This is such a great use for flickr. A picture says so much and these people are using that to speak up for something they support; protecting forests.
A picture may say a thousand words but unfortunately I need more. Why don't they have a link to a blog? A blog could provide supporters with their philosophy, updates, and contact information.
I feel differently than they do on the issue of clear cutting timber. While I realize the damage clear cutting does. I also realize that it is a way of life for many people.
A few points come to mind on this issue. One, these protesters have to realize that this land is just a field for trees. Do they get upset when a farmer clear-cuts his corn? No, because that is the intention of the farmer from the beginning. That may or may not be the case in this instance but I doubt this group considered it.
Two, the land in question is owned by Kimberly Clark. They are allowed to use it as they wish. Obviously, these protestors are arguing against that right b/c they believe KC is using the land in a way that is damaging to the environment. I think it is damaging to the proletariat's environment when people in rural areas are without work all for the sake of protecting trees. After visiting a town whose major industry is forestry, Isney, AL, I am more sympathetic to that way of life. If it wasn't for logging and paper mills no towns in the area would exist because everyone's job is connected to timber.
Thirdly, it would be nice if these activists presented a viable alternative. Selective cutting could be considered an alternative but we really don't know what the situation. The tracts of land that were clear-cut could have been infested with pine beetles so removing all the pines was necessary. The forest may have been too dense to go in and cut individual trees. They may have been making that area into a pine plantation.
I agree that clear cutting timber damages the beauty of the landscape, poses a danger to wildlife and streams, and isn't the best option in most cases but the way Stop Kleenex presents their argument hasn't changed my mind.

actually, i have to disagree with some of your points, laura.
for one thing, kimberly-clark does not own the land they are clearcutting for paper pulp. one of the main forests they are destroying is the canadian boreal, which is one of the most ecologically significant forests left on earth. it is HOME for several hundred communities of indigenous people, not to mention many endangered species, and it is the breeding grounds for up to half of north america's birds. to say that this land is merely a field for trees is to grossly misunderstand the biodiversity and ecological value of these ancient forests. these forests are hundreds, even thousands of years old, and contain a great number of species. they are so well-established that they regulate themselves. when an area is clearcut and plantations are pu in, they are monocultures, which are more sensitive to pests and other problems, and do not provide food and medicinal plants for people nor habitat for animals. protecting forests is not about quantity, it's about quality.
PLUS, kimberly-clark is an american company. these forests are in canada. it is no small-potatoes local that is being addressed here, it is a corporate giant. i don't see how a corporation, a FOREIGN corporation, can OWN land that thousands of indigenous people have lived on for generations.
in addition, these protestors are not asking anyone to stop logging altogether. they are asking loggers to switch to sustainable forestry, for which there are many training programs (FSC). and this is not putting people out of work to protect trees. nothing that hurts the local environment can benefit the people who depend on it for their livelihood, because once it is destroyed it will take the economy with it. sustainable practices can create jobs, and definitely encourage better safety standards. in addition, tourism and other industries that thrive off of living forests are much more profitable for local communities than cutting down their ancient trees (once you cut them, they're GONE!) and making disposable products with them.
hope that helped.

actually, i have to disagree with some of your points, laura.
for one thing, kimberly-clark does not own the land they are clearcutting for paper pulp. one of the main forests they are destroying is the canadian boreal, which is one of the most ecologically significant forests left on earth. it is HOME for several hundred communities of indigenous people, not to mention many endangered species, and it is the breeding grounds for up to half of north america's birds. to say that this land is merely a field for trees is to grossly misunderstand the biodiversity and ecological value of these ancient forests. these forests are hundreds, even thousands of years old, and contain a great number of species. they are so well-established that they regulate themselves. when an area is clearcut and plantations are pu in, they are monocultures, which are more sensitive to pests and other problems, and do not provide food and medicinal plants for people nor habitat for animals. protecting forests is not about quantity, it's about quality.
PLUS, kimberly-clark is an american company. these forests are in canada. it is no small-potatoes local that is being addressed here, it is a corporate giant. i don't see how a corporation, a FOREIGN corporation, can OWN land that thousands of indigenous people have lived on for generations.
in addition, these protestors are not asking anyone to stop logging altogether. they are asking loggers to switch to sustainable forestry, for which there are many training programs (FSC). and this is not putting people out of work to protect trees. nothing that hurts the local environment can benefit the people who depend on it for their livelihood, because once it is destroyed it will take the economy with it. sustainable practices can create jobs, and definitely encourage better safety standards. in addition, tourism and other industries that thrive off of living forests are much more profitable for local communities than cutting down their ancient trees (once you cut them, they're GONE!) and making disposable products with them.
hope that helped.