Tree Rights Movement

[InvasiveCreeper]

Tree Rights Movement
https://www.facebook.com/Global-Tree-Rights-Movement-184166821734636/timeline?ref=page_internal

If corporations in the United States have legal rights and qualify as "persons" , in my opinion ancient trees surely do as well.

 

[Beth_B]

"Rights" as in human rights? I don't agree at all. Any more than old buildings or other human artifacts (or animals) should be afforded legal rights.

Welfare, I can get behind. But "rights" means a legal status that should not be used lightly.

 

[InvasiveCreeper]

I can get behind it, some of these trees have been around for centuries.

 

[Beth_B]

Well so has dirt and water and rocks...do they not also have rights? You monster.

Sorry just kidding and don't mean to be disrespectful. But worldwide legal rights for trees just sounds silly. That would mean the end of all wood-based products right? And what about vegetables? Under the same logic, would they not also have rights?

 

[InvasiveCreeper]

Dirt, water and rocks are not living beings, a tree is.

Ancient trees should be protected. Just my opinion.

 

[Beth_B]

Dirt and water are not living beings, a tree is.

Ancient trees should be protected.

So are vegetables, fruits, grass, mosquitoes, fleas, bacteria, viruses, wild flowers, perennial native plants and so on.

I don't disagree that old growth forests and native ecosystems should be protected whenever possible. But carrying this argument to its logical conclusion gets kind of ridiculous, don't you agree? The HIV virus is a living thing (and the same argument can be made for water) but that doesn't mean we need to provide legal rights and protections for lethal viruses. Or water. Or edible plants...i eat dead plants every day because I eat a largely vegetarian diet. I also kill weeds and other plants that compromise my vegetable garden. I kill fleas and heartworm-carrying mosquitoes that compromise my pets' health. If I got bedbugs or cockroaches in my house I'd kill them too. And all of these bugs are sentient, living beings that also provide important functions in the overall ecosystem. Like trees.

Doesn't mean they need legal protection at all times.

 

[InvasiveCreeper]

Beth_B,

So are… wild flowers, perennial native plants and so on. …

So I guess following your logic killing a bald eagle is fine too then... I eat dead animals every day because I eat a largely omnivorous diet, and under that type of thinking that would not be an issue, eating and using up the bald eagle. So exotic meats like leopard and so on are acceptable to eat as well, anything endangered would be okay to annihilate from that point of view. I disagree though, anything that is unique and rare, like these ancient trees, or any other scarce and special living being, needs to be respected and not wiped out. I guess it is just a difference of opinion.

 

[Beth_B]

Beth_B,



So i guess it is just a difference of opinion.

Yes.

 

[Chuck]

Protecting ancient trees, old growth forests, cave systems, etc should be protected but giving them legal rights? In most circumstances it is a felony to knowingly damage old trees anyway, at least it is in Texas if they are registered. And bald eagles? You get caught with a tail feather of one and see what happens to you. You will be wondering where your rights went. That goes for all raptors and many song birds. @Beth_B is right. What's next? I can just see it now, another legion of lawyers, only this time their shingles won't read Attorney at Law. It will read Non-Human Rights Attorney We Will Sue Over Anything

 

[InvasiveCreeper]

Chuck,

I like that - “Non-Human Rights Attorney” ~
http://www.alternativa-antikvariat.sk/userfiles/image/strom.jpg

A person would think twice about cutting down a 500 year old tree with a solicitor using that wording

 

[Beth_B]

Beth_B,



So I guess following your logic killing a bald eagle is fine too then... I eat dead animals every day because I eat a largely omnivorous diet, and under that type of thinking that would not be an issue, eating and using up the bald eagle. So exotic meats like leopard and so on are acceptable to eat as well, anything endangered would be okay to annihilate from that point of view. I disagree though, anything that is unique and rare, like these ancient trees, or any other scarce and special living being, needs to be respected and not wiped out. I guess it is just a difference of opinion.

Not really. You've just moved the goalposts from "sentient beings to "unique and rare." I encourage you to look up the meaning of the word "unique." As well as the legal definition with all its implications of the word "rights."

I think you are not understanding the actual legal meaning of rights. I think you are passionate and well meaning but very young/naive/uneducated. I don't mean that in a degoratory sense. I just assume you are young and unsophisticated, as most of us were at some point.

As an aside...after work today I took my dogs for a hike in bald eagle nesting territory. I do this often, and as today, watched eagles soaring thermals. You blab about bald eagles but do you have any actual connection to them and wildlife, or do you rely on twitter or other inane internet memes as an excuse for connecting to actual wildlife?

 

[InvasiveCreeper]

Beth,

Quite the contrary, but I think perhaps you are a bit naïve, as it takes a legal standing of this sort to actually protect some of these ancient treasures. In the United States corporations are given the status of personhood, these are legal definitions that afford various protections and rights.

In regards to bald eagles, I don't eat them, nor would I, I was using that as an example, which I suppose was misunderstood on your part. We butcher pigs out here and other common animals. I hike in the North woods and in Canada, so I do spend time in the woods, and out here in rural kankakee.

It's important to be informed about these issues

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/945115.Should_Trees_Have_Standing_

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1874&context=facpubs

 

[darkrebelchild]

The only rights trees have is being living things. But their rights can be changed when the owner of the land on which they stand on decides to chop them off; it could be personal or belong to the government.

But trees and humans have no equal right.