Chapter 69: Direct Action Got the Goods; Ballot Boxes…Not So Much

Despite Redwood Summer and Corporate Fall, corporate timber’s propaganda had been most effective in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties.

On Saturday, September 8, 1990, Mother’s Watch held a rally attended by fifty people, including children, in Eureka, along Broadway, US 101, through downtown to protest Propositions 128 and 130. They held signs which read, “if you think Prop 130 is not going to effect (sic) you, your (sic) not thinking very hard…” and “Our future looks bleak thanks to Prop 130.” At least one demonstrator held one of Ann and Randy Dean’s familiar L-P approved signs. “(We are here) to show people there’s a good chance a lot of people are going to be put out of work,” said P-L employee Rich Bettis. “I was born and raised in this area. I don’t want to leave,” he continued. In a nearby vacant lot, they established a mock tent city to illustrate what they thought would happen if the voters approved Forests Forever. Candace Boak declared:

“This represents the people who will lose their jobs that won’t be able to afford their homes because there is no other industry here…The people who say we’re going to lose our jobs because of the overcutting…haven’t been out in the woods. We’d be foolish not to take care of (them).

“We don’t want to lose our lifestyle. We don’t want to move to the cities. We don’t want to take overcutting to take our jobs any more than we want initiatives to take our jobs.”[1]

Fellow Mothers’ Watch spokeswoman Kim Mendes added, “We’re trying to get people to realize we are not raping the forests.” Teenager Brian LeRoy sat in a lounge chair and held a sign which read, “Honk if you support out timber families.” The response among the highly propagandized locals was overwhelmingly favorable. Mothers’ Watch continued to associate Forests Forever with Earth First! as evidenced by one sign which read “Earth First! is the Problem, not the Solution,” and at least one demonstrator claimed clairvoyancy by holding a sign which read “prop 130 took (sic!) our home!”[2]

Supporters of Proposition 130 had a different take on the economic situation in Humboldt County. For example Lynn Ryan, community educator for the Sierra Club’s North Coast chapter opined:

“(The timber corporations are) coming in, logging as fast as they can, taking the money and putting somewhere else, taking it out of the county, taking it out of the country with an intent to leave this county and other forest-dependent counties without trees, without jobs, with silt in the streams, and roads that are falling apart and generally letting the community fend for itself. We don’t agree with that. That’s not a responsible way to operate anything.”[3]

If these words sounded familiar, they were. They were exactly what Judi Bari had been saying for two years. That spokespeople from the Sierra Club were independently saying the same thing was substantive proof that there was some truth to it. Yet, such thoughts didn’t resonate with many frightened timber workers who faced a daily barrage of propaganda and lies from their employers and bought-and-paid

Early in the week of Monday, September 24, 1990, Georgia-Pacific closed down their mill in Fort Bragg and held a captive meeting in which company spokesman Don Perry and IWA Local 3-469 business representative Don Nelson cajoled the workers to register to vote for “Big Stump” (Proposition 138) in the upcoming elections. The Yellow Ribbon coalition, WeCARE, Mothers’ Watch, and TEAM might have spun this as the workers uniting with the industry to stop the “Earth First! Initiative”, but right around the same time this was happening, rank and file IWA members employed by the mill informed the Anderson Valley Advertiser that little had improved since the PCB spill, and that the company had dumped toxic materials down a “big hole” at the bottom of the plant’s powerhouse for years.[4]

Don Nelson also joined in with Mothers’ Watch and the Yellow Ribbon Coalition in continuing to spread misinformation about Hal Arbit and Earth First! in order to defeat Forests Forever. The Community Solidarity published an open letter to Arbit, in the form of a press conference, which referenced the NCFI and Mothers’ Watch rally at Concord Capital Management’s office in August, and demanded that he disclose whether or not the law firm of Bagatola and Fadem (who represented Concord) participated in drafting 130; whether or not Arbit profited personally from the firm’s timber investments; Who Concord’s clients were (even though this information was readily available) and whether any of them owned securities in Maxxam corporation; the exact dates, amounts, and beneficiaries of his charitable contributions to environmental organizations; and whether or not he and Concord had contributed any financial support or drafted the language for Proposition 128.[5] Sierra Club spokesman Warner Chabot denounced the event as “a pathetic smear campaign” and argued that the Community Solidarity Coalition was “beating a dead horse”.[6]

Don Nelson and Maribelle Anderson weren’t just content with a McCarthyesque witch hunt against Arbit for his contribution to Forests Forever, however. The two continued to repeat the untruth that Forests Forever was an Earth First! campaign. He listed Earth First! among the benefactors of Arbit’s $940,000 donation to the initiative campaign, even though it was well established by then that Earth First! had no direct connection to the campaign. Nelson and Anderson asked, “Why does a person from Chicago want to take away our jobs and our homes?” That Arbit now lived In California and had for some time was overlooked, of course, because the “outside agitator” meme was an essential feature in witch hunt campaigns against dissidents. The pair concluded by demanding the names of Arbit’s other beneficiaries, suggesting that these included Green Peace, Greenpeace, Redwood Summer, and Judi Bari.[7] Bruce Anderson—who received the addenda as a letter to the editor replied angrily, “Why don’t you lay off Judi bari? She doesn’t have a thing to do with the Forests Forever initiative. What ‘causes’ do Marshall Hahn, Harry Merlo, and Charles Hurwitz contribute to? Which ones do you contribute to?”[8] This was a fair question, since the opponents of Proposition 130 had spent anywhere from 12 to 20 times as much money as the campaign’s supporters in their efforts to defeat it.[9]

By now, Don Nelson was carrying the water for corporate timber uncritically and unquestioningly, and when he wasn’t issuing misleading statements about Forests Forever, he was issuing propaganda pieces on behalf of the Yellow Ribbon coalition, the very same organization which had, according to union mill worker and Earth First! supporter Gene Lawhorn, supported union busting during the Roseburg Forest Products strike two years previously.[10] One of these propaganda pieces included the following rhetoric:

“We believe in, and support the free democratic republic, that we have in these United States. Our yellow ribbons demonstrate bur support for our freedoms and our distaste for anyone who would take those freedoms away.

What the Yellow Ribbon Means to Me

• Solidarity with the families of the community.
• Solidarity with the wives who get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to pack a lunch.
• Solidarity with the kids who play on the streets of the town.
• Solidarity with the young men and women who play organized sports on the fields of town.
• Solidarity with the guys and gals who leave home for work at 3, 4 and 5 AM, or who go to bed at.3, 4, or 5 AM after working the late shift.
• Solidarity with the guys and gals who cut the trees, skid the logs, load the trucks, haul the logs…and with the guys and gals who turn the logs into usable lumber and clean power for our community.
• Solidarity with the guys and gals who sell and serve food at the markets or in the community restaurants.[11]

Such statements were an utter mockery of the principles of solidarity of the working class as defined by the IWW, and were more akin to the “Good Citizen’s Leagues” and other vigilante mobs that sprung up in the early part of the Twentieth Century whose role it was to denigrate unions as “Communist controlled mobs” and other untruths designed to discredit the workers’ movement and undermine working class solidarity. Perhaps even more chillingly, these words read like the propaganda circulated by the Nazis and Fascists in Germany and Italy before and during World War II, at least by the accounts of one Redwood Summer supporter old enough to have remembered those days.[12] Bruce Anderson, speaking no doubt for many whose intelligences were deeply insulted by such nonsense wrote, in satirical response, that the Yellow Ribbon symbolized nothing more than:

“…that we all have the, same wants and needs…a home the bank will always own, an all-white family, a narrow-minded, stupid community with the second worst newspaper and the absolutely worst radio stations in America, and to enjoy those wants and needs, we need a job but we’re too chickenshit to fight the corporations so we’ll blame all our troubles on “hippies” and “outside agitators” and wear yellow t-shirts that millionaires like Mike and Mirabelle Anderson and Georgia-Pacific buy for us.

“…we feel no solidarity with other working people in other parts of the country who’ve been shafted by the corporations; you’ve never seen or heard us speak out for them, have you?

“…if L-P wants to move mills and ship logs to Mexico we won’t say a public word about it because we don’t have the balls for a real fight with our true enemies-the corporations who are destroying our communities and destroying America.

“…’I kiss corporate ass and I’ll kiss it until my lips fall off.’”[13]

Corporate timber’s foot soldiers preferred misinformation to facts and rhetoric to actual debate. There is little doubt that this was due to the dearth of facts on the Yellows’ side of the forestry debate. For example, on October 26, 1990, supporters of Proposition 130 scheduled a debate on Propositions 130 and 138; they invited opponents of Forests Forever and supporters of Big Stump to appear, but the latter elected not to send a speaker. The only outspoken opponent of Proposition 130 to appear was Don Nelson. CDF representative John Griffin represented a neutral position.[14] Both participated in a panel that also included 130 supporters Eric Swanson, Andrea Luna, and Duane Potter. The debate lasted two hours and was taped by a local TV news station. During the debate, Nelson argued against the measure’s prohibitions on clearcutting, claiming that Mendocino County loggers in the 1850s burned and clearcut extensively, and that the forests recovered and were cut again several times. Duane Potter quickly debunked the business union official’s claim:

“I had asked Don Nelson the week before if maybe he could bring in a 30 or 50 year–old round that was 24 inches across. He had asked what that would prove. I said that it would show just how long it takes to grow a tree that’s average–sized. The loggers did not bring in their rounds that take 30 years like Jerry Philbrick says, or the 50 to 60 years like Mike Anderson says. I brought in a 50 year–old round that was nine inches and a 68 year–old 12 inch round. That’s the forest we’ll have in 50 to 60 years.”[15]

Potter raised a related point that one of corporate timber’s oft repeated claims—that old growth redwoods were less useful than younger trees, because the former were rotting—was due primarily to the slash and burn logging that Nelson had just tried to justify. Potter argued, convincingly, that in fact such methods were also responsible for the current depletion of quality saw logs. Don Nelson had been caught in a lie and had no response. John Griffin punctuated Potter’s slam dunk by asserting that at most, a fifty-year old redwood’s trunk could measure 14 inches in diameter. While this debate could have been most effective at debunking corporate timber’s misinformation and their cynical use of timber workers as propaganda tools (when in fact many timber workers did not willingly consent to such activity), Channel 3 claimed that the footage had “irregular sound quality”.[16]

The week of September 24, 1990, the State Department of Health issued an advisory warning against eating fish caught near the L-P plant in Samoa, because dioxin levels in fish near the plant were dangerously high.[17]

The Yellow Ribbon Coalition held a rally in early October to promote Proposition 138 and opposed Proposition 130.[18] Mothers Watch, no doubt opportunistically, partly in hopes of redeeming themselves in the eyes of the Yellows in the wake of their failed blacklist, joined in these efforts.[19]

Most woods workers did not march in lockstep with the Yellows, however, and many had their own opinions. A group of local woods workers who placed a high value on sustainability and environmentally sound logging practices authored an open letter that included the following statements:

“The Association of Woodworkers Advocating Respect for the Environment is an association of working people whose current and future jobs are dependent on forest resources…

“Transition to sustainable silviculture is our only choice for maintaining a viable wood products industry. Inevitably this will change the current economic roles and relationships in the timber industry. The longer we wait to adjust to the changing reality of our resource base, the more economically disruptive it will be.

“The current political debate is very short-sighted. We advocate a long-term view of the role of wood in our lives and our economy. We might support our families, perhaps until our children grow up, with current practices of clear-cutting and over-harvesting. But what will our jobs be like in 25 years, 50 years, or 100 years? We do not wish to trade short-term profitability for long-term bankruptcy. We wish to leave something of value for future generations: jobs, forests, and a healthy environment.

“It is not, in our view, a question of jobs versus environmental protections, but of what work will we do. Will we face the challenge of learning to work with scientifically documented environmental realities? Or will we suffer the long-term depletion of our resource base and the decline and denigration of the woodworking industry and the role wood and forests play in our lives?”[20]

In October and November alone, L-P and P-L continued to file record numbers of THPs. According to Cheri Porter:

“Are the corporate giants of G-P, P-L, and L-P really in dire financial straits because of a lumber surplus from a decline in housing starts due to rising construction costs? If so, then why aren’t corporate bosses taking a pay cut? From the $7.5 million which Harry receives in salary compensation as one of the ten highest paid executives in the United States, couldn’t he survive a little trimming for the good of the company? Maybe Japan could teach business executives in the US a lesson on prioritizing expenses.

“Meanwhile in the previous two-month period, Louisiana-Pacific filed timber harvest plans on 3,786 acres, approximately, and Pacific Lumber on 1,954 acres in Humboldt and Mendocino counties; as compared to Simpson’s 338 acres and Eel River’s 200 acres. Louisiana-Pacific asked workers to pledge a portion of their paycheck to help defeat Prop. 130, the Forests Forever initiative, which could have reduced the rapid rate of cut exceeding growth and reformed the Board of Forestry to hold them more accountable for the management of public resources.”[21]

One-by-one, timber dependent communities in northwestern California went on record as opposing Forests Forever and Big Green.

On Tuesday, August 7, 1990, in two separate motions, the Eureka City Council voted  4-1 to oppose both Propositions 128 and 130. Eureka’s mayor, Fred J. Moore introduced the motion against Big Green, calling the proposition “financially disastrous in the eyes of many.” Councilman Ed Davenport introduced the motion against Forests Forever. Several supporters of both propositions spoke in favor of them, including Kneeland resident John Moriarty, who warned that the timber corporations would eventually cut jobs anyway due to dwindling supplies of timber, but their urgings fell on deaf ears. Even councilmember Jan LaMont who opposed both motions did so more from a procedural standpoint, stating that his opposition was due not to his personal stance on the issues, but more due to his concern that the resolutions made “sweeping judgments on vital statewide issues without consulting Eureka residents” that were too broad. LaMont made it clear that his stand did not in fact represent sympathy for environmental issues and specifically criticized Proposition 128 sponsor Tom Hayden for the latter’s anti-Vietnam War activities, declaring, “no one holds him in lower esteem than I do,” as if that should have any bearing on the merits of a ballot initiative.[22]

On September 11, 1990, Fort Bragg’s City Council voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 130.[23] 

Timber dependent counties in California were likewise apt to support Proposition 138 and oppose Proposition 130. Humboldt County, which produced $169 million in timber products in 1989 led the pack, followed by Mendocino, which produced $91 million, Siskiyou at $67 million, Trinity at $49 million, Plumas at $45 million, El Dorado at $29 million, Placer at $23.3 million, followed by Lassen County at $23.1 million. For the most part this was due to “Job Blackmail”. For example, in late August, El Dorado County, in California’s central Sierra Nevada mountains became the first of these eight counties to endorse Proposition 138 by a unanimous 4-0 vote by its Board of Supervisors, despite the presence of advocates for Forests Forever who were present when the vote took place.  The Proposition 130 supporters had asked the Board of Supervisors to delay their vote until October when the former had planned to hold a public forum in Placerville to debate both measures. Local supporters of Forests Forever charged that the El Dorado County officials based their vote solely on corporate timber propaganda. Craig Thomas, the local coordinator of the initiative added, “we’d like (the Supervisors) to remain neutral (until we can debate the measures).”[24]

Humboldt County’s officials left little doubt on which side their bread was buttered. Reactionary 5^th District Supervisor Anna Sparks Anna Sparks not only opposed Forests Forever, she actively campaigned against it, often in concert with NCFI and Mothers’ Watch.[25] Even her opponent, Kate Krebs, who had appeared at a rally opposing L-P’s move to Mexico in January alongside various union spokespeople and environmentalists, including members of Earth First! – IWW Local #1 spoke in opposition to Forests Forever. She likewise opposed Big Green. To be fair she also opposed Proposition 138. “The future of our forests and our timber industry is too important to leave in the hands of extremists like Darryl Cherney or corporate kings like Harry Merlo and Charles Hurwitz,” she declared, as if Cherney had any ambition to replace Merlo or Hurwitz. Krebs, like so many liberals, decried the polarization of the community, and (rightfully) held corporate timber and its enablers—her opponent in particular— responsible. Unfortunately, in was implicit that she also blamed Earth First!, never realizing that historically it is the much maligned radicals’ role to expose the polarization and dysfunctional situation which already exist.[26]

Even had Krebs been on the board, her voice would have made little difference. On September 26, 1990, the five Humboldt County Supervisors voted unanimously to send a letter to State Assemblyman Dan Hauser and state Senator Barry Keene opposing Proposition 130.[27] They also voted to oppose Proposition 128.[28] Fourth District Supervisor Bonnie Neely declared that Forest Forever’s and Big Green’s moratoriums on old growth harvesting would devastate the county’s economy, adding, “Mills that process old growth will close and they won’t reopen…I just think the initiative process doesn’t work. It offers simple solutions to very complex problems.” Neely’s opinions were echoed by Anna Sparks who opined, “The whole initiative process really needs to be looked at because it really doesn’t take into consideration economic or environmental impacts to an area such as Humboldt. Anybody can put anything into an initiative.” Such words echoed the rhetoric put forth by WeCARE spokewoman Marilee Hadley who was present at the meeting where the votes took place.[29] The supervisors’ criticisms of the initiative process were not enough to stop them from voting to endorse the corporate backed measures, however. They voted to endorse Proposition 135, Big Brown, with little discussion.[30] The board also voted 4-1, with only First District Supervisor Stan Dixon dissenting, to endorse Proposition 138. Again, there was almost no discussion. Even the urgings of Proposition 130 supporter, HSU forestry graduate student John Moriarty, who like Craig Thomas, urged his county’s officials to take a neutral position, couldn’t change their minds.[31] Corporate timber’s cat’s paws were many in the halls of forestland government.

Mendocino County Supervisor Norm DeVall was a rare exception to the rule in timber dependent counties, not only endorsing Proposition 130, but writing a strongly worded guest editorial in its favor. In it, DeVall challenged the constant drumbeat of corporate timber propaganda that argued the sky would fall if voters approved the initiative, rightfully pointing out that the biggest threats to long term timber related employment were log exports, automation, outsourcing, union busting, and over cutting.[32] Corporate timber’s spokespeople were quick to respond. Claudia Jennings, spokeswoman for the Yellow Ribbon Coalition, argued that De Vall was “misinformed.” She also suggested that DeVall had not credibility to speak on behalf of unionized timber workers (what few were left anyway), because both the Western Council of Industrial Workers (WCIW) and the California Labor federation had endorsed Proposition 138.[33] Given the willingness of the official AFL-CIO labor bureaucracy to endorse just about anything capital wanted in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this is hardly surprising, and it doesn’t change the fact that DeVall’s points were about as cogent as any raised over the issue. DeVall’s individual stance was not enough to influence his fellow Mendocino County Supervisors who voted, on September 20, 1990, essentially to punt. The Board chose to officially take no position on any of the environmental initiatives, including Propositions 128, 130, 135, and 138.[34] The city of Ukiah voted similarly in October.[35] That they were willing to take even a neutral stance could be seen as at least a partial victory for the champions of forestry reform, because, for the most part, even going that far was seen as being too much in the camp of environmentalists by corporate timber’s amen corner.[36] The editors of the Ukiah Daily Journal excoriated both the Ukiah City Council and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors for lacking the courage to take a stand.[37] One wonders how that periodical, which accepted full-page ads on behalf of both G-P and L-P would have reacted had either or both voted to endorse Propositions 128 and 130 or to oppose 135 and 138, because that publication took the opposite stance opposing the former and supporting the latter.[38]

The corporate and local media’s stance on the propositions was for the most part predictably in lockstep with the wishes of corporate timber. North Coast News columnist Nancy Barth called for the defeat of Proposition 130 in yet another sneering guest editorial claiming to represent the voice of “moderate” environmentalism on the North Coast.[39] The Mendocino Beacon, a once sympathetic voice to “new settlers” and progressive thought, opined:

“A yes vote on Proposition 128 and 130 will be an economic Armageddon in Northern California and Mendocino County. We must give Proposition 138 a ringing endorsement; a resounding ‘yes’ vote is the only vote. Proposition 128 and 130 should be so badly beaten on election day that they will never be revived…”[40]

Just before the election, on October 29 and 30, the Ukiah Daily Journal opposed both Propositions 128 and 130 and endorsed Propositions 135 and 138.[41] This led at least one letter writer to accuse the publication of being bought and paid for by the timber corporations who advertised there consistently.[42] On the first day of November, the ever reliable mouthpiece of Mothers’ Watch, TEAM, WeCare, and corporate timber, the Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance officially endorsed 135 and 138 and opposed 128 (which they called “the Tom Hayden Initiative) and 130 (which they called “the Earth First! Initiative), which was no surprise.[43]

The Eureka Times-Standard left little doubt where it stood, calling for opponents of Proposition 130 to use Corporate Fall rallies to campaign against the measure in the same sneering editorial where they denigrated Earth First! and the IWW as political descendents of the (now collapsing) Soviet Union.[44] The Santa Rosa Press Democrat was little better. Mike Geniella was allowed to at least report on the timber related issues involved in the election, and in a fairly comprehensive article, he reported (accurately) that corporate timber’s pegging Forests Forever with Earth First! was an outright lie and that the criticism of Hal Arbit was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, since corporate timber outspent 130’s supporters by at least five to one. Still, the article’s headline and Geniella’s phrasing of Forests Forever’s supporters’ rebuttal to corporate timber was spun as the environmentalists “firing the first shot” in the battle with the measure’s opponents. This was extremely misleading, since corporate timber had been firing shots, primarily in the form of accusations and lies about the proposition for over four months.[45]

Local radio stations KEKA, KFLI, KINS, KFMI, and KNCR had generously donated air time to run commercials by the NCFI to raise funds to send groups like Mothers’ Watch and other Proposition 130 opponents and Proposition 138 supporters on road trips to the Bay Area and Los Angeles to counteract the so-called “Big Lie.” None of these media outlets were willing to donate equal time to the supporters of Forests Forever.[46] Radio advertisements on these and many other radio stations continued to identify 130 as “the Earth First! Initiative,” and claim that it would cost taxpayers $1.3 billion and result in the loss of 75,000 timber jobs.[47]

The NCFI had far less to worry about as far as the Bay Area mainstream media was concerned.  Surprisingly, the conservative San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Proposition 130 and opposed 138, but they also opposed Proposition 128 and endorsed 135.[48] The somewhat more moderate San Francisco Examiner, however opposed all four measures, and while they described both Big brown and Big Stump as “industry shams”, they also opposed Big Green and Forests Forever. On the latter proposition, they opined:

“We yield to no one in our concern for protecting the environment, but the sound and fury over the competing ‘save-the-earth’ measures on Tuesday’s ballot has left us gasping for air. This is no way to make complex policy decisions…Everyone can support the goal of Prop. 130—saving redwoods—but is this the right plan?…The place to attack these problems is where they should have been attacked in the first place: the Legislature.”[49] 

This was either supreme ignorance or the height of disingenuousness by the Examiner. The whole point of Forests Forever and Big Green in the first place was that environmentalists were firmly convinced, and independent studies had demonstrably shown that working through the legislature, which was bought lock, stock, and barrel by the very same corporations who refused to be held accountable to the people, was a political dead end. Were it not the case, Earth First! would have had no raison d’êter.[50] 

Proposition 130’s opponents were sometimes even desperate to stop the measures passing. The  most outrageous attempt at corporate timber inspired anti-Proposition 130 propaganda took place just before Election Day in Grass Valley, near Utah Phillips and Joanna Robinson’s home in Nevada City in the Sierra Nevada foothills. An unidentified gunman allegedly shot a firearm into the offices of a local gyppo logging company there, and though the shooter was never identified, the company claimed the assailant was “an environmentalist,” and the act was motivated by support for Proposition 130.[51] Not one shred of evidence was ever produced to support such an outrageous claim, but given the pattern of lies and misinformation about the measure spread by corporate timber, such crude attempts at fear mongering were nothing new.

On November 6, 1990, California Voters made their choices. Faced with a bitterly fought gubernatorial contest between Republican Pete Wilson and Democrat Diane Feinstein, as well as federal, state, and county races; numerous local measures; and 28 ballot initiatives, voters were in apparently no mood to waste time. Wilson defeated Feinstein by 49 to 46 percent, although both candidates presented their opponents as having starkly different positions, in reality the two were fairly close in most respects. Four term incumbent Democratic Congressman Doug Bosco was finally voted out of office by Republican Frank Riggs. Again the two candidates were fairly similar in their political perspectives, but Riggs presented his opponent as lacking integrity, which was an easy accusation to make. Riggs received 43.1 percent of the vote edging out Bosco who received 42.2 percent. Third party challenger, Peace and Freedom’s Darlene Comingore received 14.8 percent which was no small accomplishment for a candidate who openly identified herself as a socialist.[52] Comingore received well over 30,000 votes, and considering the demographics of the region, no small percentage of those votes were likely timber workers.[53] In Mendocino County, where the voter turnout was measured at sixty-six percent of all registered voters, Comingore received well over 21.1 percent of the vote.[54]

Incumbent Democratic State Senator Barry Keene retained his seat by defeating Republican challenger Margie Handley of Willits, who was the daughter of developer Robert Harrah, by 53 to 46 percent of the overall vote, though in Mendocino County, the percentages were reversed.[56] Incumbent 2^nd District Assemblyman Dan Hauser defeated his Republican challenger easily 55.23 percent to 31.41 percent, with the third party Peace & Freedom candidate receiving 13.36 percent of the vote.[57]

As for the twenty eight propositions on the statewide ballot, voters rejected all but six of them, and of the twenty-two that were voted down, Big Green, Forests Forever, Big Brown, and Big Stump were all losers as voters generally said “no” to just about everything.[58] The only environmentally themed initiative to win was Proposition 132, which banned gill and trammel commercial fishing nets in California’s central and southern coastal waters. The measure’s passage no doubt had a lot to do with its insignificant cost. Big Green, Proposition 128, was defeated 63 to 37 percent. However, Corporate backed Propositions 135 and 138 were soundly defeated by a margin of 70 to 30 % each.[59] Indeed, among a large collection of failed measures, thirteen of which lost by anywhere from 10 to 23 percentage points, Propositions 138 and 135 were the third and fourth biggest losers respectively.[60] Forests Forever fared the best among the four measures narrowly losing by less than six percentage points, 52.13 to 47.87 percent.[61] Redwood Summer supporter Alexander Cockburn disdainfully dismissed both well-intentioned, liberal supported 128 and 130 as “revolution from above”—because mainstream environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club favor legal actions using lobbyists and lawyers to rank and file political mobilizations of the masses—and suggested that the vote against Big Green perhaps brought down Forests Forever in its wake. Cockburn did credit Redwood Summer, which he favorably called “revolution from below”, with having made it an issue worth voting on in the first place.[62] However, Humboldt County voters actually favored Big Stump (by 37.93 percent) by a bigger margin than they favored Forests Forever (at only 29.76 percent); the numbers in Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties (see Table #2, below) favored Proposition 138 by an even bigger margin.[63] Immediately following the election, Don Nelson and Maribelle Anderson issued the following statement on behalf of Community Solidarity:

“Many of us who stayed up all night on election night can breathe a sigh of relief now that Prop. 130 was defeated. We are so thankful that California voters used their common sense to see through misleading commercials and movie star hype. Our lives, our community, our futures would have been drastically changed by one initiative.”[64]

At first glance one might conclude that the campaigns for Propositions 128 and 130 or Redwood Summer or both doomed the election for environmentalists, but in actual fact, given the enormous odds against both the mainstream environmentalists and the Redwood Summer coalition, the elections results should be seen as fairly positive, even if not ideal. For one thing, although voters defeated most of the environmental measures, they voted against the corporate backed measures even more strongly. Considering that the opponents of Proposition 130 outspent its supporters five to one and those opposing Proposition 128 outspent that measure’s campaign by almost sixteen to one, the results must be seen as at least a partial victory for grassroots populism. Corporate Timber had spent nearly $50 million over the previous two years to try and steer forestry policy through the ballot box and had largely failed. Environmentalists had likewise been frustrated, though not nearly as badly and had spent far less doing so. Throughout the Pacific Northwest, Corporate Timber backed candidates had been defeated or had to fight bitterly to retain their seats. Oregon Republican Congressman Denny Smith and California Republican Congressman Chip Pushayan were, like Bosco, shown the exit. Oregon Republican Senator Mark Hatfield barely edged out his challenger. Corporate Timber’s well financed efforts to defeat key environmentalist leaning candidates also failed. First-term Democratic Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld of Washington State, once considered one of the most vulnerable seats in the nation, in one of the most anti-environmental congressional districts, defeated her opponent by eight percentage points. Congressman Jim Jontz, a key sponsor of the Ancient Forest Protection Act defeated his Republican adversary, despite the latter’s $500,000 war chest and endorsement by several class collaborationist unions.[65] Interestingly, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties were the most hostile to Forests Forever and most favorable to Big Stump, and yet there was no Redwood Summer activity in either county. Although the Northern Spotted Owl and other endangered species were not the primary focus of either proposition, fear over the loss of jobs related to the much maligned indicator species’ status were manipulated by Corporate Timber to swing voters in both counties.[66]

Indeed, Proposition 138 fared terribly, failing to win the popular vote in any of California’s 58 counties. Even in the counties affected by Redwood Summer or near them, Proposition 138 failed, though voters in Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties voted more favorably towards Proposition 138 than 130. Voter turnout in these counties was higher than the statewide average. Still, that Mendocino voters favored Forests Forever by a slightly higher margin—albeit a losing one—than Big Stump shows that the power of corporate timber, while still substantial, was waning.

The decline in Corporate Timber’s ideological hegemony is further evidenced by the willingness of timber workers to speak out in defiance of the major corporations, including even their employers. For example, L-P mill worker Randy Veach—who, along with his coworker and close friend Don Beavers, would later openly reveal himself as one of Judi Bari’s anonymous dissident sources[68]—disclosed that he had supported Proposition 130 and found his employer’s propaganda against the initiative to be insulting. Veach declared:

“In light of the recent election results, I would like to make some observations concerning our forests. I’ve been employed with the Louisiana-Pacific Corp. at a N. California mill for nearly 13 years. In that time, one thing has become very apparent to me. The large timber companies, like many other corporations, are driven by one element: profit. Profit motivated by greed.

“A common misconception is that environmentalists are trying to halt logging completely, an idea which the timber industry vehemently promotes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Trees are a renewable resource, but only if we cut no more than the volume which grows back each year. It’s called sustained-yield forestry. A term the industry shuns like the plague.

“As of now, only 5 percent of California’s ancient redwoods remain.

“L-P’s motto is ‘Yes We Can.’ When told they cannot keep overcutting, they say ‘Yes We Can.’ When told they cannot continue to diminish Wildlife habitat in the name of profit, they say ‘Yes We Can.’ If we permit the industry to go on with ‘business as usual,’ the ramifications will be even more devastating than they’ve already manifest…”[69]

Dave Chism who had supported Redwood Summer all season likewise expressed anger at being used as a propaganda tool by the corporations:

“I don’t claim to represent the feelings of all pulp and timber workers but I personally resent having been used as a public relations industry’s campaign against 130. The industry and their political front groups projected the image of deep concern for the future of the timber workers, their families, and our community. How deep is their concern? If we look at recent history we can see the real motives behind the timber industry…$$$!”[70]

Chism singled out L-P in particular as being “perhaps the most hypocritical of all timber companies” for its union busting, mill shutdowns, automation, outsourcing of jobs, and log exports. Yet, he was not silent about his own employer, Simpson, who had invested over $130 million in a pulp mill in Chile, and whose recovery boiler in the Fairhaven plant was continuing to expose its workers and the nearby communities of Arcata, Eureka, Korbel, Samoa, and elsewhere to toxic particulates each day.[71]

Notes: 

[1] “Timber Supporters Make Selves Heard: Tent City Residents in Friendly Traffic”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, September 9, 1990.

[2] “Timber Supporters Make Selves Heard: Tent City Residents in Friendly Traffic”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, September 9, 1990.

[3] “Lawmakers’ Ignorance Forces

[4] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 26, 1990.

[5] “Letter to Hal Arbit”, Press Release, Community Solidarity Coalition, September 6, 1990.

[6] “Demonstrations End, Initiative Rhetoric Begins”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 12, 1990.

[7] “And Now a Word from Pinnochio”, letter to the editor by Don Nelson and Maribelle Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 12, 1990.

[8] “Bruce Anderson’s Reply”, by Bruce Anderson,  Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 12, 1990.

[9] “Demonstrations End, Initiative Rhetoric Begins”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 12, 1990.

[10] “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; used by permission of the author.

[11] “What the Yellow Ribbon Means to Me”, press release by Don Nelson, reprinted in the Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 12, 1990.

[12] “Flying the Yellow Ribbon”, by Russell Norvell, Mendocino Commentary, September 6, 1990.

[13] “What the Yellow Ribbon Means to Me”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 12, 1990.

[14] Check this fact.

[15] “Forestry Debate”, by Duane Potter, Anderson Valley Advertiser, October 31, 1990.

[16] “Forestry Debate”, by Duane Potter, Anderson Valley Advertiser, October 31, 1990.

[17] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 26, 1990.

[18] “Ukiah Timber Rally Spreads the Word Boosts Morale”, by Chris Calder, Mendocino Beacon, October 11, 1990.

[19] “Mothers’ Watch Members Hit Campaign Trail”, by Claudia Nelson, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advanca, October 18, 1990.

[20] “Wood Workers for Sane Forest Practices”, John Rogers, et. al, Anderson Valley Advertiser, October 24, 1990. Two of the signers were Jan and Peggy Iris, whose approach to logging was praised by environmentalists, including some Earth First!ers.

[21] “Does the Timber Industry Support You?”, by Mrs Cheri Porter, Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 26, 1990.

[22] “Eureka Council OKs Resolutions Against Timber Initiatives: Votes Put Panel on Record Against ‘Forests Forever,’ ‘Big Green’ Bills”, by Charles Winkler, Eureka Times-Standard, August 8, 1990.

[23] “FB Council Opposes ‘Forests Forever’ Plan”, Ukiah Daily Journal, September 12, 1990; “Fort Bragg Goes on Record Against Prop 130.”, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 13, 1990.

[24] “El Dorado County Now First to Back Prop. 138”, UPI Wire, Eureka Times-Standard, August 23, 1990.

[25] “Supe Leads Protest Against Arbit, ‘Forests Forever’”, by Richard Mann, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, August 23, 1990.

[26] “Krebs to Oppose 3 Timber Initiatives”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, August 8, 1990.

[27] Supervisors Vote to Support Timber-Industry Ballot Items”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, September 27, 1990.

[28] “Supes Endorse 135”, by Richard Mann, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, October 11, 1990.

[29] Supervisors Vote to Support Timber-Industry Ballot Items”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, September 27, 1990.

[30] “Supes Endorse 135”, by Richard Mann, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, October 11, 1990.

[31] Supervisors Vote to Support Timber-Industry Ballot Items”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, September 27, 1990.

[32] “It’s Time to Talk Frankly”, letter to the editor by Norm DeVall, Ukiah Daily Journal, September 7, 1990; and  Mendocino Beacon, September 20, 1990.

[33] Letter to the editor by Claudia Jennings, various publications, including Ukiah Daily Journal, September 13, 1990 (“Hand of Voters”); and Mendocino Beacon, October 11, 1990 (“Misconceptions Cloud Timber Issues”).

[34] “Supes Will Take no Position on Ballot Propositions”, by Les and Genny Nuckolls, Willits News, September 21, 1990.

[35] “Ukiah Should Take a Stand”, editorial, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 22, 1990.

[36] “Editorial: Get Real”, by Bob Martel, Country Activist, September 1990.

[37] “Ukiah Should Take a Stand”, editorial, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 22, 1990.

[38] Editorials, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 29 and 30, 1990.

[39] “Environmental Mess”, letter to the editor by Nancy Barth, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 16, 1990.

[40] Editorial, Mendocino Beacon, October 19, 1990.

[41] Editorials, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 29 and 30, 1990.

[42] “Who Paid You”, letter to the editor by Michael Devitt, Ukiah Daily Journal, November 4, 1990.

[43] Editorial, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, November 1, 1990.

[44] “Sigh! – Here We Go Again”, editorial, Eureka Times-Standard, September 19, 1990.

[45] “Environmentalists Open Fire in Battle of the Initiatives: Activists Charge ‘Lies and Fraud’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 7, 1990.

[46] “Timber Group Plans Fundraiser”, Eureka Times Standard, July 6, 1990.

[47] “Environmentalists Open Fire in Battle of the Initiatives: Activists Charge ‘Lies and Fraud’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 7, 1990.

[48] “The Chronicle Recommends”, editorial, San Francisco Chronicle, November 6, 1990. The Chronicle has since become somewhat more liberal having been purchased by the Hearst family who previously owned the Examiner.

[49] “Big No: 128, 130, 135 & 138”, editorial, San Francisco Examiner, November 4, 1990.

[50] “Lawmakers’ Ignorance Forces Forest Initiative”, interview with Lynn Ryan, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, September 14, 1990.

[51] “‘Eco-Hooligans’ Blamed in Shooting”, AP Wire, Ukiah Daily Journal, November 6, 1990.

[52] “Bosco Finally Dumped; Mixed Results in Midterm Elections”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, November 15, 1990.

[53] “The Trees Strike Back”, by Alexander Cockburn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, November 21, 1990.

[54] “Bosco Finally Dumped; Mixed Results in Midterm Elections”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, November 15, 1990.

[55] “Statement of Vote, General Election November 6, 1990”, compiled by March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, November 1990. The total number of registered P&F votes by county is not completely applicable, because the 1^st District does not include the entire population of each of its included counties.

[56] “Bosco Finally Dumped; Mixed Results in Midterm Elections”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, November 15, 1990.

[57] “Statement of Vote, General Election November 6, 1990”, compiled by March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, November 1990.

[58] “The Voters Just Say No to Nearly Everything”, Willits News, November 9, 1990.

[59] “Bosco Finally Dumped; Mixed Results in Midterm Elections”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, November 15, 1990.

[60] “Polling Post Mortem”, by Tim McKay, EcoNews, December 1990.

[61] “Bosco Finally Dumped; Mixed Results in Midterm Elections”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, November 15, 1990.

[62] “The Trees Strike Back”, by Alexander Cockburn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, November 21, 1990.

[63] “Statement of Vote, General Election November 6, 1990”, compiled by March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, November 1990.

[64] “Corporate Stooges Thank Voters”, open letter by Don Nelson and Maribelle Anderson, Community Solidarity Coalition, Anderson Valley Advertiser, November 21, 1990. In actual fact, this letter was addressed to the North Coast News, but that particular issue was unavailable, however, Bruce Anderson has often copied other publications’ material liberally and did so on this particular occasion.

[65] “Polling Post Mortem”, by Tim McKay, EcoNews, December 1990.

[66] Need Hayfork article reference.

[67] “Statement of Vote, General Election November 6, 1990”, compiled by March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, November 1990.

[68] “Judi Bari interviews Louisiana Pacific Mill Workers”, Transcript of a KZYX FM radio interview; Reprinted in the Industrial Worker, August 1992.

[69] “Worker Supports Rules”, letter to the editor by Randy Veach, Mendocino Country, December 1, 1990.

[70] Letter to the editor by Dave Chism, various publications including Eureka Times-Standard, January 5, 1991 (“No Concern From Timber Firms”); and Anderson Valley Advertiser, January 9, 1991 (“Duped!”).

[71] Letter to the editor by Dave Chism, various publications including Eureka Times-Standard, January 5, 1991 (“No Concern From Timber Firms”); and Anderson Valley Advertiser, January 9, 1991 (“Duped!”).