Earth First! was known, at least among its followers, as one of the most creative and humorous environmental organizations (or movements) at the time of Redwood Summer. It followed in the traditions of the Yippies, Merry Pranksters, and the Wobblies of old. Its creativity and playfulness inspired others, sometimes those not directly connected with, or even desiring to be connected with Earth First! Yet, the diligence and persistence of Earth First!, particularly during Redwood Summer still robbed off on those not directly aligned or even in line with its militancy. Sometimes, the inspired took things one step further. On Saturday, August 18, 1990, loggers from the Point Arena based gyppo operation, L. D. Giacomini Enterprises prepared to enter a logging site on Greenwood Creek near the tiny coastal Mendocino County hamlet of Elk.[1] They had been contracted to conduct a shelterwood removal cut, as part of a greater THP that had been proposed as early as 1985 by Louisiana-Pacific, who owned the timberland there.[2] This particular cut was opposed by most of the residents of the Greenwood area as well as the town of Elk, and they had tried, unsuccessfully, for months to stop it.[3] When the crew reached the entrance to the logging site, they were greeted not by a ragged band of Earth First!ers chained to the gate, nor were they serenaded by Darryl Cherney singing a quickly and cleverly written song for just that occasion while picking on his ever-present guitar. This crew was met, instead, by more than two-dozen residents of Elk standing near several tables stacked high with pancakes, eggs, and pots of hot coffee. The startled and confused logging crew had never seen anything like this before. Elk resident and coach of the town’s little league baseball team, Gary Moran stepped forward and announced, “We’re not Earth First!; we’re Breakfast First!,” and invited the logging crew to partake of the food and drink spread out in front of them.[4]
The idea had no doubt been inspired by Earth First!, but also it humorously poked fun at the much exaggerated cultural divide, fostered primarily by the corporate media, that logging was being squeezed out by well-to-do effete yuppies who supported environmental causes (including Earth First!) with the ulterior motive of replacing industrial lumber production with a high end tourist economy, featuring coastal bed ‘n breakfast inns in particular. While there may have been a grain of truth in this notion, it was scarcely more than, and in the case of Elk, the actual history is that ironically, the presence of bed ‘n breakfasts at all had everything to do with logging to begin with. As it turns out, Elk had once been a mill town, and the sawmill had been its economic lifeblood. This changed in the 1960s after the local old growth redwood groves had been logged out. Elk had nearly become a ghost town, but as tourism increased on the coast, the town was reborn as a bed ‘n breakfast Mecca. Now, the economic lifeblood of the hamlet depended on another natural resource, in this case, clean water, which was provided by a well.[5] However, due to past erosion, the well was located precariously close to Greenwood Creek, less than twenty feet away, in fact, which meant that any attempt to log the area could utterly disrupt the town’s supply of fresh water. L-P’s THP called for logging on steep and unstable slopes one half mile upstream from the well, and quite possibly, such activity could release excessive amounts of silt into the stream.[6] A hard rain could wash large amounts of mud into the well, and the level of turbidity (cloudiness) of the water would then far exceed the stringent water quality standards required for drinking water.[7] If that happened, the town’s water district would have to implement more capital intensive water treatment measures or locate another clean, fresh water source, neither of which the tiny rural water district could afford.[8]
The controversy had been brewing since 1985. After hearing from the Mendocino County Water Control Quality Board, the Review Team for the CDF had approved the original THP, but only under the condition that in some areas, logs could not be removed by skidders and instead could only be yarded out up the steep hill. L-P decided that it wasn’t in their economic best interest to log the contested area at the time, although they did log the rest of the proposed cut. Recently, L-P had filed an amendment to their THP which allowed most trees greater than ten inches in diameter to be logged and removed by a tractor.[9] This did not sit well with the town’s residents whose livelihoods depended on the water, and once again, it showed that the logging corporations, who spent a great deal of money and spilled a great deal of ink excoriating environmentalists for interfering with the livelihoods of rural communities, cared nothing about it if it didn’t benefit their bottom line. In fact, few if anyone outside of the environmental community and local back-to-the-landers ever discussed the role healthy forests played in maintaining clean, fresh water at all.[10] Two more THPs were approved further upstream in the meantime, and in a nick of time, Elk residents formed the Greenwood Watershed Association to serve as an official body to review such plans.[11] Elk Water District representative Charles Akers described the issue in detail:
“None of the timber articles we’ve seen in the mainstream media lately mention the relationship between water and the forest. The forestry laws say that the use of the forest for timber products must be balanced with be beneficial uses of the water, but in the forestry practice, it seems, for the most part, that watershed protection is just another bothersome issue brought up by ‘crazed zealots with pet owls.’…
“(W)ithout the forest you have a desert, and in a desert, the water comes only in flash floods. Each tree cut beyond the regeneration rate is an incremental step towards desertification. The majority vote of the people will always support water protection because they are sick (literally) of the continued sacrifice of the water resources worldwide for the benefit of short-term profit and greed…
“Elk’s water is not going to cease flowing if more trees are cut. But there is a point where the cumulative impact of generations of forest abuse will be irreversible, and the steady, perhaps rapid, change of the climate (have you noticed?) will further impact our ability to provide enough quality water.”[12]
On May 21, 1990, more than fifty residents of Elk and the nearby rural environs attended a town meeting at its Community Center to discuss the implications of the impending cut. Mendocino County District 5 Supervisor Norman deVall, who happened to reside in Elk, and was sympathetic to the concerns of those who wished to prevent the cut, suggested that the community needed to present their views directly to the CDF Review Team, that was scheduled to meet a few days later. At least twenty Elk residents took deVall’s suggestion to heart and journeyed to Ukiah to meet with them. They brought video footage of Greenwood Creek after the previous cut, in 1985, with them, which showed the creek at that time which looked much more like a mud puddle than a healthy watercourse. Charles Akers made it very clear that opposition to the cut was not “some grabbing-at-straws attempt” to thwart logging for the sake of it, but that these were legitimate water quality issues that arose due to the nature of the terrain, and its proximity to the town well. The CDF Review Team did deny the cut, but did so on a technicality, which was that one of the adjacent landowners hadn’t been notified of the planned logging operation. Several residents who had attended the meeting felt that this was something of a paper tiger, because the Review Team had not actually considered the actual environmental issues at hand.[13] Furthermore, they approved two other cuts further upstream, which threatened the viability of the well almost as significantly.[14]
This group then approached the Elk County Water District and asked their board to enter as co-petitioner in a lawsuit against the CDF and L-P to try and halt all timber harvests along Greenwood Creek and its tributaries until they were sure that the logging would not threaten Elks precarious water supply. At a special meeting on July 11, 1990, the District voted unanimously to join the suit demanding a complete study of the watershed and the well before logging could go forward. Such a lawsuit was unique and unprecedented, and its outcome, either way, would have far-reaching effects on logging everywhere. All of a sudden, the tiny coastal hamlet of Elk was in the spotlight, and the attention brought to the issue by Redwood Summer, Forests Forever, and the Spotted Owl raised everyone’s awareness of the situation even further. Other watershed associations, environmental organizations, timber companies, and state agencies all turned their gaze to the tiny “bed ‘n breakfast” Mecca in expectation of the results of the suit. The Watershed Association was convinced that the THPs had been rubberstamped with minimal input from the state Department of Fish and Game and the Water Quality Control Board despite concerns the residents, the Elk Water Quality District, the Mendocino County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors had raised to the CDF. In a letter from the Watershed Association to the Water District Board, residents opined:
“Clearly, we cannot rely on the California Department of Forestry, or any other state agency, to ensure the health of our environment and our water system. By all accounts, they have not been doing their job—and it is our judgment that they only way to get proper attention paid to our concerns is to sue them.”[15]
On July 16, 1990, the Greenwood Watershed Association’s attorney, Susan Brandt-Hawley, filed the suit in Mendocino County Superior Court in Ukiah. Named petitioners in the suit included the Water District, the Watershed Association, a non-profit environmental group based in Elk, a group of property owners whose land stood adjacent to the proposed cut (Stewards for the Bandito), and Norm deVall.[16] The Supervisor, who entered the suit as a private citizen, declared, “This isn’t (primarily) a timber issue; it’s a water issue.”[17] Brandt-Hawley had experience in such matters having filed similar suits for other organizations to halt logging perceived as destructive, including along the Albion and Navarro Rivers which were still pending. Another suit she filed to halt logging near Schooner Gulch had succeeded.[18] The effort was at least partially successful, as Superior Court judge Eric Labowitz issued a two-week temporary restraining order against any timber harvesting by L-P on any of the three contested THPs, which stretched across 654 acres. A hearing on the temporary injunction was scheduled to take place on August 2, 1990.[19] However, the restraining order on the original plan was subsequently lifted.[20]
Thus, on the morning of April 18, L. D. Giacomini loggers found themselves confronted by a champagne breakfast, and fifty of Elk’s residents.[21] The blockade was part of a two-pronged strategy, the other prong being the Greenwood Watershed Association’s calling of an emergency meeting of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The befuddled logging crew was friendly, and at first declined the invitation to partake of the spread[22], but as it became clear that the residents were not going to leave the logging site, they indulged.[23] The logging crew and Elk residents cordially discussed and debated the issue while waiting for L-P company representatives to make an appearance.[24] The residents reiterated their concerns about the effect on logging to their local water supply and made it clear that they would call of their civil disobedience if L-P would agree to an emergency meeting with L-P, the Water Quality Control Board, a county hydrologist, a representative from the Elk Water Board, and Fifth District Supervisor Norm DeVall.[25] Giacomini foreman Pete Ancellotti expressed sympathy for the Elk residents, but argued that since the area was going to be logged, “better to let us do it, because we’ll do a good job. This crew is one of the best.”[26]
L-P did arrive in time, in the form of Lee Susan, who had already demonstrated his hot-headedness by attack Redwood Summer demonstrators with an axe handle the previous month at Osprey Grove. This day he drove his truck right up to the gate, skidded to a stop right in from of four women demonstrators, angrily exited from his truck, took a couple of photos of the scene, and rudely and nastily berated the Elk residents for their temerity.[27] Undaunted, the residents expressed their demands to Susan unflinchingly. “In the case of a town water system, there needs to be absolute guarantees of safety,” implored spokeswoman Mary Pjerrou. Susan “vigorously defended” the THP, arguing that all the appropriate agencies had extensively reviewed it and agreed that it met all existing standards. He further argued that L-P was aware of the well’s proximity to the cut and that the company had taken all of the necessary precautions to minimize any impact, including reducing the number of trees slated to be logged nearest to the creek as well as removing the harvested logs by way of a skyline cable yarder to limit soil erosion.[28] The townspeople were unconvinced, and in any case, the loggers had left. Shortly after that, sheriff’s deputies arrived and informed the townsfolk that no logging would take place that day.[29] While the creative protest had unfolded, Brandt-Hawley had argued the Greenwood Watershed Association’s case at a hearing for the other two proposed, adjacent THPs. The ruling on those plans would be made in week.[30]
Sunday, August 19, 1990 was uneventful. On Monday, however, Elk residents were back (this time without breakfast) and refused to step aside. Sheriff’s deputies in riot gear began arresting and handcuffing the assembled protesters, which included some of the nearby land owners.[31] Among those arrested were Greenwood School teacher Linda Aubrey; Gary Moran; local attorney, Polly Girvin; Mendocino Beacon columnist, Ron Bloomquist; Isabelle Petty, who owned an inn, store, and restaurant in Elk, and expressed concerns about the potential loss of business due to L-P’s strip-logging practices; 17-year-old Tatanka Russell, an avid fisherman who was concerned about a substantial decline in the salmon population in Greenwood Creek[32]; Mary Anthony; Vincent Carleton; Barbara Connelly; Deanne Crow; Kate Daugherty; Lewis Martin; and Carol Power. One demonstrator pointed out that the thirteen represented roughly 5% of the small town’s population.[33] The arrestees were cited and released a few hours later, but the logging crew proceeded with the cut.[34]
The next day, the residents were back determined to hold their ground. This time, L-P expressed its heavy handedness through their head of security, Jack Sweeley. Elk resident Barbara Connelly elaborated:
“On Tuesday, Sweeley, who sometimes appears to be a friendly old coot, gave the orders to tum on the heavy equipment that was facing the protesters at the site. It was a tense moment, without a single police officer present. (Quite a change from Monday when there appeared to be more officers than protesters). Supervisor deVall did a fine job, using the voice of authority, in stopping the machinery. Earlier that morning, Sweeley was trying desperately to make citizens’ arrests. Attorney Polly Girvin outsmarted Sweeley by asking legal questions regarding our rights to have police officers present for making arrests. Considering the intensity of the confrontation created by Sweeley, it was necessary to file assault charges against him for giving the orders to send the heavy equipment on through the crowd of protesters. Both Susan and Sweeley love creating tension and hostility between the loggers and the protesters. That’s the name of the game: divide and conquer.”[35]
Polly Girvin maintains that Sweeley ordered the logging trucks to drive through the residents’ blockade, even if it meant driving into the crowd.[36] Luckily, Supervisor De Vall—who was again present at the protest—managed to calm Sweeley down to the point where he backed off on his threat. When police did finally arrive, they threatened to transport any arrested demonstrators to Ukiah, which was two hours away.[37] Only four Elk volunteered and were arrested,[38] including one logger, Michael Ramone who, like the other townsfolk, was deeply concerned about the impending danger to the town’s water supply.[39] Louisiana-Pacific finally consented to allow locals in to look at the logging site, but this proved an empty gesture, as the company was actually trying to game the outcome by hand picking who it was they let in, hoping to choose those most favorable to the corporation’s perspective.[40] The entire Elk Water Board and Dennis Jackson, one of the county’s hydrologists, were refused access to the site by L-P, as was anyone critical of the cut.[41] Additionally they insisted the meeting take place on Tuesday, August 21 as opposed to the following day, which was the date requested by Supervisor de Vall.[42] Apart from L-P’s familiar heavy handedness, there were few confrontations during the three days of protests. Both the residents and the loggers remained peaceful, even friendly towards each other, and the arrests went smoothly. Elk residents credited Sergeant Miller and his team of deputies for setting a professional tone during the arrests along with Supervisor de Vall’s mediation efforts for maintaining an atmosphere of calmness and cordiality. The Supervisor, in turn, credited the residents cooperativeness for contributing to the smoothness of the process.[43] Said Barbara Connelly:
“The Greenwood Watershed Association wanted a town action and that’s what happened. I think what we did here is special because we are a little town standing up to a big corporation. Even the cops and the loggers seemed to admire us for exercising our rights in demanding L-P. take another look at how they are endangering local watersheds.
“Actually I’m tired of environmentalists being portrayed as some overly zealous eco-terrorists, the loggers as some gorilla-like cretins, and the cops like some mindless blind army of ants defending corporate America’s right to run their businesses in whatever terminally ill way they choose. I know the stereotypes ring true at times but in this case we are all just plain folk getting screwed over by large timber corporations with irresponsible logging practices that screw the workers, the people who live here, and the health of the planet upon which we and all future generations depend. The show must go on but we can’t do it divided, especially in a small town.”[44]
The residents chose to end their blockade after the sheriffs, escalating their response to the civil disobedience, threatened to hold arrestees in Ukiah overnight. The logging in the contested THp continued, but at a greatly reduced rate. Supervisor deVall tried, unsuccessfully, to get the California State WQCB to intervene, but the latter would not.[45] In the end, the efforts of the Elk residents proved successful, because three days after the last four demonstrators were arrested, Superior Court Justice James King issued a preliminary injunction against L-P’s attempt to log any more of the two more recent contested THPs. Residents dropped their suit against the third THP as it was already in the process of being logged. As detailed by North Coast News reporter Kevin Murphy:
“King cited concerns of a stream not adequately classified and the effects of logging on the natural fisheries of the Navarro River. He also asked that questions regarding the ade-quacy of the CDF’s cumulative impact analysis on both the Navarro and the Greenwood Creek water-sheds be answered in court.
“The California Department of Forestry had argued that granting the trial based on evidence not considered as part of the THP review process would ‘seriously undermine’ the CDF’s review of THPs. Bruce Klafter, deputy attorney general, argued for the CDF that the current review process ‘affords the public ample opportunities for input and participation.’
L-P characterized the concerns expressed by the petitioners as ‘speculative’ and ‘mere conjecture’ and argued that the corporation’s right to its property should not be restricted on such a basis.
“But King said the ‘question of whether the court may receive evidence outside the administrative record…is very much an open issue.’”[46]
Mary Pjerrou welcomed the ruling enthusiastically and hoped that the courts would force the CDF “to do what they should have done all along to protect (the town’s water),” which required a complete study of the watersheds. Pjerrou’s hopes were not wishful thinking, because one month later, L-P was ordered to halt all logging at Elk indefinitely.[47] Supervisor De Vall was particularly elated and while he had not been unsympathetic to Redwood Summer or other direct action efforts to preserve forestlands, he credited the series of events—particularly L-P’s heavy-handedness—with “radicalizing him”.[48] Mendocino County resident Esther Faber spoke favorably of the Fifth District Supervisor’s raised consciousness.[49] However, at least one other, William F. Smith, another self-claimed “Registered Professional Forester”, dismissed De Vall’s statements as “comical”, though this was accompanied by the usual litany of pro L-P talking points, including the absurd claim that L-P was not overcutting drastically in Mendocino County[50], a claim that would ultimately been proven false by the corporations own internal memos two years later.[51] The residents of Elk were clear that their protests were organized independently of Redwood Summer and Earth First!, and this was certainly true, but had it not been for latter, the residents might not have been emboldened to carry out their creative actions in the first place.[52] It is typically the role of the much maligned, so called radical “fringe” to set the pace for others to follow. The IWW had done so (and still does); Earth First! was doing so, and Redwood Summer was no exception.
Of course, the effort had its critics. Nancy Barth, who seemed to revel in penning sneering and dismissive columns in the North Coast News, summarized Breakfast First thusly:
“In the quaint hamlet of Elk, Supervisor Norman de Vall, bed ‘n breakfast inn owners and other Elkians blockaded a L-P logging road with an elitist champagne breakfast, a refreshing change from the serious, substance-free official Redwood Summer events. While Elk residents are demanding cumulative impact studies about the impacts of logging on water quality, they should also require studies about the cumulative impact of the proliferating bed-n breakfast industry on the town’s lone well.
“No matter what the style of protest, people are still demanding cheap and abundant forest products but objecting to the harvesting of trees.”[53]
The residents of Elk knew full well what the impact their cottage industries had on the well, and Barth’s comment about “cheap and abundant” trees implied that the people demanding them were the same people protesting their harvesting, which was generally not the case. Nowhere, of course, did Barth discuss the role of corporations as a distinct actor in the process.
In fact, on Wednesday, August 22, 1990, while the civil disobedience in Elk was wrapping up, Redwood Summer activists and locals entered the woods at Stewart’s Point to Skaggs Springs Road near Cazadero in northwestern Sonoma County to prevent logging by Louisiana Pacific. As in the case with Elk, the corporation’s THP was filed in a sensitive watershed that affected local water supplies, and locals, led by Helen Libeu and Larry Hansen had sued the CDF who approved the plan, arguing that the agency had ignored the cumulative impact of logging on the area, asking for a TRO.[54] Initially three groups of three activists each blockaded logging roads leading into the 336 acre THP. They then converged to block a fourth road. They stood their ground for about an hour despite extreme abuse from the loggers. No police were present, and thus no arrests took place.[55] Five days later, Sonoma County Judge Bettinelli in Santa Rosa granted the TRO. By this time, L-P was facing ten lawsuits on ten separate logging sites in Humboldt, Mendocino, and Sonoma Counties, and most of these suits involved local residents working together to protect their watersheds.[56]
Notes:
[1] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[2] “Timber Harvest Plan Viewed as Threat to Elk Water Supply”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[3] “The Water Bearer”, by Charlie Aker, Mendocino Commentary, July 12, 1990.
[4] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[5] “The Water Bearer”, by Charlie Aker, Mendocino Commentary, July 12, 1990.
[6] “Elk Water District Joins Lawsuit”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[7] “Timber Harvest Plan Viewed as Threat to Elk Water Supply”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[8] “Elk Water District Joins Lawsuit”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[9] “Timber Harvest Plan Viewed as Threat to Elk Water Supply”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[10] “The Water Bearer”, by Charlie Aker, Mendocino Commentary, July 12, 1990.
[11] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[12] “The Water Bearer”, by Charlie Aker, Mendocino Commentary, July 12, 1990.
[13] “Timber Harvest Plan Viewed as Threat to Elk Water Supply”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, June 7, 1990.
[14] “Elk Water District Joins Lawsuit”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[15] “Elk Water District Joins Lawsuit”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[16] Press Release by Mary Pjerrou, Mendocino Commentary, July 26, 1990.
[17] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[18] “Elk Water District Joins Lawsuit”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[19] “Elk Timber Plans Halted”, by Mary Pjarrou, Mendocino Beacon, July 26, 1990.
[20] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[21] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 22, 1990.
[22] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[23] “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.
[24] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[25] “Breakfast First!”, by Barbara Connelly, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 29, 1990.
[26] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[27] “Breakfast First!”, by Barbara Connelly, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 29, 1990.
[28] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[29] “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.
[30] “Breakfast First!”, by Barbara Connelly, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 29, 1990.
[31] “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.
[32] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[33] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 22, 1990.
[34] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[35] “Breakfast First!”, by Barbara Connelly, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 29, 1990.
[36] “Injunction Halts Logging Plans Near Elk”, by Kevin Murphy, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[37] “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.
[38] “Four Elk Residents Arrested for Blocking Timber Site”, by Tobias Young, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 22, 1990.
[39] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[40] “Breakfast First!”, by Barbara Connelly, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 29, 1990.
[41] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[42] “Breakfast First!”, by Barbara Connelly, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 29, 1990.
[43] “Logging Crew Confronts Breakfast First!”, by Gregg Stevens, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[44] “Breakfast First!”, by Barbara Connelly, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 29, 1990.
[45] “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.
[46] “Injunction Halts Logging Plans Near Elk”, by Kevin Murphy, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[47] “L-P Loses: Logging Must Stop Along Elk Creek”, by Tobias Young, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 5, 1990.
[48] (Source misisng)
[49] “Being a Radical”, letter to the editor by Esther Faber, Ukiah Daily Journal, September 30, 1990.
[50] “Comic Remarks”, op ed. By William F. Smith, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 11, 1990.
[51] “What the L-P Memos Really Mean”, by Judi Bari, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 10, 1992.
[52] Cite Darryl Cherney Terrain interview here.
[53] “Mendocino Undertow”, by Nancy Barth, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[54] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 26, 1990.
[55] “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.
[56] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 26, 1990.