Climbing Bounty Hunter Topic Continued.

So the topic on the climbing bounty hunter has come to a screeching halt. See the other bounty hunter thread. It ended at the end when I suggested that the bounty hunter was reading these messages. Here’s the question:
1. Have people become quiet because they don’t want their postings read by the bounty hunter?
2. Is it that no one has anything to say to this person?

I will say for myself that if this person, who we will call Moe for now, wants my respect and support in the future, he will have to do the following:
1. Cease to extract tree sitters immediately.
2. Publicly apologize for his actions.
3. Go to a sitter training camp and train sitters on safety, climbing technique, and how to protect themselves against corporate bounty hunters.

If our bounty hunter refuses to do these things, this is what it will cost him.
1. The recreational climbing community as well as many other communities will view Moe as someone to avoid. He will be an example of what not to be.
2. The international tree climbing communities will never want anything to do with him. There will be no invitations for climbs abroad. He will be viewed as a mercenary traitor to the trees.
3. Equipment companies will refuse to support him in any way as it will be a bad reflection of the company who supports his efforts.
4. People will not want to go on trips with this person. His business will suffer.
5. He will be a topic of conversation, but not the kind that is flattering.

These are expensive costs. But that is also my own personal opinion.

Everyone has their own motivations for the decisions they make, so I'm almost always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, how can one have anything but contempt for corporate hit-and-run forestry practices? I'm left to wonder, what possible rationalizations does one use to allow themselves to hire out to a corporate giant like Maxxam, particularly if they profess to like trees? I find it bewildering, in the absence of any explanations. I realize that none of us is required to explain ourselves and our actions to anyone else, but as Peter points out, our actions have consequences, regardless. There are probably lots of us that wouldn't climb with a person who chosen such a path; I am certainly one of them.

There's no doubt in my mind that plants sense our emotions, our intentions (ever read The Secret Life of Plants?) When I go to climb, I try my best to approach the tree with affection & respect. I hope to learn something from them. I wouldn't want to climb with someone that has such a mercenary attitude toward the very beings with which I'm trying to establish a link.

I stopped posting because I simply lost interest.

I'd like to hear from an extractor on this topic. However, if I was an extractor, I wouldn't waste my time here. We would be a hard bunch for him/her to convince.

Remember that there are some people that don't really like trees that much. They just do it for work. I've worked with guys that wouldn't hesitate to top a tree. I've had employers frustrated because I wouldn't top trees for them. I like trees. I've had co-workers who didn't even think twice about it...just did what the boss said. They were basically using trees for money.

Shame.

love
nick

This has been a heated topic of debate on this site and others. Since I may shed some light on this, I feel obligated to say something. Instead of calling him Moe, I think I will call him Mike.

A little over a year ago, I was climbing on the Olympic Peninsula here in WA with Mike and another fellow climber. Over our campfire the night before the climb, my friend and climbing partner mentioned that he had heard of these "extractors" that were paid to pull protesters from redwood trees. A conversation insued much like this one, as to the details of what is right and what is wrong. Less than a year later, Mike was actually hired as an extractor (although I didn't hear about it until it's first appearance on another message board).

In spite of his actions, I beleive that Mike is a good person. He has long been a strong advocate for trees and recreational climbing here in the Northwest. This isn't to say that I agree with his choices in life however. If given the chance to do things differently, I think that Mike would have opted not to take up employment as an extractor.

I can speculate what his motivations were, but I do not know for certain. Regardless, I find them unimportant. I do not agree with the choices Mike has made, but I also don't feel as though he should be exiled from sitting at the table with the rest of us. I think he has learned an important lesson.

Milke is very well-spoken and can "talk the talk" with the best of 'em. I DO NOT always think that he "walks the walk" in his tree climbing pursuits. There have been times climbing with Mike, where I have questioned his methods or disagreed with his approach. For these reasons I may refrain from climbing with him in the future, but my reasoning is based on personal experience, not personal politics.

Keep in mind that we don't know his side of the story. I think he's obligated to tell us, but I also don't think that we have the right to ex-communicate him from the tree climbing community.

For Mike's sake, I hope he posts here. For our sake, I hope we hear from him and listen to him before we judge.

Those are well put ideas, Benny. I think it IS we heard from our extractor. So I challenge Mike to post here and reply to these conversations. If he believes in what he is doing, he should be able to converse with his peers on this subject. Silence on his part would NOT add to his reputation.

Originally posted by Treeman
... do the following:

3. Go to a sitter training camp and train sitters on safety, climbing technique, and how to protect themselves against corporate bounty hunters.

Who has done this? Please share this experience.

If the tree owners killed the tree inhabited by sitters by pouring a fast-acting defoliant on the roots, would the sitters still sit in the dead tree?

Brad

"TREE OWNERS"?!?!?!?!?!?

I think that's the problem, and what the sitters are there to protest.

If a kid continued to sit in a killed tree and died when it fell or something, he'd be made into a martyr, something no corporation wants to do.

Tear is on the mark. If you kill a sitter you are in for a heck of a lot of bad publicity to the corporation/tree owner. That is one of the big powers of a sitter.

not to mention bad karma

Oxman,

How have you extracted sitters?

Would you happily have videotape of your extraction work available on the internet?

And thanks for the "invitation" to call!

Bradley Ford

Our man of the wilds is back to talk directly to us about why he feels comfortable with extracting tree sitters. He has read the long threads so he is up on the conversation.

I have one question. Mike, you said there is "no bounty." Is this to say you are not getting paid or is this taken from a moralistic viewpoint meaning the law is on your side so this is just business. It would take a very hardened heart in my viewpoint to perform a successful extraction and immediatly see the impact of "a lawful act" by seeing an old growth tree dropped immediatly. The money paid for an extraction must serve as a strong seditive to feelings around old trees. To say one loves old trees and be the tool for their demise is a huge contradiction in my eyes. Can we be frank and direct here without pulling wool over eyes?

Winning points as far as penance is concerned is a mute issue. I stand for the old trees and their preservation, no matter where they live, be it corporate land or private land. Tree farming is designed to supply human needs, not rare old growth trees that can never be replaced.

I rest my case for now. Anyone else want to have a one on one with Mike?

First and foremost, thank you, Mike, for coming here and facing this (what must seem) hostile and one-sided crowd. That takes a lot.

"It's sad to be one of the last people to climb these fantastic trees, for when we descend & pull out our ropes, the fallers immediately step up and drop the tree to the ground."

If it makes you sad, why do it? I know that money's good, but I don't see taking money in exchange for sadness. I know that you have a fairly successful tree company, lead chartered climbs, etc.

"Morality is a consensus of whether an issue is right or wrong. Since there is no consensus, I have committed no immoral act, and you are not morally superior. The problem is when a fringe opinion attempts to usurp the mainstream consciousness, and claim to be 'right'. "

Agreed. I think that this discussion began in order for us, as a community, to determine if we could reach consensus about the morality of this activity. I have my opinion, you have yours. It is possible for us both to be right, or neither of us to be right.

"Right or wrong, a logging permit was granted, and a court order to vacate was issued for the treesitters trespassing on private forest land."

And sometimes the government forces people out of their homes in order to widen a highway, and a permit is granted. But it's still shitty as hell for those being evicted, right? The government gives permission for huge quanitities of pollution to be emitted, but is that okay just because it's allowed by the powers that be?

"I am sorry if I must spoil your effort by conforming to my own personal version of right & wrong. "

DON'T EVER BE SORRY FOR THAT. THAT'S CALLED "INTEGRITY."

"Calling for exile of opponents is what cowards do. They think silencing the person with an opposing viewpoint will reinforce their position."

Yep. Pretty shitty, huh? Activities that I engage in, and conversations I have on a daily basis probably qualify me as a terrorist, under the PATRIOT ACT and subsequent legislation bent on suppressing and silencing those opposing viewpoints. So I'm with you there, too.

I'm glad you gave us your side. I think a lot of comments were made because there was nothing from you to confirm or deny or encourage debate.

Peace to ya,
Joshua

I'm on the other side of the country from you, being in Florida, and I may not comprehend this completely. But I must ask a question or two to understand this blackballing of Oxman.

Would the loggers be halted if professional climbers didn't extract sitters, or would they find other means to extract them?

Have there been instances where tree sitters have halted the cutting of trees after permits were issued?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but if I KNEW I was not going to halt the cutting of a tree that size, I must say I'd be pretty excited to be able to climb it before it came down.

Heather

Yes, there have been instances when certain trees and the areas around them have been protected and prevented from logging through sits. Not very often, though.

Also, now that Mike's responded, and I have his side, I'm certainly not here with any intent of blackballing him.

JOsh