We have some crazy developer exploitation of public woodlands in Massachusetts, all the good stuff, literal midnight deals at the statehouse, public land handed to developers for cheap in apparent exchange for campaign support (why else the midnight legislative sessions?), it ain't pretty. We had a good one involving rare Massachusetts old growth being cut down so that a ski area on public land could expand. The tree sitters in that situation brought publicity and allowed for a public response that halted the "legal process" to cut old growth. Sure an expanded ski area would create more jobs and tax revenue but at what price to unique and finite environmental resources? There are many stories to tell. Even now the state is planning to increase clearcuts on state land to raise revenue as the economy dips and is cynically describing it as habitat enhancement or "forest management".

At the very least Chief Eric Pelkey's statement about the irony of heavy mobilization of police force against tree sitters when people are being assaulted on the reservation with lethargic police response was on point. Let's face it, when development and political interests converge, things can get out of hand. I'm glad protesters are there to attempt to keep it honest even if they fail and cost taxpayer money. It's the price of an open society which I gladly accept.

It is difficult to remain neutral when you learn the details of some of these situations.
-moss