The bombing and the legal dragnet that followed it could have been devastating to Redwood Summer, as it incapacitated or took out several of its main organizers, particularly Darryl Cherney, Greg King, and of course Judi Bari. However, since Earth First!, the IWW, and Seeds of Peace were all decentralized, rank & file controlled organizations and/or movements, the removal of one or a small group of spokespeople—no matter how charismatic—couldn’t stop the overall campaign. As Judi Bari reported:
“I think [the bombing] had the exact opposite effect than intended. They don’t understand us. They’re looking for a leader, and they can’t find a leader. They tried to knock off Dave Foreman, and it didn’t work. I get my juice from these demonstrations, and it’s going to be real hard to not be there. But I think it’s going to be good for the movement to have it happen without me this summer, because we’ve had a problem of people being too dependent on me, that if I don’t organize something, it doesn’t happen. I’m really glad to see—I’ve known this all along—the community discovering that they don’t need me. No movement is dependent on one person, and if it is, it’s not a movement. The fact that it’s going to go on stronger and better without me—I think that’s good. Everyone contributes, but no one is essential.”[1]
And, indeed, others had to step in, because no matter how shocking or stunning the event was, volunteers answering the call for Redwood Summer were already starting to arrive, and after the bombing, according to Betty Ball, the number of offers for support increased five-fold.[2] Fortunately, many current and new organizers stepped in to take on leadership roles, particularly women, including Betty Ball, Jennifer Biegel, Pam Davis, Michelle Dulas, Lisa Henry, Mem Hill, Tracy Katelman, Mary Korte, Mary Moore, Karen Pickett, Sequoia, Anna Marie Stenberg, Naomi Wagner, Kelpie Wilson, Roanne Withers, and Karen Wood-Campbell. They were joined by several men, including Gary Ball, Rick Cloninger, Bill Evans, Larry Evans, Jess Grant, Steve Heckeroth, Richard Johnson, Mokai, Mike Roselle, Robert Serina, George Shook, Brian Wyatt, and Zack Stenz, among many others.[3] Additional support began to pour in, including from Greenpeace, who loaned equipment and assisted in nonviolence preparations.[4] According to Earth First!er Kelpie Wilson, who had been recruited to assist in Redwood Summer in an administrative and logistical capacity by Judi Bari two weeks before the bombing,
“The bombing did to us what was the equivalent of a foot stepping into an ants nest. That’s how I felt. It felt like we were these ants running around trying to rebuild our home, our nest and that’s what we did. Things were just crazy for awhile and we needed to have people consistently at the offices.”[5]
The Redwood Summer coalition established offices in the remote community of Alderpoint, which became a communications office; Arcata; Karen Pickett’s remote enclave of Canyon (located in a redwood belt between Oakland and Moraga; San Francisco, which became the central information office; Sonoma County; and the Mendocino Environmental Center in Ukiah.[6] Kelpie Wilson was not enthusiastic about joining “the fax affinity group” as she described it, but did so, because she recognized that her skills were most useful there, describing herself as “One of the few computer literate people in the feral environmental movement.” Wilson worked with Stephen Dunifer, from Berkeley, who was part of the Earth Action Network, on establishing a computer network, essentially using the most primitive version of the Internet, composed of a computerized bulletin board system (BBS), making Redwood Sumer one of the very first mass popular uprisings to use electronic communications to transmit information in near real time, or at least as close to real time as such a system would allow in those days. Wilson’s position also allowed her to produce most of the leaflets for the major Redwood Summer actions.[7]
The first Redwood Summer base camp (among many) was established in late may in the coast range mountains near US Highway 101 at Honeydew, near the Avenue of the Giants in southern Humboldt County. Volunteers arrived from all over California as well as Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington.[8] The camp included a kitchen run by Seeds of Peace, and workshops were conducted each day, including nonviolence preparations, first aid and safety workshops, and sessions on local flora and fauna as well as culture and politics. Nonviolence trainings also took place in Berkeley and other central locations.[9] Seeds of Peace member Laurie Routh had originally volunteered to coordinate the base camp kitchen, but after the bombing of Bari and Cherney found her role in Redwood Summer greatly expanded.[10] In addition to the nonviolence code, there was a set of basecamp rules designed for the health and safety of volunteers as well as minimizing human impact on the local environment.[11]
Not everyone in the Redwood Summer coalition identified with Earth First!. For example, nonviolence trainer and Redway resident Tom O’Neal, who worked as a computer analyst and renewable energy consultant described himself as “coming from a three-piece suit background” and stated, “I’m not Earth First!,. I have Earth First! friends, but I don’t have a great deal of affinity for many of their actions.” Still, his commitment to the environment was enough for him to overlook such differences. He also stressed that Earth First!’s commitment to nonviolence won him over, as well as their careful use of “Affinity Groups” to carry out actions and minimize the threat of disruption.[12] As Mike Roselle explained, “In the affinity groups, everyone can tell how a person is behaving on an emotional level…If you break the rules of the nonviolence code you’ll be thrown out of the affinity group and out of Redwood Summer.” Some of the affinity groups would be composed of local watershed activists, which would lead and determine the parameters of most actions. The activists from outside the region would subsequently be organized into affinity groups to carry out supportive secondary actions.[13] Even local law enforcement officials expressed interest in the nonviolence trainings, which could have been seen as a negative development (in that they were studying how to best neutralize Earth First!, which was likely) or positive (which was optimistic to say the least). “If we do nothing else this summer but put ten percent of the population through nonviolence training,” said Anna Marie Stenberg, “we will have changed the county.” Training sessions were scheduled as needed, but the goal was to hold as many as three per week throughout the summer.[14]
Anna Marie Stenberg appealed to the IWW again to send footloose members to get jobs working in the mills and the woods in order to directly network with timber workers; Wobblies were also needed to represent IWW Local #1’s perspective at all demonstrations. She urged all IWW branches to sponsor one or more members for this task. To make it absolutely certain that there was no ambiguity about the solidarity of labor, Stenberg appealed to all Redwood Summer participants not to use Greyhound which was embroiled in a bitter labor dispute with its workers (very similar to Merlo and L-P’s dispute with the unions in 1983-84).[15] Class consciousness was very strong among many of the arrivals. Laurie Routh, who had been born into an Iowa farming family expressed empathy for the timber workers stating, “it’s frustrating to see corporations come in and exploit the land and people, but it’s important that loggers and mill workers don’t think I’m here as their enemy.”[16] Earth First!er and tree climber “Squirrel” Brendan admonished other participants to recognize that Redwood Summer was modeled after past labor struggles (such as past coal miners’ struggles in Appalachia, including the recent Pittston strike) as much as it was civil rights struggles, stating, “Coal miners (in Appalachia) are like the loggers and millworkers here…(they) need a union to protect their rights.” He believed that once timber workers saw that Redwood Summer was intended to stop clearcutting in favor of sustainable logging, “timber workers would support the campaign.”[17]
In fact, a great many timber workers privately supported Redwood Summer, at least to some extent, already, but were afraid to openly speak out. As relayed by Barbara Harwood (who had no relation to Art Harwood), the only reason they didn’t was out of fear of retribution:
“I asked a logging friend what was going on. He said he thought it was in response to Redwood Summer and the timber initiatives coming up on the November ballot. I asked if he thought Louisiana Pacific and Georgia Pacific were getting ready to rape and run. He said, ‘Absolutely!’ So I asked him how he felt about the environmentalists’ belief that the present logging practices were destroying the forests. And he responded again, ‘Absolutely!’ Then I asked him if he thought there were many loggers who thought like he did. Again he responded, ‘Absolutely!’ (My friend is a man of few words.) Finally, I asked him why the loggers were keeping their mouths shut about it. His answer, ‘Afraid they’ll be fired.’”[18]
These thoughts more or less confirmed Walter Smith’s comments about how in Romania they might shoot dissidents, but in the United States, they’d threaten them with poverty and starvation.
There were, of course, the usual “Yellow” talking points that were repeated ad nauseum, such as the diatribe penned by an anonymous timber worker “Woody W. Pecker” and published (out a sense of inclusiveness by the progressive editors) in the Country Activist, in which he welcomed Redwood Summer demonstrators to his home (as if many of the demonstrators weren’t local), and admonished them to look at “all sides of the issue.” It was clear from “Woody Woodpecker’s” words, that he was parroting industry rhetoric, because he framed the “Greens” as being opposed to all logging (false); admonished the new arrivals to “reflect on the number of newspapers, magazines, toilet paper, and other paper products” they might have purchased and used in their lifetimes (as if Redwood Summer somehow opposed the production of paper products); repeated the accusations against Earth First!, notably tree spiking and equipment sabotage (both of which had been renounced) and, of course “terrorism”; and invoked the weather worn clarion call of private property. “Pecker” chalked Redwood Summer up to distortions created by “the sensationalized media” of “loggers cutting down the last virgin tree on earth and shooting the last spotted owl for lunch,” comparing such things to “out-and-out ‘Nazi’ style propaganda.”[19] To suggest that the corporate media, which had sensationalized the bombing of Bari and Cherney and repeated the FBI fabrications and police accusations as truth, even when all of these were later proven to be utterly false was the height of chutzpah or ignorance to say the least. Sadly, “Pecker” was by no means alone in believing such things. For example, Elmer Pitts accused the Santa Rosa Press Democrat of giving Earth First! far too much coverage and none to the workers[20] (ignorant, perhaps, of the fact that Mike Geniella had written a very extensive two-part expose on these supposedly ignored timber workers). Glenn Simmons accused KPIX, Channel 5 in San Francisco of having “a pro Earth First! Bias”, which—considering their role in spreading the misinformation about the bombing was no different than anyone else’s—was absurd, but typical of the Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance own bias.[21]
A lot of these statements were no doubt influenced by how the timber industry and the corporate media framed Earth First! (if they mentioned the IWW at all, it was rare, indeed, either because they simply didn’t understand the IWW’s involvement, or the notion that environmental and labor movements were on the same side was an anathema to their framing the issue as environmentalists versus workers rather than class struggle against corporate capitalism). For example, letter writer Jack Newman excoriated the Santa Rosa Press Democrat for prominently featuring a picture of a lone demonstrator with a green Mohawk haircut, which suggested that this obvious outlier best represented Redwood Summer’s demographic.[22] A much better representation might have been a retired social services worker named “Bernice”, living in Sacramento at the time, who described herself stating, “I’m Earth First!...People who are criticizing us say we don’t work or pay taxes, but I’ve worked and paid taxes all my life. I joined the movement to make myself heard. The forests belong to everyone, not just the people who live here.” Indeed, while there were indeed a small number of homeless people in base camp—such things are inevitable when free food and a safe place to camp is offered in a capitalist society that doesn’t consider such things to be a basic human right—most of the participants came from a variety of backgrounds and age groups, including farmers, grandmothers, and volunteer firefighters.[23] Anna Marie Stenberg elaborated further, stating, “Some people have this stereotype of us as drug-crazed hippies, and they’re surprised to see I’m concerned about the community…that I live and work here, and that we’re all on the same side.” [24]
Indeed, sensitive to the constant barrage of reactionaries denouncing “outside agitators”, the organizers of Redwood Summer went to great lengths to emphasize respect for the residents of Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, where most of the actions were to take place. As Ruthanne Cecil and Bob Martel admonished volunteers passing through “the Redwood Curtain” from around the country:
“You will be a guest here, a visitor to our home. We hope you’ll appreciate that, and tread lightly on our garden paradise. As a tourist, we encourage you to enjoy yourself while supporting our local economy. As an activist, we encourage you to do the same. Greet our storekeepers and clerks with smiles and friendly talk, and the same will come to you. It’s our “country ways” that lead to such openness, and you will find it a surprising relief from the cold haste of some cities…
“The success of Redwood Summer is up to all of us. We pledge ourselves to peace, and are praying that all our neighbors, regardless of “sides”, and all our guests do the same.”[25]
The issue was particularly sensitive because there were a great many residents, themselves environmentalists who were opposed to clearcutting and corporate timber who wished not to associated with Earth First! or Redwood Summer. One such group was the Redwood Coast Watershed Alliance, which was a coalition composed of seventeen coastal logging watchdog groups, which wanted no part in the summer of actions. The Redwood Summer coalition made it very clear that they would respect this choice, even if it weakened their overall strategy. Others, such as the Coalition for the Redwood Forest were critical of Redwood Summer, but hoped to use the campaign to raise awareness about deforestation. According to spokesperson Andrea Luna:
“When Earth First! originally put out the call for Redwood Summer, they made an organizational decision to have a big base camp inland and bring a lot of people in. Those of us who live here on the coast were not particularly thrilled about that. But I think we’ve come to an understanding that…Earth First! isn’t going to bring in outside people to run any actions without checking it out with people who live here…
“However, it has activated many who in the past were more passive about forestry issues.” She noted that there are those in her group who may not agree with the flamboyant politics of Earth First!, “but they realize that on the deeper forestry issues, they (Earth First!) have been right.
“We would like to see small groups (of Redwood Summer visitors) being absorbed into the community to work on educational and outreach projects, contacting tourists about the issues, visiting our watersheds to see for themselves what is happening, and learning about the initiatives, so that when they go home, they take something back.”[26]
Luna pointed out that it was Earth First!’s direct action tactics that turned off the Coalition for Redwood Forest, because the latter opposed, “confrontational type blockades in the woods that would involve…people in the logging community.” Luna made it clear that her coalition was not opposed to workers, but was against corporate interests.[27] The fact that Earth First! (certainly with added influence from the IWW) held exactly these same views, and well meaning folks like Luna did not understand this was demonstrative proof that the corporate media had successfully created an anti Earth First! bias, even among those who should have known better.
On the other hand, there were several organizations that did, more or less, work with the Redwood Summer coalition, even if they weren’t officially a part of it. One such group was the Sherwood Forest Protection Association (SherPA), which monitored a watershed between Willits and Fort Bragg (near Judi Bari’s home), led by Naomi Wagner. Wagner noted that a small group of people in her watershed had been consistently concerned with local forestry matters. Wagner herself had been active in the association for twelve years. After the announcement of Redwood Summer and the hype that ensued, many more residents became active participants in SherPA.[28] Naomi Wagner elaborated on how Judi Bari inspired several members of SherPA:
“I got to know Judi at a time when other neighbors on Sherwood Road were organizing to make comments on a timber harvest plan in their area. Judi came out to talk to the group; and as I recall, she mainly listened…I’d heard about Judi, and I’d been impressed not so much with her charisma, but with her courage, And her willingness to open her mouth and speak out and say that the emperor has no clothes.
“Whereas, many of us had been accepting the status quo—very much in the same way we accepted it as a subdivision when our roads were being trounced. We just took it for a long time because we felt powerless to do anything about it, until finally, we said, ‘Well what do we have to lose? We have to do something about this or we won’t have a road and we won’t have an access to our homes. We can’t live with this anymore.’
“Judi, in effect, said that in a much larger way. She said, ‘We can’t live with this. We shouldn’t live with this. And what do we have to lose? We have a whole ecosystem going down the tubes, and what is our situation going to be when the boom turns to bust?’
“Judi formulated that very clearly and that really spoke to me. And I’ve been brought up not to stand around while other people are working. It’s an ethical position of my family, and also ingrained into me from my kibbutz life, where you worked cooperatively and you worked until the work was done with your co-workers.
“And I was just so impressed by her activity, and her forthrightness, and her energy, and her willingness to keep saying unpopular things. So I felt that some of my work might come into focus and have more application by joining in that Movement.”[29]
Redwood Summer actions that took place in that watershed would be coordinated by the association, and its members all agreed to participate in the nonviolence trainings. Meanwhile, the Coalition for the Redwood Forest organized nonviolence trainings of their own.[30] Redwood Summer may have been an appeal for outside help, but it was to be run by the locals.
To be certain, there were a number of “outsiders” who took on leading roles in Redwood Summer, such as David Ramsland, a grain merchandiser from Chicago, who had taken a leave of absence from his job (with the blessing of his coworkers) and had travelled to Whitethorn at the beginning of May. Ramsland was one of many nonviolence trainers. He had been inspired by a newspaper article about Redwood Summer and contacted the Mendocino Environmental Center by phone and spoke to none other than Judi Bari. “My state of Illinois has been completely logged out for 150 years. If we don’t do something about the de-forestation here, my children and grandchildren may not be able to come out to enjoy the redwoods the way I have,” said Ramsland, echoing the similar experiences of many of the visitors to the region. Ramsland was staying at the Eco Center house in Whitethorn when Redwood Summer began, and noted that there were fifteen activists lodging there from five other states. [31]
Ramsland and most of his fellow “outsiders” challenged traditional stereotypes of Earth First!ers as unwashed, jobless hippies. Still, there were plenty of reactionary screeds regularly featured in the letters sections of most corporate news publications that perpetuated a steady barrage of lies and misinformation. Chester M Gillis, for example, made all sorts of insinuations about Earth First! being run by nefarious outside sources (much like the IWW was accused of being controlled by Germans and Hungarians during World War I, which was demonstrably false), but neglected to speculate on who these sources might have been.[32] Roy Hennock summarized the thoughts of his fellow reactionaries in a “dictionary” full of sneering caricatures and untruths.[33] Betty Matthews accused Earth First! of being nothing more than a bunch of “uninformed hippies”, “terrorists” and “professional pot growers”.[34] These thoughts were echoed by Eureka residents Sarah Asp and Yvonne Lyman.[35] B Stewart went so far as to suggest that Redwood Summer’s entire aim was to replace timber harvesting with the cultivation of marijuana[36] (no doubt because there have been occasional, well meaning, but naïve suggestions by pro hemp activists that hemp represents a panacea, certainly not a position taken by Earth First! or Judi Bari). H. M. Eichstadt regurgitated the all too familiar rhetorical questions about how Bari, Cherney, et. al could afford to travel everywhere “without having jobs”, no doubt ignorant of the fact that Bari (at least until she had taken a leave of absence for Redwood Summer just prior to the bombing) had been a full time carpenter and most other Earth First!ers were gainfully employed.[37] Twenty eight residents from the small town of Leggett, at the junction of US 101 and California State Highway 1 in northern Mendocino County accused Earth First! of “creating problems for innocent people”, and asked the same rhetorical questions about where Earth First!ers worked, implying, of course, that they didn’t.[38] Similar comments were spewed forth by Phyllis Flockton, who also threw in the standard myth about Earth First!ers being on welfare[39], as if—if such claims were true to begin with—this somehow made their stances on environmental issues any less legitimate.
The truth was, that at least in one county in Oregon, according to an Earth First!er who worked (really!) in the loan department of a local bank, many of the loggers applying for loans (to purchase cars and boats) were themselves on welfare![40] Truth, however, is difficult to accept by some whose emotional attachment to propaganda is entrenched, unfortunately. This can best be shown in the thoughts of letter writer M. Brown whose husband and four sons worked for Pacific Lumber at the time, and who thought that John Campbell was “great” and that “Maxxam saved Pacific Lumber from shutting down.”[41] Similar opinions were expressed by Donald J. Harris of Eureka who was one of many who harkened back to an idyllic 1950s “Pleasantville”, one which never actually existed.[42] Such thoughts, as ridiculous and utterly baseless as they might seem, were all too common among timber workers and showed the serious void left by the collaborationism of business unions like the IWA and the WCIW and the lack of ethical leadership by elected political officials.[43] Even letter writers, such as J Torres, who responded to Brown point-by-point, seemingly couldn’t convince the true believers that the world simply wasn’t flat.[44]
Of course, no discussion about “insiders” and “outsiders” or, for that matter, “ownership” of the land is complete without acknowledging the fact that the land was stolen from the indigenous peoples of the Americas in the first place. For the most part, the local Indian tribes supported Redwood Summer. Speaking on behalf of the International Indian Treaty Council, which endorsed Redwood Summer, Karl Erb stated:
“The strength and integrity of Redwood Summer is in its concern for the full range of all issues rooted in the destruction of the ancient forests. The inclusion of timber workers rights—health and safety, representation, plant ownership, union support—in the analysis of Redwood Summer is among the seeds that make this campaign a movement that will last, will grow, and will likely draw unprecedented repression. But neither should Redwood Summer forget the original people of these forests.
“Through Redwood Summer, the awareness of the history of these first forest dwellers, should grow—as should the understanding of the tragedy and oppression still facing the natives of California today. The stories of Paul Bunyan should be felled to make room for the old stories rooted in the people, their struggle, and their spiritual relationship with the land.
“The alliance of Redwood Summer activists and native people is a natural one, and not new in Northern California. For ten years or more, environmentalists have joined with the Indian people of the northern counties to preserve not only the forests, but the rights of the people to go to ceremonial sites and practice their religion.
“The struggle for the Sinkyone Wilderness is one of religious freedom and human rights, just as it is one for the forest. Indians and environmentalists fought together to stop the construction of the Gasket-Orleans timber road through old growth groves and ceremonial sites. The tribes fought for access to and preservation of these sites all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and lost—an undermining of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and a dangerous precedent for Indian religious freedom and the freedoms of all U.S. citizens. In addition, the importing of tropical hardwoods from the rainforest lands of indigenous peoples around the world brings together the issues of Redwood Summer and the issues facing the international indigenous community…
“Recognizing this, the International Indian Treaty Council and representatives of the American Indian Movement have come out in support of Redwood Summer, and joined those demanding an investigation of the real suspects of the Oakland bombing, not the victims. In honor of those of the American Indian Movement and other social justice struggles who have fallen at the hand of repression, justice must be sought and served.”[45]
The debate over what to do with the contested forestlands often centered on the matter of “private property” at least for corporate timber, its front groups, and its enablers, but rarely was the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights ever raised in the context of that discussion.
One would think that the bombing of Bari and Cherney would have been the final nail in the coffin for any attempts to negotiate some common ground between workers and environmentalists, but this was not the case. Despite the fear and distrust (stirred up largely by the FBI and Oakland Police which was dutifully disseminated by the corporate media), the closed-door meetings between Redwood Summer organizers (led initially by Bari, but now spearheaded by Naomi Wagner and Anna Marie Stenberg) and gyppo loggers (led principally by Art Harwood, Bill Bailey, and Jerry Philbrick) established an agreement, known as the “Laytonville Pact” due to Harwood’s and Bailey’s role in the efforts, which established some mutually agreed upon common terms by both “Greens” and “Yellows” over Redwood Summer and the issues that catalyzed it.[46] The conditions outlined in the agreement were as follows:
Trust: We agree when possible and disagree when necessary, but we will always respect each other’s “given word”. Without trust nothing is possible. We accept the philosophy that all people are innocent until proven guilty.
Nonviolence: We stress nonviolence and condemn any person involved or associated with violent activity, including destruction of property.
Civil-disobedience:
- (a) When Redwood Summer conducts a one-day shutdown of logging operations, the operator will be notified prior to the demonstration.
- (b) When Redwood Summer finds it necessary to protect critical habitat areas, old-growth forests or violations of Timber Harvest Plans, a dialog with the operator will be opened with the operator to communicate the intent.
- (c) When Redwood Summer plans to demonstrate at public sites, CDF, mills, offices, etc., the demonstration may extend more than 1 day but will not block timber workers from their jobs, except at the export docks.
Sustained Yield: We are committed to sustaining the forests and will strive to improve the environment in every possible way.
Rule of Reason: We agree that our goal is to sustain the forests of our county and to work to integrate the economic, ecologic (sic), and social needs of our local communities and all families.[47]
The “pact” was agreed to unanimously by Art Harwood and Jim Little of Harwood Products; Blake Bennett; Robert “Mancher” Pardini; Jerry Philbrick; Wayne Hiatt; Bill and Judith Bailey; Jame Smith; Steve Zuiback; and Rich Padula of R&J Lumber for the gyppos and Anna Marie Stenberg; Rick Cloniger; John Welch; Pam Davis; Tom O’Neal; Steve Day; Naomi Wagner; Betty and Gary Ball; and Bill Evans for the Redwood Summer coalition. There was some controversy over Darryl Cherney’s absence from the talks and as a signatory to the statement, though Naomi Wagner insists the primary reason for this was that the meetings were composed of Mendocino County representatives only, which was true.[48] Don Nelson and management of the timber corporations were also not present, even though they had been invited[49], which spoke volumes about their actual dedication to the dialog they so loudly proclaimed was missing.[50] Naomi Wagner also insisted that the agreement was not a pact, but merely a proposal for a five-point agreement, because it hadn’t been formally ratified by anyone but the participants in the talks, and some of the points, such as voluntarily warning the gyppos (whom Wagner referred to as “LTOs”) in advance about upcoming actions that might affect the latter’s work. Wagner defended this proposal on the grounds that it actually made strategic sense:
“The actions had already been divided up between public demonstrations and individual logging show operations and actions on the ground or in the forest. That had already been set up long before these timber talks, again, at the Redwood Summer organizational meetings. The public demonstrations had already been scheduled and the demos in the woods had somewhat been left decision of the various affinity groups who would decide if they wanted to take those actions, and none of them had been planned or decided upon.
“The reason we proposed to give some warning ahead of time—and it was not 24 hours, by the way; there was no statement in the agreement as to how much time—the way that came about, was in our discussion of non-violence, the environmental activists participating said, ‘We have taken the oath of non-violence. We’re going to adhere to the nonviolence code—and this code included the pledge of no violence to property and equipment—what are you timber people going to do to prevent violence?’
“And the LTOs response was that they felt basically the only way they could control their crews was if they were present, without that they couldn’t control their crews.
“We were definitely made to understand that whereas we had a very non-hierarchal situation, they had a very hierarchical situation where the boss said and the hirelings obey, and that’s how the situation would be controlled.
“So we said ‘If that’s the way it is, if we let you know before, with enough time to get there, then will you be able to prevent your crews from being violent?’
“And they said, ‘Yes.’
“So the idea was, since media would be contacted anyway (because obviously these things don’t have much effect or impact without media exposure), that the LTOs could be contacted at the same time. That’s all that was about.” [51]
The “pact” was agreed to at the third in a series of meetings, and “while we may not agree on issues, we thought we could address how to avoid violence,” said Art Harwood.[52] “Although we don’t support Earth First!, unlike some of the other companies, we don’t consider them the enemy…what we’ve been trying to do is sit both sides down to talk. We’ve been meeting with Earth First!, but so far haven’t had the buy-in from the other side,” he added.[53] Harwood noted that the bombing of Bari and Cherney had provided the rest of the participants in the previous two meetings (from both sides) extra incentive to “tone down an obviously escalated situation.”[54] Indeed, his company had issued a statement to its workers as well as letters to the editors of local publications condemning the bombing of Bari and Cherney and calling on their employees to exercise nonviolence in their relations with environmental activists, the press, and the public.[55] Harwood was moderately progressive, as far as gyppos went, but the perspectives of the rest of the gyppos who signed the pact were quite conservative, and their willingness to sign it was a de facto recognition of the mass popular support amassed so far by Earth First!, and IWW Local #1.[56] Of course, this agreement didn’t stop Bill Bailey, at least, from continuing to whine about the Lorax controversy, denouncing Earth First! as terrorists, or calling Proposition 130, “the Earth First! initiative” which he did constantly throughout the summer.[57]
A somewhat similar effort was taking place in Humboldt County where the “Blues” as described by Garberville Chamber of Commerce manager Joanne Wilson, stepped in to bring representatives from the “Greens” and “Yellows” to the same table.[58] According to Arcata City Council member Robert Ornelas, “There were so many rumors and so many bad things told about either side it was getting scary.” This effort was known as “Middle Ground.” Forty people from various competing political interests attended the first meeting, and in the eyes of many it was a welcomed development, especially given the fact that the majority of elected officials, regional and local, openly put the interests of corporate timber first.[59] County Activist co-editor Bob Martel reflected such frustrations in one editorial when he opined:
“Who will take charge of the county’s future and pro-vide the unifying, peacemaking force needed to accomplish diversification? We look to the Board of Supervisors and note how impossible the current board has become. Eddy, Sparks, and Pritchard are so ill-suited to the task of unification, so incompetent, inarticulate, bigoted, and so dependent upon the timber elite for support, nothing but their defeat at the polls will help. Art Eddy hates Arcata, yet Arcata is a model of economic diversification and unity of action. Sparks leads local groups in anti environmentalist chants, waging war, not peace, with her detractors. Pritchard is willing to let Southern Humboldt rot while the leaders of Southern Humboldt are leading their own economic renaissance and creating hundreds of jobs. Eddy, Sparks, and Pritchard have in the last decade ‘led’ us to our current state of weakness. No one believes they even see the need for a common vision of the future here. No leadership can be expected from the board as it is now composed.”[60]
Middle Ground meant well, and it encouraged nonviolence, but ultimately fed into the divide and conquer tactics employed by the capitalist class. Middle Ground’s described themselves thusly, in a statement issued by Arcata City Council Member Lynne Canning on June 1, 1990:
“We are here to call upon all citizens who care about the future of Humboldt County and its communities to join together in a plea for thoughtful action during the tense days ahead.
“We who are elected leaders, civic leaders, religious community leaders, environmental group leaders, labor leaders, and timber workers are but a few of those who fear the possibility that events may sweep us into continued escalating conflict.
“Therefore we propose and hereby begin a new service organization dedicated to establishing a middle ground between the extremes so visible today. We propose to provide an independent body of citizens dedicated to maintaining peaceful condition by helping:
- to control rumors and provide hotline information;
- to establish mediation and reconciliation services for environmentalists and workers;
- to provide impartial observer’s for events;
- and to offer a true, accurate, and moderate view of conditions in Humboldt County.
“We propose to establish appropriate offices and phone contacts in as many areas of the county as needed and possible…”[61]
Middle Ground received the support of environmental activists, including Michelle Dulas, and timber industry spokespeople, including WeCARE’s Marilee Hadley[62], as well as other community leaders, notably various local Catholic clergymen who stated:
“We give our wholehearted support to the efforts being made to address in a peaceful and productive way the valid concerns for the protection of our forests and for the economic protection of the workers and communities dependent upon the timber industry.
“To be good stewards of God’s creation, and to be brothers and sisters to each other, are equally our responsibility. The Catholic Church commits itself to being part of the process of seeking a middle ground, and of promoting dialogue and mediation based on mutual respect for all persons and rights involved.”[63]
Another Middle Ground supporter was Dan Banducci, president of Yakima Products, who described the organizers of Redwood Summer as the “true patriots” comparing them to Samuel Adams and Paul Revere:
“They were viewed as as radicals, dangerous to the cause of peaceful resolution through calm dialogue and negotiation.
“Theirs was a ‘take-no-prisoners’ demand for economic and political independence—frightening and treasonous sentiments at the time.
“In a bold act of defiance, and against the better judgment of many of their peers, they organized and carried out the most famous act of civil disobedience in American history, the Boston Tea Party. Their ‘illegal’ action galvanized the people of the 13 colonies. The rest, as they say, is history.”[64]
Likewise, according to Banducci, it Humboldt County it took radicals such as Earth First! to create the space for a “Middle Ground” and brought seemingly isolated adversaries to the same table. Of course, the two sides, “Greens” and “Yellows” both knew that the real enemies were the corporations (though the “Yellows” had a much harder time admitting it), and according to Middle Ground member James Scothorn, “behind all the rhetoric, display, and politics on both sides is the reality and fear of future unemployment.”[65] This was true enough, but not really telling the whole story, because at least one side, (the “Yellows” of course) was essentially serving as cats’ paws for these very same corporations, and it was not really fair to accuse the “Greens” of being extremists when they had already gone to great lengths to seek common ground long before Middle Ground came along. Meanwhile, the more reactionary elements among the “Yellows”, including Candace and John Boak, for example, brought in their share of outside agitators, such as the Sahara Club, who were not only extremists, but genuinely violent and terroristic extremists.
Yet, the corporate media framed the debate as workers versus environmentalist extremists.[66] Exceptions to the media’s complicit acceptance of the corporate crafted “Redwood Curtain” were rare. Mike Geniella’s reporting on the issue was at least “balanced” within a liberal, social democratic perspective. Moderately liberal Santa Rosa Press Democrat columnist Gaye LeBaron of all people put Redwood Summer in proper context by comparing it to the Lumber Strike of 1935, correctly drawing the similarities between the two events and also convincingly showing that the violence that took place in the earlier events (so far at least) had been much more widespread.[67] For her part, LeBaron attempted to humanize Redwood Summer through the aegis of a fictional character named “Sam”, who was—ironically enough—an anthropomorphized shark[68], but her efforts (and Geniella’s) were drowned out by a chorus of timber industry biased talking points. Nowhere did Middle Ground take on the real issue, and that was class struggle. While well intentioned, “Middle Ground” (unlike the Laytonville Pact) essentially bought into the capitalist myth that this was a struggle between extremists on both sides and let the capitalists off of the hook.
Country Activist co-editor, Bob Martel, a staunch environmentalist himself but (like Bari and Cherney) one highly sympathetic to the plight of the timber workers shed some light on why this was the case:
“For more than 15 years, we have, or should have, known we would be facing a tremendous economic downtown in the timber industry. Two factors—overcutting the forests and automation in the mills—outweigh efforts to halt and to reverse these trends. Environmentalists point to the overcut and ask the questions ‘What will we do here when the trees are gone?’ ‘What will happen to the fish, to the land, to the earth’s ability to renew itself and to sustain us ecologically and economically?’
“Others were content with weekly paychecks, blind to the diminishing jobs and to the increased timber production. Workers in the timber industry, people in timber-dependent businesses, and people who act as apologists for elite decision-makers, are now reacting to the questions. Polarization is resulting, and with it, confrontation, outside the confines of traditional processes and therefore volatile.”[69]
Determined not to lose the public relations battle, corporate timber issued statements of their own, making it sound like they were the responsible parties. For instance, a paid Louisiana Pacific advertisement, complete with a facsimile of Joe Wheeler’s signature, ran in several local and major periodicals serving the area declaring:
“Louisiana-Pacific believes in people and in working with nature to help meet their needs for shelter and countless products for everyday, modern life.
“Louisiana-Pacific believes that honest, human labor is a major building block of tomorrow and that our democratic form of government provides an effective forum for resolving differences and charting the future.
“Louisiana-Pacific rejects the views of those who would place themselves above the law and replace dialogue with disruption.
“Louisiana-Pacific rejects all forms of violence as a violation of human dignity and the right to live free of fear.
“Louisiana-Pacific expects its employees to uphold these principles. Also, from others, we expect the fundamental respect we deserve as law-abiding people.”[70]
Over the course of the summer, L-P would demonstrate, time and again, that these words were merely rhetoric, designed to maintain the illusion of the moral high ground.
Due in large part to the effective efforts of Earth First! (made much more so by the influence of the IWW), the government, at least, was finally being forced to address what many perceived to be a huge problem. The CDF was, at long last, taking the THP process seriously and not just issuing rubber stamps (though they were still almost as far from ideal watchdogs as far as Earth First! was concerned). Workers were declaring themselves openly to be environmentalists. Environmental organizations were considering economic models. Restoration was being taken seriously as timber industry work. As described by Martel, “the years of hassling one another are bringing results even as the hassling becomes more intense.”[71] Much of the hassling and tension was centered around Humboldt and Mendocino Counties[72], while curiously enough, very little discussion took place (at least in the media) about Redwood Summer in nearby Del Norte, Lake, or Trinity Counties.[73] However that’s not to say that a firestorm of debate over forestry issues in general wasn’t raging everywhere else throughout California and the Pacific Northwest, because it most certainly was.
One issue that loomed especially large was the impending decision by the US Government over new regulations for the protection of the threatened Northern Spotted Owl. In a statement issued on April 14, 1990 by a congressionally ordered interdisciplinary study, conducted by a panel of wildlife scientists from four federal agencies, known as the “Jack-Ward Thomas Report,” the US Forest Service’s plan for managing the spotted owl was declared “a prescription for extinction.” [74] The report predicted the Owl would go extinct in 50 years if nothing was done to avert Business as Usual.[75]The report advocated the establishment of habitat conservation areas (HCAs), which would be zones off limits to logging far larger than anything thus far mandated by the USFS. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would announce their final recommendations on June 23, 1990. Although the study was actually commissioned as a compromise package aimed at easing limits on court mandated logging restrictions imposed in Oregon and Washington in response to a Sierra Club Legal Foundation lawsuit, the timber industry and its supporters howled in protest, declaring that the report and its fallout would result in economic Armageddon.[76] The Jack Ward Thomas report was scientifically peer reviewed, and it validated the warnings of many scientists and environmentalists that had been pooh-poohed by the industry and the government for years. Still, the US Forest Service (no doubt under the influence of its corporate puppet masters) hastily concocted a response, called the “Economic Effects of implementing a Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl,” which was not peer reviewed, but claimed that as many as 19,000 timber related jobs would be lost if the owl was protected.[77] The recommendations “would decimate the Northwest’s economy,” argued Dennis Hayward, a lobbyist for the Northwest Timber Association, “and the lumber associations will band together to fight this every way we can.”[78] John Hampton, president of Willamina Lumber, spoke for many timber executives when he declared that the Report proposed to “give the owl a Cadillac, (when all they really need is) a Chevette,” [79] as if he and his fellow executives would ever have voluntarily made a similar choice for themselves, which was highly unlikely.
Never mind that far more timber jobs had been lost due to clearcutting, automation, capital intensive logging, union busting, outsourcing, and log exports over the previous decade. Never mind that nary a protest over this had been raised by the government or the union officials. Nope. As far as they were concerned, there was no question who was to blame: “environmentalist extremists”. Democratic Congressman Doug Bosco and his Republican Colleague, Wally Herger, who represented the district immediately to the east of Bosco’s predicted economic disaster. The HCA recommendations would affect 1.9 acres in the Mendocino, Six Rivers, Klamath, and Shasta-Trinity National Forests[80], and—if the economic response was to be believed, 2,300 jobs.[81] The Eureka Times-Standard denounced the report as “seriously flawed.”[82] In a May 20th speech in Portland, Oregon, President George Bush Sr. declared, “There’s a lot of people whose livelihood is threatened out here…I want to hear more about it,” while conservative Republican congressman Denny Smith opined, “The bottom line is that people are more important than owls” (as if the needs of the owls were not an indicator that the need so these very same people weren’t somehow in danger).[83]
Such a response was predictable, of course, as it was actually the industry’s profit-margin that was threatened more than anything else, because the new HCAs would require a major reengineering of timber industry practices that would more than likely require much more labor intensive, much sustainable timber harvesting, but such ideas were “off the table” in a worldview where “what was good for (Louisiana-Pacific) is good for America”. Corporate timber emphasized this by shutting down hundreds of timber mills in Oregon (and giving the workers the day off with pay) and holding a rally in Portland attended by 7,000 industry supporters (and sufficiently propagandized workers) decked out in yellow shirts and yellow ribbons. There, workers heard Oregon Senator Robert Packwood declare that environmentalists cared nothing about timber workers’ jobs. The union officialdom apparently didn’t notice that three years earlier the same people passing out yellow ribbons were recruiting yellow shirted scabs to cross the union picket lines, because they also spoke at the rally and staunchly insisted that they weren’t, “going to stand for a bunch of Volkswagon driving environmentalists coming here and driving us to the poorhouse.”[84] Thomas Loop was nothing if not creative, and he wrote a satirical letter about a new organization called “Friends of the Termite”, led by “Red Snodgrass,” which joined forces with “Society to Save the Snags” which pushed for legislation to outlaw the logging of dead and dying trees because the latter disturbs the “ecologically sensitive habitat of the termite.” Loop continued:
“If they succeed this will eliminate the last of what remains available for firewood and sawlogs since environmentalists succeeded last year in outlawing the cutting of all live trees. The price for new housing has skyrocketed as scarce lumber supplies have pushed the cost of building a home out of reach for all but the rich.
“Snodgrass states that their next Campaign after they’ve saved the snags is to outlaw the fumigating of buildings, a practice he finds detestable because this further threatens the endangered termite.”[85]
While certainly an articulation of Loop’s fears, his perspective on environmentalists were wild exaggerations and hyperbolic assessments of their true positions. Inevitably, such rhetoric whipped up even more of a lynch mob atmosphere, which was evidenced by a vicious and vile image of an Earth First! activist, with their pants pulled down around their ankles, hands and feet nailed to a tree, and a spotted owl stuffed sufficiently deep into a place where the sun doesn’t shine captioned, “the proper way to spike a tree.” Earth First!’s involvement in the spotted owl controversy was minimal however, limited primarily to expressing staunchly pro conservationist and preservationist opinions. The lion’s share of the actual lobbying was carried out by mainstream environmental nonprofits.
Environmentalists did hail the potential recommendations as promising, because what else could they do? The scientific evidence was indisputable, and it was not just a matter of the owl itself, as the much maligned bird was an indicator species, which meant that if the owl was in danger of extinction, it signaled that perhaps hundreds if not thousands of other species that depended on intact forest ecosystems were likewise endangered. “Of course we’re delighted with the findings of this panel…but it really just confirms most of the information that we’ve known and the government’s known for nearly ten years,” said Andy Kerr of the Oregon National Resources Council. Brock Evans, Vice President of the National Audubon Society declared, “We are now confident that the Spotted Owl will be listed as an endangered species. Then the real question will be whether or not Congress will allow Senators Hatfield and Adams to subvert the findings of these scientists and the endangered species act as well.”[86] California Ancient Forest Alliance attorney David Edelson called the Report, “an essential first step…allowing continued logging within key habitat areas can only be described as irresponsible.”[87]
USFS officials of the Siuslaw National Forest in western Oregon decided to remove all traces of the iconic “Woodsy Owl” (in fact, a caricature of a Great Horned Owl, not the Northern Spotted Owl, which the former consumes as part of its prey, due to the loss of forest habitat), that serves as the agency’s “anti-pollution” spokes-symbol, even in school visits (when Woodsy would often accompany Smokey the Bear). This was done in reaction to the Jack-Ward Thomas Report, and no doubt due to the USFS cozy relationship with corporate timber. “We are concerned that people might think we were taking sides,” declared spokesman Norm Hesseldahl, “some folks might take offense at the notion of the Forest Service accompanying an owl figure right now.” That the evidence suggested that the USFS took sides all the time (the corporate side, naturally) apparently didn’t register with Hesseldahl. In any case, the decision was not at all well received by Oregon grade-school students who protested the decision (and no doubt raised the hackles of “Bill Bailey” types all over the state).[88] The general public, likewise, mostly favored protection for the owl, even in timber dependent states. For example, a poll conducted by the Seattle Times, in April 1990, showed that 52% of Washington residents favored a logging ban to protect Spotted Owl habitat, with only 38% opposed and an additional 10% undecided.[89]
One wonders what the poll numbers might have looked like if a little known study by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management study that suggested a series of measures to offset the potential jobs losses of timber workers hadn’t been suppressed by the White House. A May 1990 rough draft of the suppressed report included more than four dozen pages of practical recommendations, including an $86 million public works program, modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps of the Roosevelt New Deal, a universal ban on log exports, a tax on timber sales with the proceeds to be directly spent on timber dependent communities, extensive retraining programs, and money for road reclamation. In other words, the recommendations matched those proposed by the Redwood Summer coalition exactly, which almost certainly represented a radical break with current rapacious capitalist forest practices.[90]
The Spotted Owl wasn’t even a major factor in Redwood Summer, since most of the land being contested was privately owned, and the Jack-Ward Thomas report dealt with federally managed forests. Still, the timber industry, the media, and most right wing apologists for corporate forestry spared no opportunity to further the false dichotomy between “jobs” and “owls”.[91] There were a few exceptions, such as an April 13, 1990 editorial from the Crescent City Triplicate which was surprisingly moderate and called for a broader vision than scapegoating the owl for all of the problems created by years of bad (corporate) timber practices.[92] However many readers were not convinced. Colleen Luttrell specifically blamed Darrel (sic) Cherney for the results of the Jack-Ward Thomas Report.[93] Myrna Hoven and Alice Flash blamed Earth First! generally and accused it of equating all logging with raping the forest, even though local Earth First!ers had stated on numerous occasions that they were not.[94] Jeff Frome claimed that Spotted Owls could be found “everywhere” as if his anecdotal account, which couldn’t be independently verified somehow trumped peer reviewed science.[95] Similar opinions were expressed by Bernie LaBelle and Stave Langager.[96] The Jack-Ward Thomas Report, if nothing else, provided reactionaries with still one more reason to declare Earth First! public enemy number one.
Closer to home, in May, supporters of the Forests Forever Initiative had turned in 800,000 signatures (twice the minimum number needed to qualify) calling for the measure to be placed on the November ballot as Proposition 130.[97] In response, corporate timber interests, led by the Timber Association of California, drafted their own counter initiative, Proposition 138, called “The Global Warming and Clearcutting Reduction, Wildlife Protection and Reforestation Act,” which Forests Forever supporters nicknamed “Big Stump”.[98] That name, while derisive, was certainly appropriate, as the industry initiative was designed to hijack support for Forests Forever. Proposition 138 claimed to ban old-growth clearcutting, but in fact it defined “sustainable” logging as clearcutting all but one tree per acre (a de facto clear cut). It also provided no funds for old growth acquisition, locked in the currently weak logging rules, and allowed timber companies holding in excess of 5,000 one-time, permanent approval of massive logging plans that could include as much as 400,000 acres.[99] That provision created a major competitive disadvantage for small landowners, because they were not covered under this provision.[100] Not only was Proposition 138 an attempt to sabotage support for Proposition 130, it was an attempt to make an already bad situation much worse! As they had done in February, State Senator Keene and State Assemblyman Hauser attempted to claim the “moderate” position by ramming their own “compromise” legislation, SB 2201 through the California State Legislature, but, as the Sierra Club was quick to point out, their measure did nothing to increase protection for threatened ecosystems, let alone timber workers’ jobs.[101]
Not content with direct attacks, opponents of Proposition 130 resorted to subterfuge. Humboldt State University forestry professor and State Board of Forestry chairman Carlton Yee, whose pro corporate bias was well known admitted to signing false names to Proposition 128 (Big Green) and Proposition 130 in January. Such acts represent voter fraud and are, in fact, a felony, but Humboldt County D.A. Terry Farmer, who was quick to throw the book at Earth First!ers announced that he would file no charges against Yee, because he was convinced that the professor had been “making a joke”. Yee had indeed argued that his comments “were in jest” after the fallout that resulted after his flippant comments were publicized, but his original comments were offered as serious and effective tactics for opposing measures the industry didn’t like.[102] The corporate media, of course, ignored this story completely, but were very quick to claim that photographs of Judi Bari holding an Uzi which were actually intended as a joke represented serious proof of Earth First! “terrorism”. The corporate media, likewise, greatly sensationalized both the impending decision on the Spotted Owl and the Forests Forever initiative and inferred that both were the result of agitation by Earth First! (which was actually not the case).
Still another dirty trick used by corporate timber was their attempt to link Forests Forever to Earth First! in hopes that the guilt by association would serve to discredit both. These shenanigans represented such a blatant lie that even the Santa Rosa Press Democrat editors agreed it was out of line.[103] Although some of the authors of Proposition 130 had indirect links to Earth First!, such as Robert Sutherland of the Environmental Protection Information Center in Garberville which, on the legal front, worked in concert with Earth First!’s direct action campaigns (particularly on fighting Maxxam), for the most part it was drafted by mainstream environmentalists, many of whom considered Earth First!, “too radical”. Authors and organizers of the measure (for better or worse) petitioned the Secretary of State to remove language in the voter guide in the arguments opposing Proposition 130 that linked to Earth First!, and Darryl Cherney in particular[104], but the opponents of Forests Forever countersued in order to keep the language they had written intact.[105] Ultimately the supporters of Proposition 130 prevailed, at least on paper[106], but as far as opponents of Proposition 130 were concerned, it was “the Earth First! initiative,” and they repeated this lie incessantly until it became considered to be common knowledge.[107] Such negative and misleading propaganda could explain the twisted reasoning expressed by some of its opponents, including retired Fort Bragg logger Alan Thornstrom, who argued in a letter to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat[108], that clear cuts were “God’s will” and other such nonsensical notions which were so absurd, that they drew a response from a fellow reader rebutting each point, by point.[109]
As if this weren’t enough, the Mendocino County FAC’s recommendations were hotly debated before the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in a very tense and raucous meeting (which seemed to be becoming the rule, rather than the exception in those days) on June 19, 1990. This was due, in no small part, to the fact that practically the entire committee appeared, and that the minority deemed it necessary to give their dissenting views supporting the status quo, despite the 11 to 6 majority in favor of change. FAC chairman Wayne Miller dourly read the majority’s recommendations, as was his duty, though he clearly disagreed with them. Even though the minority admitted that G-P and L-P stubbornly refused to submit their figures on timber inventory and harvesting, they held fast to their position that the current, self destructive path was somehow better than the majority’s sober estimates. After submitting the report, Board Chair Jim Eddie, the Board’s moderate swing vote, queried fellow minority member Pete Passoff, who was seated next to Miller, on his opinion, knowing the both he and Miller opposed the FAC’s majority recommendations. Passof responded with a politician like comment about how the committee should be proud to be the first formal group to address the issue of sustained yield before a governing body,[110] either forgetting or omitting that many groups, including Earth First! and IWW Local #1, the Greens, various watershed associations, and various residents had already done so, which was part of the reason why the FAC had been created in the first place. In his speech, Passof also omitted the inconvenient fact that the minority had engaged in outright subterfuge by appearing before the Board the previous week to express their side unannounced, a move that the Supervisors had rebuked.[111]
Don Nelson, now unquestioningly representing timber management far more in fact than he ever represented timber workers repeated his unscientific and wholly unproven claims that the FACs recommendations would destroy the local timber economy, that the majority had a hidden agenda (namely serving as a front group for the Forests Forever initiative and Redwood Summer), and that timber workers were an endangered species (which was partially true, except that it was the employers who were their biggest threat rather than environmentalists).[112] After months of nonstop browbeating and corporate drumbeating by Don Nelson, Supervisors Norm DeVall and Liz Henry, the Board’s progressive minority, had finally reached their limit. Each excoriated Nelson for his lack of leadership and his hyperbolic rhetoric.[113] The minority continued to insist that their position dealt with sustainability, because they opposed “unmerging” (which actually meant subdividing the land for sale, most likely to real estate speculators) by the industry, but Walter Smith pointed out that this was not sufficient, because over harvesting (which the minority report ignored, as if it didn’t exist) and un-merging were part of the same process and one couldn’t be addressed without the other. Majority member (and constant thorn in Don Nelson’s side) Eric Swanson reminded everyone that the FAC’s data clearly showed that over-harvesting was a serious problem and that the status quo would result in permanent job losses at least equal to as many as the maximum potential temporary job losses that might result were the FAC’s recommendations implemented.[114]
A coastal resident and photographer then provided visual evidence of overharvesting, in particular a photograph of twenty acre G-P clearcut taken two weeks earlier. Even though one logging contractor in the audience, clearly in support of the minority’s position, derisively muttered “here come the pictures,” implicitly arguing one of the industry’s talking points, that clearcuts “look a lot worse than they are, and opposition to them was purely an emotional—as if to say unscientific—reaction to them,” he couldn’t ignore the scientific fact that such clearcuts would not be logged again, if the land recovered in any case, in his or anyone else in the room’s lifetime. This was indeed a tough act for a supporter of the minority’s position, and indeed Mike Anderson had a tough go of it:
“Anderson claimed that the Committee was not representative, hasn’t addressed economic or employment aspects of the problem, that the County needed a more ‘middle-of-the-road’ approach, that approval of the emergency recommendations would ‘fan the fires’ (that’s ‘fan the flames,’ Mike) for the Forests Forever initiative. Anderson conceded that ‘sentiment’ seemed to changing toward some sort of change, but he was short on specifics. In any event, Supervisor Eddie, pointing to the horrifying picture, asked Anderson ‘Is this good forestry?’ Anderson’s reply, that part of it which was audible, was incoherent. Finally, he said, ‘If you want a horse to turn, it’s better to hold up a carrot than shoot it in the head. Eddie: ‘You mean we’re shooting the timber industry in the head?’” [115]
However, Fellow Gyppo logger Walter Smith made it clear that Anderson’s statements were little more than empty rhetoric:
“(Anderson) never once talked about the issues: the overcutting and what that meant and how we were going to change it. No, it was people from outside, people the Board picked weren’t representative, etc., but he never once talked about the issue of overcutting. I think it’s just fear: I think they just don’t want to talk against the corporations.”[116]
Bill Bailey followed Anderson and offered similar opinions, and then “veered off” on a wild tangent about Redwood Summer, Forests Forever, and “guns being aimed at us from all directions.” Naomi Wagner quickly rebuked Bailey, arguing that the bombing of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney showed who the real violent extremists were and that FAC’s recommendations were based on the long term economic considerations that a healthy timber economy required healthy forests. Boonville resident Chris Tebbutt rebutted the minority’s statements that the recommendations were “not radical”, had not been written by “unqualified outsiders” and in fact, did represent a compromise position, because they allowed overharvesting for the five year transitional phase out.[117]
G-P Spokesperson Alan Oberkfeld spoke up in favor of the minority’s position and defended G-P’s (and presumably L-P’s) refusal to share its inventory and harvesting data, since such figures were “proprietary”,[118] thus repeating the tired old cliché that “private property” was sacred beyond all matters, including the survival of life on Earth. (Evidently G-P’s commitment to “private property” only extended as far as it benefitted their bottom line, however. Just over a year Fort Bragg plant manager Don Whitman and plant nurse Dian Huagg were caught, by their respective spouses, in the act of sexual intercourse on a company camping trip, showing that the company’s arrogance extended to all sorts of improprieties.)[119] Oberkfeld did concede that changes were necessary, but offered no specifics. When challenged on this point by Supervisor Henry, Oberkfeld could only respond by complaining that the majority had ignored G-P’s offer of “voluntary restrictions”, which—as anyone with an ounce of horse sense knows—don’t amount to a hill of beans, simply because the logic of capitalism is short term profit maximization. A corporation would no sooner “volunteer” to reduce its profit margin (and certainly the shareholders would never allow it) than a mill worker would voluntarily volunteer to put their hand on a live band saw. The G-P spokesperson argued that “there had to be compromise from the other side before G-P compromised,” disdainful of the fact that the majority’s recommendations were such a compromise, as pointed out by Christ Tebutt.[120]
Oberkfeld was followed by several more speakers, including Karen Smith, Walter Smith’s spouse, who passionately argued in favor of the FAC’s recommendations, and gyppo logger Phil Schuster, who argued against them. Finally, the Supervisors deliberated. Liz Henry, whose liberal sensibilities had led her to seek “middle ground” between the industry and its critics, exploded:
She said she resented the implication that the Board was somehow a threat to the industry. She pointed out that the industry’s overcutting was clearly the cause of the present problems. She also resented the implication that the Board didn’t care about the workers and is disappointed that the workers had rejected potential allies in the struggle to save the industry. The community was looking for leadership, she said, which it isn’t getting from people like Don Nelson, for example. She scolded Nelson for not suggesting any solutions to the situation. Instead, Henry said, Nelson seems to be doing nothing and hoping for the best. Henry concluded by saying that her criticism of the workers might be political suicide, but that she “took the job to do the right thing.” This impassioned declaration of political independence deservedly drew a round of applause from the audience.[121]
The Board concluded by voting 3-2 to forward the FAC’s recommendations to the California State Board of Forestry, reactionary Supervisors Butcher and Redding representing the dissenting votes, naturally. For all of the handwringing done by the minority, however, they needn’t have worried, because the State agency would take at least six to twelve months to even address the issue, let alone act upon it.[122] However, Don Nelson once again took the opportunity to play the martyr, accusing Supervisors Henry and DeVall of “personal attacks”, and dismissing the notion that he was now little more than a spokesperson for corporate interests as incredulous, because the minority report had been drafted by Mike Anderson, Jim Little (of Harwood Forest Products), and Phil Schuster. Nelson dismissed the influence of Sweeley and Oberkfeld as incidental, forgetting of course, as Walter Smith had pointed out, that Anderson “does 100% of his work for Georgia-Pacific”. He suggested that because Doug Bosco, Barry Keene, and Dan Hauser had praised the minority report (as if they weren’t themselves now completely in the sway of corporate timber), that this somehow legitimized it, even though it had been voted down. He dismissed the FAC’s final recommendations as “a limp dishrag of a proposal”. Nelson even lambasted DeVall and Henry for suggesting that the IWA may not be up to the task of effectively representing workers (which it clearly wasn’t), and sneeringly asked who else could do it, specifically, “the IWW, I suppose?”, most likely out of resentment over the fact that the IWW had done exactly that even within his own proverbial house.[123]
Fed up with the labor fakir’s constant manipulation of the facts, Bruce Anderson, never one to hold back in any instance, responded to Nelson, albeit crudely, but evidently in the only manner that Nelson could understand at this point, saying:
(Mike) Anderson and Schuster…are rich kids who inherited lucrative logging businesses. Forced to rely entirely on their natural endowment for survival in the capitalist crap shoot, both Anderson and Schuster would be permanent campers in the welfare line. Sweeley is an evil-faced old corporate fartwhore and Oberkfield is his illegitimate son. And you and Bowsker (Bosco, Hauser, Keene)? With friends like all of you, the workers are screwed.[124]
Anna Marie Stenberg’s son and fellow IWW member Zack Stenz was no less fed up, denouncing Nelson’s statements as “one of the most disgusting displays of hypocrisy that (he) had ever had the misfortune to read,” and added:
“This is the same Don Nelson who presided over the disbanding of Georgia-Pacific’s woods division, the slashing of mill wages by 25%, and the 300% overcut of our county’s forests. Nelson claims that he has been fighting the overcut since 1973. If this is true, perhaps he should consider another line of work, since a quick look at timber harvest statistics shows us that he has been a complete failure in preventing the depletion of our forest resources.
“Instead, Nelson seems happier singing the praises of Georgia-Pacific while laying the blame for corporate greed and incompetence on the doorstep of environmentalists, helping to create a lynch mob atmosphere toward those who dare to speak out against the corporate rape of our community.
“In effect, Nelson is worse than industry spokesmen like Shep Tucker. At least Tucker gets his pay-check from L-P. Nelson is being paid by the workers to act as a mouthpiece for the company. Instead of offering leadership and vision in these troubled times, all Nelson does is serve his workers the poison Kool-Aid of devastated forests and economic extinction.”[125]
It certainly didn’t help Don Nelson’s case when his primary defenders included the likes of L.P. spokesperson Joe Wheeler, whose association with the biggest timber workers’ union buster in existence made a strange pairing with a supposed union official indeed.[126] Nelson removed all trace of doubt, however, that his connections to timber management were anything but deliberate by becoming one of the primary spokespeople of the Yellow Ribbon forces[127] who had deliberately crossed union picket lines in the Roseburg Forest Product’s strike two years previously.[128] In any case, actual timber workers were much more in tune with reality, such as William J Ray, who stated:
“The reforestation, renewable resource propaganda proves the big lie, Seedlings survive in a diverse forest, not a wasteland. “Harvesting” redwoods every 20 years will be a trick, since they don’t bear cones until they’re 25. Big timber will cut, chip, and burn, then prey on greener hills…
“Thus, Eureka has a 35 percent cancer rate among its women teachers and you can smell the pulp mill for miles. Thus, Northern California is in its fourth year of drought and old-timers could tell you the week in the fall when the rains would come…
“Of course big timber paves its pillage and gets away with lies. Scapegoating the environmentalists and panicking the millworkers to keep them docile seems about what you’d expect…
“The millworkers and gyppos (subcontractors) who still bear illusions of pride in their dangerous work, have simply been bought oft with smaller amounts of cash. A faller I talked to predicted three years as the outside guess. Then LP will be devastating in east Texas and western Louisiana. We’ll inherit a graveyard for our children.
“A moratorium on cutting in the Northwest, with extended unemployment benefits and retraining for the workers would be the logical approach. But that presupposes that somebody up there has vision. Instead blind selfishness is riding the crest of the wave, accelerated by corporate criminality over the past decade or so…
“All other nations that destroyed their forests have declined and brought political cataclysms upon themselves. I hope the populist mood in the country makes us the exception. The demonstrations against big timber are positive steps in that direction.[129]
Similar thoughts were expressed by Andy Colonna:
“A chilling fact underlies “Redwood Summer”:
“Timber production in Humboldt County has steadily increased since the mid ‘80s while timber jobs have leveled off.
“Raw log exports from Eureka tripled between 1987 and ‘88. Automation is increasing, but lumber jobs lost to new machines are not being replaced within the industry. At the same time, Louisiana-Pacific and Maxxam report record profits and their earnings per share have skyrocketed. L-P’s more than doubled between ‘86 and ‘89. Maxxam’s went up by more than 64 times between ‘87 and ‘89 alone!
“Even if Earth First! disappeared tomorrow, could it be that the spotted owl has provided the big timber companies with a convenient diversion while they cry all the way to the bank?…
“Our heads can deny what our stomachs know is true: Timber industry captains from Wall Street, Houston, Portland, and Tokyo care about us only as “units of production,” and they will leave us to bicker with each other while waiting for the trees to grow back as they move on to the greener forests of Ecuador and Brazil.”[130]
Dean Stephens, himself no stranger to logging, took Thomas Loop in particular to task, asking,
“(W)ho is really responsible for this condition? I don’t believe it is the loggers or woodworkers. But do you think you can keep taking trees with the method of strip-mining without responsible people becoming alarmed by what they know is a necessary part of our environment—the only place we have to live.
“I know you are only doing what you know how to do to make a living, but if you were just making a living, the huge salaries and profits made by the two largest lumber corporations in the world would be more in balance with the rest of life on this planet…
“When I observe this folly, I realize and you should even more than I, that you are getting down to the dregs. At this rate, you will be cutting four inch redwood suckers before your children get into the woods, let alone your grandchildren…
“So what do you expect? Do you really believe everyone should be as short-sighted as you are and turn a blind eye to what has now become the changing of the climate of the planet by a few guys, a chain saw, your big machines, and big profits for the rich who think they are insulated from the real world.
“Let us face it, you are a victim of your extinction and now you are going through the dying quivers. Folks aren’t going to let you get your back teeth into the tiny amount of old growth that is left so maybe you had better take care of what you do have left.”[131]
No doubt the harsh realities of the diminishing supply of timber in the county even explained the motivation of gyppos like Mike Anderson, who, according to Walter Smith:
“(D)oes 100% of his work for Georgia-Pacific…They call us outside agitators, but here’s a group that’s come in and made jelly out of people who were, at one point, real spokesmen for our industry, shipping the profits out, holding their thumb on us. We’re talking about a free society, and in this free society, Philbrick, Anderson and I can’t sit down publicly and talk about the real issues, about how L-P and G-P are ruining our communities, because they’re going to get the axe if they do. In Romania they just shoot you, but in Mendocino County, they starve you to death.”[132]
Naomi Wagner expressed similar sentiments, clearly identifying the economic stranglehold the corporations held on the county as the prime motivator for the gyppos’ actions:
“(T)he Andersons, and the Philbricks and the Roaches of this world are between a rock and a hard place whether by choice or otherwise. They’ve been in the business for many years; and it’s come to this. Where the LTOs take all the risk, they take all the responsibility, they pay all the Workman’s Comp; and they have all the equipment. And they do, to a certain extent, have their workers’ interests at heart. They don’t want their workers to get hurt, and they don’t want their workers to be unemployed.
“I’ve been told, ‘Yeah, we could cut back 20%, 30% or more—if we knew what was coming. We could make our adjustments on our tax structure; we could sell off our old equipment. We could handle it.’ You see, they’re used to that fluctuation. You could have a bad year just because of the weather.
“I don’t find the LTOs to be nearly as recalcitrant as people might think. I think they want to live here. They want to raise their kids here. And they would like to be able to keep working in forestry. But, I think they are basically being exploited and intimidated just like the rest of us whether they want to admit it or not.
“I think there is an element of exploitation here, where the company has divested itself of all responsibility. It doesn’t make a dent in the company’s bottom line if the LTOs have to pay more for equipment, or losses, or are slapped with violations in the field because they have had to cut comers to make their contracts.”[133]
Certainly, Redwood Summer organizers and gyppos could dialog, and folks “in the middle” could attempt to keep tempers cooled, but they could not change reality nor could they convince the real extremists, such as Don Nelson, Candace and John Boak, Thomas Loop, or Mike Anderson to the table. And getting the politicians and corporations to see the light of reason? One may as well have attempted to sprout wings and fly; it wasn’t going to happen. Like it or not, Redwood Summer was going to happen, and no doubt, the forces of reaction would attempt to neutralize its effects. No matter how one tried, one could not stop a war (particularly a class war) once the battles had begun. The first shot had been fired long before anyone had thought to seek “Middle Ground.”
Notes:
[1] “Some People Just Don’t Get It”, Judi Bari interviewed by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 13, 1990.
[2] “Several Local Groups Build Coalitions With Outside Activists”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[3] “An Interview With Redwood Summer Strategist and EF! Musician Darryl Cherney”, by Sharon Seidenstein, Ecology Center Newsletter, October 1990; and “1990: A Year in the Life of Earth First!”, by Judi Bari, Anderson Valley Advertiser, January 2, 1991.
[4] “Redwood Summer Timeline”, by Karen Pickett, Earth First! Journal, Samhain / November 1, 1990; and Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, various issues from June 1, 1990 – October 1. 1990.
[5] “An Interview With Kelpie Wilson”, by Sharon Seidenstien, Ecology Center Newsletter, October 1990.
[6] “Redwood Summer Timeline”, by Karen Pickett, Earth First! Journal, Samhain / November 1, 1990; and Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, various issues from June 1, 1990 – October 1. 1990.
[7] “An Interview With Kelpie Wilson”, by Sharon Seidenstien, Ecology Center Newsletter, October 1990.
[8] “Redwood Summer Base Camp Established”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, June 15, 1990.
[9] “Redwood Summer Goes On!”, by Karen Pickett and Woody Joe, Earth First! Journal, Litha / June 21, 1990.
[10] “Eco Center is Focal Point for Training in Nonviolence”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[11] “Redwood Summer Base Camp Established”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, June 15, 1990.
[12] “Eco Center is Focal Point for Training in Nonviolence”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[13] “Redwood Summer Base Camp Established”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, June 15, 1990.
[14] “G-P Mill on Redwood Summer Agenda: No Plant Blockade Planned, Activist Says”, by Judy Nichols, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[15] “Wobblies Needed in Northern California: An Interview with Anna Marie Stenberg”, by Bart Williams, Industrial Worker, July 1990.
[16] “Eco Center is Focal Point for Training in Nonviolence”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[17] “Redwood Summer Base Camp Established”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, June 15, 1990.
[18] “Silent Loggers”, letter to the editor by Barbara Harwood, North Coast News, June 7, 1990 and Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 7, 1990.
[19] “Tough Words from a Timber Man”, by Woody W. Pecker, Country Activist, June 1990.
[20] “Media Hype”, letter to the editor by Elmer Pitts, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 1, 1990.
[21] “Bay Area’s KPIX Uses Poor Judgment”, editorial by Glenn Simmons, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, June 14, 1990. Just to make it clear how biased and uninformed Simmons and his right wing ilk were, this same issue carried a guest editorial by Clemson University Professor of Economics, Russell Shannon, claiming that author Mark Twain, a self described democratic socialist, who once said, “Who are the oppressors? The few: the King, the capitalist (emphasis added), and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat” was actually a staunch adherent to laissez-fair capitalism!
[22] “Issues, Not Images”, letter to the editor, by Jack Newman, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 1, 1990.
[23] “Redwood Summer Base Camp Established”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, June 15, 1990.
[24] “G-P Mill on Redwood Summer Agenda: No Plant Blockade Planned, Activist Says”, by Judy Nichols, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[25] “Welcome to Redwood Summer”, by Ruthanne Cecil and Bob Martel, Country Activist, June 1990.
[26] “Several Local Groups Build Coalitions With Outside Activists”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[27] “Several Local Groups Build Coalitions With Outside Activists”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[28] “Several Local Groups Build Coalitions With Outside Activists”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[29] “The Reinhabitant’s Perspective: Naomi Wagner”, interview by Beth Bosk, New Settler Interview, #51, August 1990.
[30] “Several Local Groups Build Coalitions With Outside Activists”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[31] “Eco Center is Focal Point for Training in Nonviolence”, by Gayle Caldwell, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[32] “Real Motives”, letter to the editor, by Chester M. Gillis, Willits News, June 6, 1990.
[33] "North Coast Dictionary" letter to the editor by Roy Hennock, Eureka Times-Standard, April 14, 1990.
[34] “Earth First! Tactics”, letter to the editor, by Betty Matthews, Ukiah Daily Journal, June 30, 1990.
[35] “Earth First! Actions Scored”, letter to the editor by Sarah Asp and Yvonne Lyman, Eureka Times-Standard, June 19, 1990.
[36] “Redwoods, Not Pot”, letter to the editor by B. Stewart, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 18, 1990.
[37] “Bari PD Employee?”, letter to the editor by H. M. Eichstadt, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 3, 1990.
[38] “Creating Problems”, letter to the editor by Jakee Allen and 27 others, Ukiah Daily Journal, June 13, 1990 and Willits News, June 13, 1990.
[39] “Support for Timber”, letter to the editor by Phyllis Flockton, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 10, 1990.
[40] “Dear Shit Fer Brains!”, letter to the editor by “A Taxpayer from Woodsey County”, Earth First! Journal, Lughnasadh / August 1, 1990.
[41] “Timber Realities”, letter to the editor by M. Brown, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 13, 1990.
[42] “Rolaids Capitol”, letter to the editor, by Donald J. Harris, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 11, 1990.
[43] “Timber Culprit”, letter to the editor by Douglas J Taylor, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 5, 1990. Taylor was a timber worker himself.
[44] “Old Growth Myth”, letter to the editor by J Torres, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 28, 1990.
[45] “Statement from the International Indian Treaty Council”, by Karl G, Erb, Redwood Summer Earth First! Extra, July 1990.
[46] “Earth First!ers, Loggers Sign Nonviolence Pact”, by Will Behr, Ukiah Daily Journal, May 31, 1990.
[47] “The Laytonville Pact”, statement agreed to in Willits, California by Art Harwood, et. al.
[48] “The Reinhabitant’s Perspective: Naomi Wagner”, interview by Beth Bosk, New Settler Interview, #51, August 1990.
[49] “The Reinhabitant’s Perspective: Naomi Wagner”, interview by Beth Bosk, New Settler Interview, #51, August 1990.
[50] “Agreement Reached Between Timber and Activists”, staff report, Willits News, June 1, 1990.
[51] “The Reinhabitant’s Perspective: Naomi Wagner”, interview by Beth Bosk, New Settler Interview, #51, August 1990.
[52] “Agreement Reached Between Timber and Activists”, staff report, Willits News, June 1, 1990.
[53] “Logging Family Plays Peacemaker Role”, by George Snyder, San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 1990.
[54] “Redwood Summer Erupts in Violence”, by Sidney Dominitz, EcoNews, June 1990.
[55] “Redwood Summer Has Begun”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, June 15, 1990.
[56] “Redwood Summer Has Begun”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, June 15, 1990.
[57] “A Logger’s Plea”, guest editorial by Bill Bailey, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 29, 1990. It’s ironic that Bailey could be taken seriously as “a logger” when in fact he was a logging equipment wholesaler and retailer.
[58] “Towards a Common Ground”, editorial by Bob Martel, Country Activist, June 1990.
[59] “Protests Prompt Community Action”, by Leslie Weiss, The Lumberjack, August 29, 1990.
[60] “Editorial: Get Real”, by Bob Martel, Country Acivist, September 1990.
[61] “Middle Ground Developing”, press release, Country Activist, June 1990.
[62] “Media Release”, June 18, 1990, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.
[63] "Statement of Diocese", Roman Catholic Diocese of Santa Rosa Office of Peace and Justice; Rev. Gary Timms, Director; Rev. Robert Blake, Eureka, Country Activist, June 1990.
[64] “A Right and a Left make a Middle”, by Dan Banducci, EcoNews, July 1990.
[65] “Notes from the Middle Ground”, by James Scothorn, EcoNews, August 1990.
[66] See for example, “Poll: Majority High on Conservation; Down on Extremism”, by Bleys W. Rose, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 3, 1990.
[67] “Notebook: A History Test for Residents of North Coast”, by Gaye LeBaron, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 1, 1990.
[68] “Notebook: Sam Guides us Through Summer”, by Gaye LeBaron, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 26, 1990.
[69] “Towards a Common Ground”, editorial by Bob Martel, Country Activist, June 1990.
[70] “Where We Stand: L-P Statement of Principles on ‘Mississippi Summer” Demonstrations”, Joe Wheeler, paid advertisement, featured in various publications, notably Eureka Times-Standard, June 17, 1990.
[71] “Towards a Common Ground”, editorial by Bob Martel, Country Activist, June 1990.
[72] “Humboldt Area Sizzles Over ‘Redwood Summer’; Tension High for Anti-Logging Protests, by Elliot Diringer and George Synder, San Francisco Chronicle, June 1, 1990.
[73] “County Unlikely to See Protests”, staff report, Crescent City Triplicate, June 27, 1990.
[74] “Forest Service Driving Owl to Extinction”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, May 1990.
[75] “Scientists Say Owl Will Go Extinct Unless Logging Curtailed”, by Jeffrey St Claire, Earth First! Journal, Litha / June 21, 1990.
[76] “Forest Service Driving Owl to Extinction”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, May 1990.
[77] “Forest Service Driving Owl to Extinction”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, May 1990.
[78] “Scientists Say Owl Will Go Extinct Unless Logging Curtailed”, by Jeffrey St Claire, Earth First! Journal, Litha / June 21, 1990.
[79] “June 23: Owl Decision Due”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, June 1990.
[80] “Forest Service Driving Owl to Extinction”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, May 1990.
[81] “June 23: Owl Decision Due”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, June 1990.
[82] “Forest Service Driving Owl to Extinction”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, May 1990.
[83] “June 23: Owl Decision Due”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, June 1990.
[84] “Forest Service Driving Owl to Extinction”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, May 1990.
[85] “Dateline: California 1995”, letter to the editor, by Thomas Loop, Willits News, August 1, 1990.
[86] “Scientists Say Owl Will Go Extinct Unless Logging Curtailed”, by Jeffrey St Claire, Earth First! Journal, Litha / June 21, 1990.
[87] “June 23: Owl Decision Due”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, June 1990.
[88] “Bye Bye Woodsy?”, by Jeffrey St. Claire, Earth First! Journal, Litha / June 21, 1990.
[89] “Forest Service Driving Owl to Extinction”, by Tim Mckay, EcoNews, May 1990.
[90] “Actions the Administration May Wish to Consider in Implementing a Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl, by the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, unpublished and referenced in the Eugene Register-Guard, May 4, 1991 and also Foster, John Bellamy, op. cit.
[91] See for example, “‘Stark’ Choice Between Owls, People, Forest Group Says” AP, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 6, 1990; “In 6 Rivers Forest: Owl Study to Cut Logging”, by Andrew W Oppmann Jr. and “Future of Timber Industry in Doubt”, by Jim Yarbaugh, Crescent City Triplicate, April 11, 1990; “Saving Owl Called Disaster for Families: Report Predicts Community Ruin”, AP, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, May 5, 1990; “Owl to Slash Local Timber Supply”, by Andrew W Oppmann Jr., Crescent City Triplicate, May 9, 1990; “New Timber Methods Attacked”, by Clyde Weiss, Ukiah Daily Journal, May 14, 1990; Study by Forest Service, BLM Estimates Economic, Social Impact of Owl Listing”, by Rebecca Lloyd, Trinity Journal, May 16, 1990; “Owl Strategy May Mean Job Losses”, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, May 17, 1990; “Big Flap Over Owl ‘Decision’“, AP, Ukiah Daily Journal, May 18, 1990; “Bush to Consider Jobs Before Owls”, By Rita Beamish, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, May 21, 1990; “Oregon Unemployment May Increase 22 Percent”, AP, Ukiah Daily Journal, June 4, 1990; and “Saving Many Threatened Species Could Only Escalate Timber Wars”, AP, Ukiah Daily Journal, June 20, 1990. These are but a sample of such articles. The entire scope of the debate over the Northern Spotted Owl is much broader and well beyond the scope of this book.
[92] “Owl Debate”, editorial by the Crescent City Triplicate, April 13, 1990.
[93] “Get Angry”, letter to the editor, by Colleen Luttrell, Crescent City Triplicate, May 2, 1990.
[94] “People are Important”, letter to the editor, by Myrna Hoven and Alice Flash, Ukiah Daily Journal, May 28, 1990.
[95] "Spotted Owls Found Everywhere", letter to the editor by Jeff Frome, Eureka Times-Standard, September 1, 1990
[96] "Highway Bridges and Key-Key Birds", letter to the editor by Bernie LaBell and "Owl Comes Near Site of Barbecue", letter to the editor by Steve Langager, Eureka Times-Standard, September 4, 1990.
[97] “Forests Forever”, by Marilyn Sterling, EcoNewsI, June 1990.
[98] “Yet Another Forestry Solution”, by Andy Alm, EcoNews, June 1990 and “Taking the Initiative”, by Tim McKay, EcoNews, July 1990.
[99] “Yet Another Forestry Solution”, by Andy Alm, EcoNews, June 1990.
[100] “Taking the Initiative”, by Tim McKay, EcoNews, July 1990.
[101] “Yet Another Forestry Solution”, by Andy Alm, EcoNews, June 1990.
[102] “Just a Joke, so Yee is Free”, EcoNews, June 1990.
[103] “Guilt by Association”, editorial, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 26, 1990.
[104] “Ballot Language Fight Heats Up: Timber Industry Goes to Court”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 25, 1990.
[105] “Timber Industry Sues Earth First! to Link it With Prop. 130, AP Wire, Ukiah Daily Journal, July 26, 1990.
[106] “Earth First! Link Cut to Forest ballot Issue”, AP Wire, Ukiah Daily Journal, July 24, 1990.
[107] “Forest Forever and the EF! Connection?”, by Ron Glick, Country Activist, August 1990.
[108] “Forest Initiatives are Not the Answer”, letter to the editor by Alan Thornstrom, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, May 23, 1990.
[109] “God’s Plan?” letter to the editor, by Louis E. Webb, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, May 30, 1990.
[110] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[111] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 27, 1990.
[112] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[113] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 27, 1990.
[114] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[115] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[116] “A Logger Speaks Out – An Interview with Walter Smith”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, July 4, 1990.
[117] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[118] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[119] “G-P / Fort Bragg Scandal in the Making”, open letter to Marshall Hahn, et. al., by “A concerned long-time employee of G-P”, reprinted in the Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 7, 1991. This letter was also sent to the Fort Bragg Advocate News, North Coast News, Mendocino Beacon, and the Mendocino Commentary.
[120] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[121] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[122] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[123] Letter to the editor by Don Nelson, sent to various publications, including Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 27, 1990 (“Snivel, Whine, Sob”); Mendocino Beacon, June 28, 1990 (“Hot With Supes’ Timber Stand”); Mendocino Commentary, June 28, 1990 (no title); and Ukiah Daily Journal, July 5, 1990 (“No Chance to Respond”)
[124] “Bruce Anderson’s Reply”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 27, 1990.
[125] Letter to the editor by Zack Stenz, sent to various publications, including Anderson Valley Advertiser, July 4, 1990 (“Lynch Mob Nelson”); Mendocino Beacon, July 5, 1990 (“Angry at Nelson”); and Mendocino Commentary, July 12, 1990.
[126] “Grandstanding Answered”, letter to the editor by Joe W Wheeler, Ukiah Daily Journal, June 23, 1990 (while this letter was in response to Bill Evan’s letter accusing Nelson of potentially bringing about another “Kent State” massacre, referenced two chapters earlier, it is still entirely relevant to the current discussion).
[127] “Loggers Take Organization Seriously at Rally”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, June 20, 1990.
[128] “Environmentalism and Labor: Bridging the Gap”, speech by Gene Lawhorn, given at the Public Interest Law Conference, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, March 4, 1990.
[129] “A Desert”, letter to the editor, by William J Ray, Willits News, July 18, 1990.
[130] “Timber Up, Jobs Down”, letter to the editor, by Andy Colonna, EcoNews, August 1990.
[131] “Response to Thomas Loop”, by Dean Stephens, Mendocino Commentary, July 12, 1990 and North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[132] “A Logger Speaks Out – An Interview with Walter Smith”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, July 4, 1990.
[133] “The Reinhabitant’s Perspective: Naomi Wagner”, interview by Beth Bosk, New Settler Interview, #51, August 1990.