I do not understand why tree-sitters accomplish anything. Why don’t these companies just poison the tree and kill it, thus destroying any reason for the sitter to remain? If he is sitting up there he cannot stop them, and he will be in no danger from the death of the tree for several weeks, at which point it will have been his own damn fault for staying in a dead tree. I think that the timber would even still be usable.
Maybe he’ll just move to a different tree then?
Ever hear the expression “cutting off your nose to spite your face”?
-Coffeeguy
It seems to me that poisioning a tree would a) take a very long time and b) render the wood useless. The reason people want to chop down trees isn’t to build a road through the area (at least not the trees a tree-sitter would normally choose) but rather to sell the lumber to a guy who makes jacuzzis. So not poisoning the tree would seem to be an economic decision.
Better yet, just wait for the dumb hippie to do this!
While I agree that this issue usually arises when a lumber company intends to cut down an old tree for boards, I suspect the OP’s question is prompted by a current news story:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20021204&Category=APN&ArtNo=212040990&Ref=AR
In this case, the motivation of the tree-cutters would seem to have little to do with the tree’s lumber value, so the OP’s suggestion might have some merit, at least from the POV of the road-builders.
So, to sum it up: Considering the size and age of the trees we’re talking about, it would take a looooooong time for any legal and safe poison to work. Even then, the tree-sitter could hop up on the next tree.
“I’ve been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding.”
Flagpole Sitta, but the lyrics just fit.
I don’t think tree sitters do their thing to keep people from making timber sales or building roads specifically - they do it to prevent loggers from cutting down the tree first, and the reason behind cutting it down is usually irrelevent. I’d imagine their objective is to keep the trees standing as part of the ecosystem and as heritage monuments in a sense. And yes, poisoning a huge tree would take some time, and it could take decades for it to actually fall. I don’t know if a forestry company would have the patience or time to wait long enough for the tree to die.
Also I’m not sure whether it would be legal drop a large enough dose of poison at the roots of a giant tree to kill it. It could lead to soil and groundwater contamination, which may or may not be allowed depending on enviromental regulations. All in all it would seem to be a huge waste of time and effort to poison every tree the loggers wanted to cut down, and they’d still have to put up with the hippy sitting in it… as I mentioned I doubt they’re looking out for the best interests of any particular tree’s health, but are more focused on stopping the big timber cutting in principal, so they’d have no reason to come down even if the tree is dead.
If I recall trees transfer nu-tree-ents (heh heh) through the bark. I would think if you wanted to do a tree in without cutting it down you could take a chainsaw and score a deep groove around the base of the tree.
It can be illegal to dump toxic substances into the ecosystem.
Even if you poisoned the tree, the tree would still be there. It could probably stand there for a hundred years. Plus, the press would have a field day talking about them poisoning the tree.
There’s a far better alternative I’ve seen police use- swabbing mace in the treesitters eyes. Since they chained themselves to the tree, they can’t get away (without abandoning the tree of course).
If the lumber companies escalate the confrontation by poisoning trees or tree sitters, what’s to prevent the tree sitters from escalating to a tree spiking campaign ?
Squink: Uh, manslaughter?
[semi-hijack]How does a tree-sitter take care of his or her bowel and bladder functions?[/semi-hijack]
Gravity works, ya know, and so do leaves.
Why not just treat tree-sitters like bears that climb in trees and can’t get down?
Tranquilizer guns.
It’s quick, non-lethal, and you get all the fun of shooting a hippie without going to court afterwards 
Noted, to both points. Presumably, though, the tree-sitter in Santa Clarita is interested in keeping the general public sympathetic to him, personally, and by extension, to his cause. I can see where an apparent windfall of, uhhh, “strange fruit*” could be counterproductive to that goal.
*[sub]I am aware of Billie Holiday’s song of that title, and what it refers to. I intend no disrespect to any group’s sensitive issues, and in particular, I do not mean to minimize or trivialize the issue of lynching.[/sub]
My last post was in response to Derleth.
To Max Carnage, I would remark that laws against assault still apply, even when the victim is a hippy.
Or a hippie.