Another way of looking at spiking trees is that the environmentalist is staking (no pun intended) a claim in the tree. There are competing interests in the tree, not just that of the environmentalist, not just that of the logger, there is the interest we all have in breathing, and having air to breathe, and in living, and in having a viable ecosystem, for example, but the logger can wipe all the interests out with the swipe of a chain saw.
Does anyone really think that it would be a good thing if every tree on the face of the earth was cut down? No, of course not. Well, then there must be a place to stop. Where is it? Do we let the people with chainsaws make the decisions unilaterally? I think not. You don't have an unlimited right to do what you want with your property. You can't use it in a way that interferes with the rights of others. And one thing is certain, the people who stand to benefit by any decision are going to scream bloody murder when the decision goes the other way, and file endless appeals and requests for reconsideration and special bills with the legislature. In the meantime, spiking trees maintains the status quo, until all the decisions are debated, and the decision-making process is concluded. |
