wanna talk about drug induced insanity, how about when you call yourself a “forester”, and what it means is it’s your job to tell people how many trees to cut down in a forest, and how much chemical to spray in the forest.

  25. unanonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    wow heraldo and its gaff need to lower the dosage, my sides are hurting from laghing so much reading this tripe!

  26. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    I agree, unanonymous. How it is that people see no problem with business as usual in the logging industry is baffling. I’d find it even funnier if not for the fact that the consequences are far from fictional.

  27. SNaFU
    July 7, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    The only good tree is a stump!

  28. anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Stumps are good. They give hikers a place to sit.

  29. July 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Well-intentioned as it may be, the petition calls for measures that go too far.

  30. thereasonableanonymous@gmail.com
    July 7, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    “The results of their invasive planting is devastating…”

    What “invasive” plants are timber companies planting?

  31. Eric Kirk
    July 7, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    I agree Heraldo. It doesn’t appear to be crafted by someone who is really up on the issue. If I didn’t know better, I would almost say it’s a stereotypical caricature put out by someone in the logging industry.

  32. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Alright, if Fred’s against it, I’ll sign it.

  33. July 7, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    That’s something Fred would say.

  34. Anonymous
    July 7, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Most people are like planet scabies. Worse, more like planet canker sores. This blog is dissapointing in that regard to say the least. Hey “heraldo”…how many of these aliases are on your side of the screen so to speak? Fucking losers, you are the real jokes of the issue. A big unfunny joke. The environment continues to go to shit, but OH NO! Better make sure those fuckall loggers get to kill trees for money. Go blog your brains out as experts on anything and everything every fucking day all day.

    You’ve lost me, “heraldo”. Here’s hoping you find this shit as blase (with a capital BLAH) down the line, because mother nature has been shit on way too much already and the hurt is only just beginning.

  35. TexaCali
    July 8, 2012 at 7:41 am

    When exactly did coastal redwood become an endangered specie?

    Uneven-aged managed second and third growth redwood harvested under our California forest practice rules is a sustainable crop. It’s generally accepted that sustainable California wood is environmentally superior to imported wood products as well synthetic products.

    In Humboldt we’re fortunate to have protected old growth forests as well as a sustainable forest products industry.

  36. Gil Yule
    July 8, 2012 at 8:19 am

    Huh? “original range?!?”

    The coast redwood is an endangered species, and needs to be recognized as such, and allowed to regain its original range.

    At one time the “redwood range” extended to the western slopes of the Rockies. Ellis is an idiot.

  37. Monte Provolt
    July 8, 2012 at 8:25 am

    I’m not sure you could exterminate coastal redwoods even if you tried. I see them push up through gravel roadways all the time, they don’t need to sprout from seed. Most of the trees you see in the forests around here are sprouts from ancient trees that have fallen. I guess you could say that they are not really second growth, but imature old growth trees.

  38. Chief Lassic
    July 8, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Seems slightly ironic when white people here in the US complain about invasive species.

  39. anonymous
    July 8, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    I have to agree with Anon 10:49 – Heraldo you are a big disappointment.

  40. What Now
    July 8, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    “Chief Lassic says:
    July 8, 2012 at 10:16 am
    Seems slightly ironic when white people here in the US complain about invasive species.”
    HAHAHAHAHAHA!
    brilliant!

  41. Thirdeye
    July 8, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Heraldo is trying to retreat gracefully, but the second paragraph of the post is there for all to read.

    I must thank Heraldo for such an entertainingly stupid post.

  42. Thirdeye
    July 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    Chief Lassic would do well to look into the mass extinctions that occurred in North America as a result of colonization by Amerinds.

  43. July 8, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    The point is, it’s far fetched to think such an extreme measure pass when much less controversial matters — such as banning logging of old growth redwoods — have yet to make the law books.

    And that doesn’t address the vagueness of the petition. Are we talking only commercial logging or just a straight ban on cutting redwoods period?

    Passage of the Forests Forever initiative in 1990 would have been extremely beneficial for forest critters, fish and water quality. It’s a shame it failed and the blame lies in the smearing of Judi Bari by the above-mentioned scoundrels.

  44. jr
    July 8, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    I agree. Perhaps an initiative similar to Forests Forever can be introduced, updated for current realities and taking into consideration some of the problems with the 1990 initiative. The Save-the-Redwoods League might be the ideal organization to do this because they have a huge donor base (read wealthy) and have connections with like-minded organizations due to their location in San Francisco.

  45. Thirdeye
    July 8, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    If anything, the Bari bombing and the attempts to sell the far-fetched theory that she bombed herself fired up supporters of Forests Forever and added sympathy for the Redwood Summer circus. The foil used by the opponents of Forests Forever was the whole Redwood Summer campaign, not the Bari bombing itself. They knew better than to look callous in the face of the Bari bombing. The Bari-bombed-herself theory was clearly discredited early on when the DA waved the white flag on charging her.

    Forests Forever was defeated because it was bad policy written by power hungry environmentalists who decided to act unilaterally. There was an opportunity to pass a good forest practices/headwaters bill in the legislature, but that effort was scuttled when the Sierra Club pulled its support.

  46. anonymous
    July 8, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    I laugh at the the previous comments inferring that once all the clear- cuts go thru that they are “replanted” with invasive species. Redwoods are replanted because that what makes these companies their bread and butter.There were experiments with Monterey Pine and Eucalyptus in the past but that was all it was, an experiment. It is really hard hard to get rid of Redwoods once they are established in an area. Sure you can cut em down, but they will grow spout from the stump and start growing again. The petition is rediculous and should be ignored.

  47. Bolithio
    July 9, 2012 at 7:00 am

    Hopefully this gets some traction and we can offset all of our wood consumption to third world countries where workers have no rights, there are no environmental regulations what-so-ever, and the forests are converted to cattle pastures following harvest. Time to Move On!

  48. beel
    July 9, 2012 at 9:21 am

    i hate to be a nit picker, but Eli didn’t get the accurate spelling of his beloved tree: the genus and species name for Redwood is Sequoia sempervirens. i hope this is not emblematic of his level of sophistication.

  49. Bolithio
    July 9, 2012 at 9:38 am

    H~ Can we get Elli to join this thread?

    Whereas, a great redwood rainforest once covered the west coast, from southern Oregon to midcoastal California, and about 40 miles inland
    and still does…

    Whereas, less than 4% of this great rainforest remains today
    If he is referring to Primary Forests of this type, this could be a correct statement. But a ‘great rainforest’ would obviously include all stages of succession, so in that way it is a completely false statement. The implication however is that only 4% of the redwoods remain – which is just plain false.

    Whereas, the coast redwood environment is a essential to a great number of endangered species, including the spotted owl and several species of fish
    True, although to be fair, we have only identified a small handful of species that are specific to a redwood type. And old growth redwood stands actually have a relatively low biodiversity when compared to other forest types and successions.

    Whereas, the continued decimation of this environment has led to a noticeable change in the climate of the north coast of California, and therefore must also be contributing to global warming as a whole
    False!

    Whereas, towns and villages near areas where clear-cutting has been done are now endangered by flooding, mudslides, and the pollution of delicate watersheds
    False again!

    Whereas, the lumber from coast redwoods is not a necessary commodity, but one easily replaced by other types of lumber or building materials
    True (albeit not easily), but at what cost? Where would these other types of lumber and materials come from?

    …pass a law declaring a 200-year moratorium prohibiting the harvest, sale and export of all coast redwoods (Sequoia Sempervirons) and of all products made from coast redwoods. Such moratorium will preserve the existing ecosystem of the coast redwood, preserve the existing old growth trees, and allow younger trees a chance to become old growth, thus giving the great redwood rainforest a chance to reestablish itself for future generations and for the health of the planet.

    As feel good as this might sound, it is complete hyperbole. The assertion by people that the redwood forest doesnt still exist is a huge flaw in peoples quest to ‘save them’. Furthermore the belief that walking away from forests will somehow ‘allow’ them to become what they were 100 years ago is not only misguided, its simply not how ecology works.

    Does Elli not know that we have set aside over 50,000 acres (in HUM) of redwood forest for this purpose? Thats just State parks. It doesn’t include the set asides on industrial lands, or Headwaters, or other private forest preserves.

    Can the preservationist movement ever have a reasonable approach? One that includes a real perspective of current conditions and a foundation in ecology?

  50. Just Middle Finance
    July 9, 2012 at 10:58 am

    We don’t need to save the Redwoods any more than we needed to save the Dodo Bird. Survival of the Fittest! Get government out of the way so we can conduct business. Right now China is buying up Redwood tree product. Opportunity is knocking and we need to open the door and tell our multinational customers to “come on in, we’re open for business”.

  51. Bolithio
    July 9, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Right now China is buying up Redwood tree product.

    Really? I call BS.

  52. Farmer
    July 9, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Don’t know whether to laugh or cry…

  53. Greg Gehr
    July 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    >Thirdeye says:
    >July 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm
    >Chief Lassic would do well to look into the mass extinctions that >occurred in North America as a result of colonization by Amerinds.

    Thirdeye needs glasses, ’cause he/she is blind to current actual research on mass extinctions, which were believed NOT to be “as a result of colonization by Amerinds” but rather due to the fact that bison in North America had a competitive advantage over other megafauna as continental biotic communities reorganized due to terminal Pleis-tocene changes in climate.

    Competition from bison, in combination with climate-caused changes in resource abundance and distribution, are believed to have directly driven the megafaunal extinction event.

    http://sbcountymuseum.academia.edu/EricScott/Papers/149304/Extinctions_scenarios_and_assumptions_Changes_in_latest_Pleistocene_large_herbivore_abundance_and_distribution_in_western_North_America

    If anything, Amerind populations, who became intertwined with dependence on Bison, became a brake on the populations of the very species that were driving the extinction events in combination with climate change, but I know, that is not nearly as convenient as your assertions where you try to justify your invasive existence by blaming mass extinctions on the Natives.

  54. What Now
    July 9, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    Great post, Greg.
    You might want to report a monosyllabic version for Third rate and a few others.
    if it isn’t in Turner language or available via Cliff’s Notes, some posters here risk having the cheese slip off of their crackers.

  55. Anonymous
    July 9, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Why no post on the Richardson Grove vedict? This post is is nothing new at all, the crazys are with us eternal.

  56. Thirdeye
    July 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Greggie blew it when he claimed that the paper refuted the impact of Amerind colonization on megafauna. It simply advanced an alternate hypothesis. The issue is summarized quite nicely on page 10, column 2, paragraph 2:

    “The level of competition hypothesized here for late Pleistocene large mammal faunas does not need to have been dramatic. In this regard, note that Fiedel and Haynes (2004:127) observed with respect to the overkill scenario that ‘[v]arious simulations show that a very small increase in predation loss due to humans (less than 5%) can wreak havoc upon animal populations.’ It is perhaps equally likely, although it remains to be demonstrated, that population losses of this small percentage could also accrue from climate-driven reduction of resources and consequent increases in competition for remaining food and water.”

    Greggie also blew it when he hypothesized that Amerinds were a “brake” on the Bison populations. The opposite is true. Amerinds torched whole swaths of the great plains to increase forage for Bison. So manipulation of the environment by Amerinds gave the Bison a competitive leg up on other megafauna. If Bison had the role in extinction of other megafauna proposed in the paper, the manipulation of the environment by Amarinds in favor of Bison is highly significant in the extinction of other megafauna.

    Time to let go of this Garden of Eden myth about pre-Columbian America, Greggie. Amerinds were an invader species that wasn’t shy about causing environmental impacts resulting in extinction.

  57. Anonymous
    July 9, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    Garden of Eden myth is right, and much of radical enviornmental thinking is predicated on just that. If only.”.we could return to the time of the old indians”… blah blah blah.. You would die of a tooth ache, the snakes would bite, you would get cold
    The Amerinds (nice name for indian) couldn’t figure out how to screw up the environment to thier favor as much as the rest of us moderns.

  58. July 9, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    I freely admit to being a pretty radical tree hugger, but the content of that petition is ridiculous and riddled with errors. The author serves up a bunch of unsupported facts, seemingly only having done the most cursory research, if any. This kind of thing is NOT helpful to anyone who cares about the redwood forests of northern California.

  59. my take
    July 9, 2012 at 10:12 pm

    Anonymous says:
    July 7, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Logging companies have replaced the redwoods with invasive species that are their cash crops. They spray tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals into these forests every year. They trample the land with constant clearcuts, they trample the land with a constant parade of trucks, they don’t slow their roll despite hundreds of millions of acres of forest burning in fires around the nation every year, increasing in intensity as the climate continues to change.

    …and so on.

    Replace logging companies with “pot plantations” and clearcuts with “illegal water withdrawals and tons of garbage left behind”..

    and I agree with Eli / Anonymous.

  60. Amy Breighton
    July 10, 2012 at 12:54 am

    Japan ended much of its logging 30 years ago by increasing “cheaper” imports…externalizing the high environmental costs to poorer nations where governments are routinely bribed.

    The complete failure and unsustainable greed of every imperial economy in history should provide a loud warning, instead, unbridled consumption is redoubled as “patriotic”….even as nature bats-last with rapid climate change and Earth’s 6th largest extinction event.

    Your “freedoms” to develop roads and buildings on your remote property, to mine its timber and water, to allow livestock to trample streams wherein your nitrogen/phosphate-drenched farms, orchards, vineyards and pot leaches….END….where my rights to clean water, sound infrastructure, and a sustainable environment BEGINS.

    Join me in attending another conference at HSU in “Building Green Communities” and observe, once again, how the developer-shills elected to local government NEVER participate.

  61. greggehr
    July 10, 2012 at 8:44 am

    Hey Trolleye, “Greggie” here. (I kinda like that. I feel sort of alone out here using my real name, while you hide behind your pseudonym. For the rest of my posts on this thread I shall be “Greggie”)

    I agree, the article I referenced was an alternate hypothesis. My purpose in referencing it was to deflate your definitive assertions that da Indians did it, no other alternatives to be considered. Now that you have admitted that your prior post was only one of many possible explanations, and perhaps not the best of the alternatives at that, my job here is done.

    I will grant you that humanoids have been shaping the environment with fire going back 10,000 yrs, and potentially much longer. In fact, being human and using fire to sculpt the landscape appear to go back to the beginning of human evolution from what we learn as we loot and grave-rob historic & prehistorical sites for info and artifacts.

    “Greggie” Gehr

  62. Thirdeye
    July 10, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Greggie: The article did not say what you asserted it said in your first post. You claimed that it refuted the role of Amerinds in mass extinctions in North America. That seems to have been your purpose in capitalizing “NOT.” You should at least admit that error, rather than trying to cover it up. Trying to cover up doesn’t work when anyone can read your first post.

    Amy: That’s an interesting point about onerous regulation simply resulting in resource businesses simply relocating to less regulated areas. That’s a big reason why California imports 70% of its forest products.

  63. Greg Gehr
    July 10, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Trolleye: No error here, my post DID refute your absolute expressed claim that “the mass extinctions … occurred in North America as a result of colonization by Amerinds.” That is YOUR POST, and a piece of tripe, based on old and outdated theories, as I showed you, complete with references.

    The study I posted a link to goes through each reputable major prior study on this issue, and NONE OF THEM put “Amerinds” as a primary cause of extinction, regardless of whether they were focusing on Bison, climate change, or other potential factors. You seem to love quoting long, non-relevant parts of the study as if this somehow adds credence to your blathering.

    BTW, SPOILER ALERT: Adam and Eve 1) did not exist. 2) even if they did, they did not ride on dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Wanna argue that too?

    I must admit however, you are providing great amusement, should I try the veal or tip my waitress, or both?

    “Greggie” Gehr

  64. Just Middle Eye
    July 10, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    My people feel proud externally but guilty internally for Industrial Revolting every corner of the earth. But you gotta admit, we have made a lot of profit doing this and people are still buying paper we sell called “stock”. Now we are engaged in global class warfare, we pit the 20 cent per hour third world worker against their third world neighbor. It’s a dog eat dog world and we are the Kings. Additionally, we are writing all the history books. So if we want to claim that tribal cultures were as warlike and genocidal as us, who can claim otherwise? We own the schools, the universities, the book publishers, everything. American Exceptionalism!

  65. Thirdeye
    July 10, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Greggie, the overkill theory is very much in contention. And as your own link points out, human predation impact below 5% of a population can have a profound impact. Do you somehow consider that “irrelevant?” Contrary to your claim, plenty of recent citations did regard human predation as a cause of megafaunal extinction. When the combined effects of human predation and human manipulation of the environment in favor of Bison are considered, it would be foolish not to consider the invasive humans as agents of extinction. The climate change theory is the theory on the mass extinction that is in trouble.

    Hey, at least you’re right that Adam and Eve didn’t exist. Dinosaurs are still with us. We call them “birds.”

    JME, just go ahead and pretend that the Aztecs were peaceful, didn’t keep slaves, and didn’t practice human sacrifice. They were so vicious that neighboring tribes jumped at the chance to help Cortez take them out. That was what allowed Cortez to defeat them.

  66. anonymouse
    July 11, 2012 at 4:57 am

    You might want to Google “Ellis Arseneau.” The guy puts “wack-a-doodles” to shame. Here are some of the webpages he is associated with: http://mithrilstar.org, http://reformed-druids.org, He writes for a publication called The Druids Egg. Here is one of his more bizarre posts: http://druidsegg.reformed-druids.org/newsbeltane11-16.htm

    His Facebook page reveals the most though (you have to “Friend” him to see it, but he will “Friend” anyone): http://facebook.com/redwood.eagle

    Oh, best of all. This seems to be his “pet project”: http://imladris.mithrilstar.org Can anyone say “Cult”? Or maybe “wannabe cult leader?” He apparently has a few hundred followers, as noted at http://www.reformed-druids.org/?q=node/27

    This guy, is whacked. Period

  67. tree lover
    July 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    did anyone point out that redwoods sprout from the stump after felling?

  68. Last Redwood
    July 14, 2012 at 6:43 am

    These people won’t be happy until all enterprise is destroyed, and we are all living in caves, picking lice off each other. You know, like in Southern Humboldt.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s