17 thoughts on “Tree-sit against Cal Fire logging plan begins in Jackson State Forest

  1. I guess these tree sitters enjoy wildfire devastation. If we don’t prune and maintain our forests, they’re doomed to wildfire.

    • You should learn the facts. Big Trees basically prevent fires, they don’t cause them. When you cut trees and a forest like this one a brush patch wants to move in. It’s these former logged areas full of fast growing brush with a dead understory that are so dangerous The state is full of them. You could say logging causes forest fires without stretching the truth. We have to log but don’t pretend logging is the answer— it’s the problem. These brush patches have zero economic value or less in many cases, meaning there is nobody to pay the bill for former clearcut areas. Old forests almost never are the ones burning. JDSF is likely to be different as the loggers are likely required to replant over the course of years? We need to know, but the local media is unlikely to tell us. Kudos to The Voice for actually writing about this subject over the past few months, rather than just relying on articles in the PD and press releases as everybody else is doing . This is an issue that needs dug into and paid attention to, not just reacted to.

    • Logging and maintaining our forests are the only way we can protect them and the communities around them. Old growth, second growth, reprod, root systems or brush it all burns. Old trees become infested with bugs that spread to everything. If it’s already burnt there’s a small window of opportunity to harvest before bugs and fungus moves in and infects all the seedlings to be planted.

      After the last devastating summer we’ve had logging is the only way to clear out the damaged and start new.

      Log it or lose it.

  2. As President of the Mendocino Trail Stewards, we neither condone nor disavow this action. We are 100% in support of its aims, but we are a broad and diverse organization that is not in agreement as to whether this is the proper course of action. We did not organize it, nor, as an organization offer any material support to it. What individual members do is up to them.
    However, in response to the above wildfire comment, all of the evidence confirms that cutting the biggest trees out of a forest does not improve wildfire resiliency. These are the very trees that will survive, as was shown in the Big Basin fire last year. A tour of the Caspar 500 THP reveals tens of thousands of small trees that are not marked for cut. These fields of kindling need to be removed to reduce wildfire risk, not the trees with the thickest bark that provide the most shade. We most certainly need to do conservation work–tons of it! But that is not what is being proposed here.

  3. The article fails to give accurate information, yet portends to inform us ofunsubstantiated facts. Sad this kind of click bate exists.

    • The article is just a reprint of a press release and says as much. Also, you don’t know how to spell “bait”.

  4. You can’t talk forest stewardship to Druids, unless they themselves are managing their own timberland—in which case they might just clearcut it, as the former Northwest Director of the Sierra Clib did on his timberland.

  5. This forest was supposed to be where studies were done on renewable resources and proper logging to help keep a forest healthy and alive.
    This “Greasy Pete” character is not “The Lorax” his woke earth first buddies canceled him….remember so this must be a worm trying to infect the wood of a tree that’s been marked for removal because it has this huge growth infecting it hanging on ropes.
    Let the proper people handle things like this and Perdy quick they would figure out it’s not healthy.

  6. As an RPF in California, it’s mind boggling how self centered corporate Environmental activists are and how they use dogmatic sciencism to perpetrate false narratives. Cut that tree down, you know what will happen? Life will go on. Resources will remain protected. Big Basin burned, some large old trees will survive, but the wildlife habitat for NSO and MM, that’s gone for 100 years+. These corporate environmental activists think they’re helping the forest, they’re only stroking their egos.

    • “I’m and RPF, I know more than you and environmentalists are just out to get you” is such and original take. Thanks so much for adding your useful insight to this conversation.

  7. This person is using revers english to invent an idea. What is corporate Environmental activists supposed to mean ? What kind of anger is behind that phrase. why the pronoun ” “corporate “? Is that supposed to mean bad ? Is this just another way to make victims out of the destroyers of the forest ?
    Could RR please explain the new phrase he introduced into this discussion ?

  8. Most so-called “EF” activists are from the east coast and L.A. They know little about our eco systems. They just want to play social justice warrior. I email EF and they never respond. They are a clique of SJW’s from Portland, Vermont (Marxist Bernie country) and Los Angeles who know more about urban park bathrooms than redwoods or sequoias. They care more about printing tired leftwing zines and never bathing (when Netflix isn’t available). Total frauds. If you care about a forest, live in it and defend it like it’s your home, or go to indigenous lands where they need help stopping multinationals (if they invite you, of course). Otherwise, stay home in mom and dad’s comfy basement and play Fortnite all day long.
    PS This is state property so we all “own” a bit, but outsiders need not apply to defend.

  9. One of the impacts of cutting the big trees is the removal of nature’s moisture catchment system. Saplings and underbrush just can’t do the job. These aren’t tree farms. They are diverse plant, animal and soil communities that cannot be reduced to a handy “fire prevention” formula to justify over-logging.

  10. The methods of trying to make a point are lost in “grandstanding” I agree with attempting to save the larger trees that remain fully healthy. I also agree with the previous comments that a ton of stewardship research needs to be done before any effective protests are legitimate. Even the young brush will effectively store carbon, just not the best way to do it! There are effective ways to do proper stewardship logging, controlled burning and removing rogue or “weed” species from quality growth.

    • Thanks for this discussion. Habitat is a big concern of mine, and these old trees ought to be cared for, with their environs, for that aim. The way we humans rely on the wild for our food chain and clean air to breathe is too complex to explain here, but it’s undeniable. And for me perhaps an even more pressing issue is the approaching fire season. I’d love to see every man who can wield a tractor or an axe, including every logging company, hard at work to clean and clear the forests and the backyards of California, lest we face a continued apocalypse of wildfire. Yes, the desertification of California is happening perhaps no matter what we do. But it can be mitigated; and crops, homes and people can be spared, if we can keep educating ourselves and do the work. Old forests are exactly the moist world we are losing so quickly, and we ought to preserve them with everything we’ve got, according to the research I’ve seen. Proscribed burns can be resurrected to our great benefit, and the people who know these ways are all around us. Thanks to everyone here, everyone, scratching our heads and trying to do the right thing.

  11. The truth is old growth trees don’t burn but contribute their help via the roots etc to the Forrest. The drought is contributing to desertification and clear cutting helps such useless acts of greed. We will be nothing when we have destroyed nature.
    See articles by George Wuertner on

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *