XYZ Timber Company has been logging forests in the Pacific Northwest for decades. It has done moderately well in replanting areas it has logged, but it has also been logging in areas where some trees are hundreds of years old. Now, the company plans to build roads into a similar area of the forest and cut down similarly ancient trees. An environmental group, "Trees First," is determined to prevent this. Its members have blocked the roads that have been put in by the timber company and have also engaged in the practice known as tree spiking-in which iron spikes are driven into trees to discourage the use of power saws. Loggers are outraged because tree spiking can make logging extremely dangerous. When a saw hits these spikes, it becomes uncontrollable, and loggers can be seriously injured. Forest rangers have been marking trees found to be spiked and have noted that some spikes are not visible and will present a hidden danger for years to come. People from Trees First insist that this is the only way to prevent the shortsighted destruction of old-growth forests. They argue that XYZ Timber Company has too much political power and has ignored public protests against their logging practices. The only way to get the company's attention, they say, is to put their employees at risk.
What is your assessment of the actions of the XZY Timber Company and the actions of Trees First?
Is it ever justifiable to use extreme protest methods such as tree spiking that put lives at risk? Why or why not?