Tree Spiking Revisited: Myth, Reality, and the Future of Forest Defense

Tree spiking remains one of the most controversial tactics in the history of environmental activism. First introduced in the late 20th century as a means of direct action against industrial logging, the practice involves driving metal or ceramic spikes into trees, ostensibly to deter logging by endangering sawmill equipment and workers.

Judi Bari’s 1994 essay, “The Secret History of Tree Spiking,” archived here, is a compelling critique of the tactic, arguing that it is not only ineffective but counterproductive. Bari—a leading figure in Earth First!—sought to shift the environmental movement away from “eco-sabotage” and toward mass mobilization, coalition-building, and legal strategies. Her position on tree spiking was clear: it alienated potential allies, invited government repression, and was easily used to discredit the broader movement.

But three decades later, as we face accelerating deforestation, climate instability, and the failure of regulatory mechanisms, it’s worth revisiting this debate. Was Bari right? Or does tree spiking—perhaps in a modernized form—still have a place in forest defense?

The Straw Man of Tree Spiking

Bari’s argument against tree spiking is built on a few key premises:

1. It doesn’t stop logging. She argued that spiking alone does not prevent tree felling but instead shifts the danger downstream to mill workers, who may be injured by saw blades striking hidden spikes.

2. It provides a pretext for state repression. She highlighted how tree spiking incidents were weaponized by law enforcement and the media to paint environmentalists as domestic terrorists.

3. It alienates potential allies. Unions representing loggers and mill workers, she pointed out, were natural allies in the fight against corporate deforestation—yet tree spiking made them adversaries.

These are valid concerns, but they reflect the limitations of the 1990s political landscape rather than any inherent flaw in the tactic itself. Bari was operating in an era where mainstream environmental groups were beginning to gain legal and institutional traction. Today, however, the failures of “legitimate” environmentalism are painfully clear: carbon markets are largely performative, corporate pledges to stop deforestation are unenforceable, and industrial extraction continues unabated under a greenwashed veneer.

So, if we strip away the straw man of tree spiking as a reckless, indiscriminate act, could it have a role in modern resistance?

A Strategic Perspective on Tree Spiking

The original logic behind tree spiking was simple: raise the economic costs of logging to make it unprofitable. But rather than adopting a blanket approach that puts mill workers at risk, a more refined strategy might look something like this:

• Spiking only old-growth trees. Modern industrial plantations rely on fast-growing monocultures that aren’t viable for spiking. But for the remaining old-growth forests—where biodiversity and carbon sequestration value are highest—spiking could be a last line of defense.

• Transparent, public deterrence. Rather than hidden spikes meant to surprise mills, activists could clearly mark spiked areas, making it unambiguously dangerous and economically unviable for logging companies to proceed.

• Ceramic and biodegradable alternatives. New materials could allow for tree spiking that effectively stops chainsaws while eliminating risks to mill equipment.

• Strategic targeting of high-profile extraction projects. Instead of an indiscriminate campaign, tree spiking could be used selectively against the worst offenders—corporations engaged in illegal deforestation or particularly egregious land grabs.

This modernized approach would flip Bari’s concerns on their head. Rather than alienating workers, it would expose the hypocrisy of corporate claims that logging is safe and sustainable. Rather than serving as an excuse for repression, it would shift the narrative back onto industrial actors, forcing them to justify the destruction of the last ancient forests.

Beyond Spiking: The Future of Forest Defense

Of course, tree spiking alone won’t stop deforestation. But it does raise a larger question: how far should environmentalists go in resisting ecological collapse? If “legitimate” channels continue to fail, what forms of direct action remain on the table?

The future of forest defense likely lies in a hybrid strategy—one that integrates legal, technological, and direct-action approaches. Decentralized land defense networks, AI-driven monitoring of illegal logging, and blockchain-based certification of preserved forests (perhaps through CODEX?) could complement traditional tactics like tree-sitting and legal battles.

In this context, tree spiking doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. It can be one tool among many—a deterrent rather than a default. And as climate breakdown accelerates, the question isn’t whether direct action is justified, but whether we’re willing to take the necessary risks to protect what remains.

Judi Bari’s vision of a mass movement was not wrong, but today’s crises demand something more: a willingness to push the boundaries of resistance. Whether that includes tree spiking—or something even more radical—is a conversation we need to have.