Logging activists win court battle

By William McCall, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, October 29, 2009 | 10 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news

Related Links

PORTLAND — People against logging old growth forests won an Oregon Court of Appeals ruling Wednesday that struck down a state law on grounds it treats an environmental dispute differently.

The case grew out of arrests in March 2005 in the Siskiyou National Forest when protesters claimed old growth trees were being illegally logged as part of the timber salvage from the Biscuit fire three years earlier.

Josephine County sheriff’s deputies arrested people who refused to leave when loggers arrived for work.

The appeals court said Wednesday the law didn’t violate the state constitution. But, the court said, it did violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it allows a protest over labor conditions but prohibits other protests.

An attorney for the protesters said it was like allowing the police to arrest somebody for carrying a sign that said “Save Our Trees” without arresting somebody carrying a sign that said “Save Our Jobs.”

Lawyers for the state had argued that the law targeted conduct rather than expression. The appeals court said, however, that allowing picketers in a labor dispute but not those in an environmental dispute is a form of discrimination based on the kind of expression involved.

“The problem is people are treated differently under the law,” said Lauren Regan, executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene.

“In this case, because there was an exception for labor protesters versus all other kinds of protesters, the court ruled that violated the federal equal protection clause,” Regan said.

She noted the center made public records requests that showed the agricultural operations law had been used almost exclusively against forest protesters.

“The overwhelming percentage of people ever prosecuted under the statute were environmental activists,” said Dan Kruse, attorney for the Cascadia Wildlands Project.

“They tried to frame it broadly so it wouldn’t be seen to be targeting a specific group, but in practice it was absolutely an anti-environmental activism statute,” Kruse said.

The appeals court also noted the statute could lead to other problems because it could reach beyond protesters.

As an example, the court said, an attorney for an environmental group who went to a company headquarters to represent an employee objecting to an allegedly unsafe practice “could likewise be guilty of attempting to obstruct an agricultural practice — even if the attorney is invited to the headquarters.”

The 2002 Biscuit Fire burned 500,000 acres of national forest in southwestern Oregon — the nation’s biggest fire of the year — and became a battleground between the Bush administration and environmental groups over roadless areas to logging.
Previous
Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

ALFRED E. NEWMAN wrote on Oct 31, 2009 1:30 AM:

I can remember when it was an every day thing to see a one, two, or three log load on a logging truck. And I can understand where some of these "Tree Huggers" are comming from, but yet, when a Fire has consumed a Forest, including Old Growth, it only stands to reason that the dead be removed so replanting can begin. Besides it makes it a safer Forest when one is able to walk through those areas without some Dead Head falling down. There is nothing more depressing that to see a burnt out forest that the loggers are not able to log out because of some court has no idea what the long term effects could be. To me, the Courts in this case, are comparing Apples to Oranges. They have not lived near a Forest Fire, nor have they had to drive through an area that has been burnt, day after day. Maybe the next time there is a Forest Fire, the people that fight these fires sould round up some of these Tree Huggers, take them to the next fire, put a shovel in their hands, and put them to work.

CB Lifer wrote on Oct 30, 2009 10:26 AM:

MY 2 cents: My dad was a logger. If people would take the time to look around and think, of all things, they would realize, that logging has been going on for centuries. Is there a lack of trees? Not around here that I have noticed. Old growth? I doubt most people, including loggers have really ever ventured out where the "true" old growth is. I agree with most of the above comments. What the people from out of state, tree huggers, whatever you want to call them, would actually take some time and do some research, they might find out they might just be wrong. Let 'em use toilet paper made out of cotton, rinse it out, and re-use it. Good grief.

skywatcher wrote on Oct 30, 2009 7:17 AM:

If the protesters would be blocking an abortion clinic, would this court have ruled the same?

Citizen wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:57 PM:

I want to know where these people work so I can prevent them from doing their jobs. If I find them eating vegetables, cutting their lawn, or cranking up their pellet stove, or whatever they should all be thrown into jail for this. They probably would not have been able to get where they were had it not been for loggers building the road. I have my pellet stove on in my wooden home. I have lots of books I could read, but since I found out they are made from trees I have stopped reading them. Trees are a renewable resource. If a person knew anything about them they'd understand that if we are going to prevent fires then we have to log and clear out underbrush. I am so mad about this that I cannot keep my thoughts straight.

Just An Observer wrote on Oct 29, 2009 6:37 PM:

Constitutional rights apply to ALL. The environmentalists got prosecuted with a bad law, one that should have been thoroughly vetted for constitutional ramifications.


Next time try laws regarding trespass. All picketers are allowed to picket but not to trespass.

orecoast007 wrote on Oct 29, 2009 6:09 PM:

HEY TREE HUGGERS, You people must be unemployed since you are playing out in the woods.. Let these loggers do there job, since I am pretty sure they have familys to support... Maybe if one falls on them (tree huggers) they will getthe message... NO, I am not a logger!!!!

Retired wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:20 PM:

This sounds like a ruling out of San Fransisco-not the North West. Those folks would protest anything-bet they still use toilet paper made of wood products-or do they?

Joe Black wrote on Oct 29, 2009 2:00 PM:

Why do we even pass laws? Judge's will decide what's right and what's wrong. If they don't like the law they just use their own creative interpetation of the constitution to do whatever they want.

The power has shifted from the people to the courts.

amadeus wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:02 PM:

geez louise. It had nothing to do with whether the trees were alive or dead sillyhead. The issue was about equal protection...sigh...let's learn to read, shall we?

OR2NM wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:21 AM:

Were the trees alive or dead? If they'd been killed by the fire, they were just dead-falls waiting to happen. If not, then they may have had a right to protest.


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections