Redwood Summer had been organized, in part, due to the accelerated timber harvesting being planned and implemented by corporate timber throughout the North Coast. The increased cutting was due to many factors not the least of which was fear by the heads of L-P, G-P, P-L, and Simpson that the voters of the State of California might pass Proposition 130, the Forest and Wildlife Protection and Bond Act, better known as “Forests Forever”. On June 14, 1990, California Secretary of State March Fong Eu announced that the measure had qualified to be on the November ballot.[1] This highly controversial measure, along with the much broader Proposition 128, the Environmental Protection Act of 1990, better known as “Big Green”, was widely and wildly debated, especially in the corporate media. Neither proposition was directly connected to Redwood Summer, though some of the latter’s participants were supporters of one or both, and some no doubt campaigned for the measures. Both measures were, in fact, the products of mainstream environmental groups, many of whom considered redwood Summer to be “irresponsible.” Still, due to the constant barrage of propaganda by corporate timber, Redwood Summer and Forests Forever, at least, were to become inseparably linked.
It was difficult to debate either proposition on their merits, because the opponents of both measures engaged in a concerted campaign of spreading exaggerations, inaccuracies, and outright lies about both to the point that voters were often unclear on what either initiative actually proposed. Proposition 128 was a far more extensive and exhaustive measure than 130, but it principally targeted effluents, corporate agribusiness, pesticides, and chemical applications by businesses in general. Nationally, “Big Green” garnered far more attention than Forests Forever, but on the North Coast, timber issues were of primary concern.[2] Big Green wasn’t devoid of forestry issues, however. Proposition 128 included, among its many provisions, a one year moratorium on timber harvesting in old growth redwood forests.[3] Corporate agribusiness vehemently opposed it, declaring that if passed, it would “devastate agriculture[4]”, though in reality it would only have devastated corporate agriculture’s bottom line, thus opening up many possibilities for the return to small family farms and far less invasive and more organic farming methods. Proposition 130 was opposed principally by just about every major timber corporation in California as well as many politicians who depended on the very powerful corporate timber lobby for their campaign funding. Both propositions were also opposed by a Lyndon LaRouche front group ironically named “Stop Ecofascism. Save the Economy. No on 128, 130, and 132.”[5]
Forests Forever’s actual provisions were straightforward enough. If passed by the voters, Proposition 130 would have:
“Authorized a ten year state acquisition program, limited logging moratorium, to permit public acquisition of designated ancient forests providing wildlife habitat; required wildlife surveys and mitigation measures; limited logging sites, including those near waterways; required stale-funded compensation and retraining programs for loggers displaced by new regulations and acquisitions; authorized a general obligation bond issue of $742,000,000 to fund acquisition of old growth forests, in particular Headwaters Forest; mandated uneven aged sustained yield standards; imposed new timber harvesting permit fees; discouraged foreign export of forest products; imposed stiffer penalties for violations[6]; banned clearcutting; greatly restricted burning of forest residues on California timberlands; increased stream protection; and revised Board of Forestry membership preventing corporate industry domination.[7]
The overarching goal of Forests Forever was to close perceived loopholes in the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act of 1973. Environmentalists had been complaining about the inconsistent enforcement of the act ever since its passage, including the State of California’s tendency to place the proverbial fox—in this case representatives of corporate timber—in charge of the henhouse. Naturally corporate timber and state officials alike denied that they had any ulterior motives, but in March of 1990, a report by LSA Consulting, which had been commissioned by the California Department of Forestry to determine the reason why so many THPs had lately been challenged legally by environmentalists, had essentially determined that the environmentalists had been right all along.[8] This left corporate timber in a somewhat unenviable position politically. They couldn’t credibly argue that the provisions of Proposition 130 were unneeded or unwarranted, though they certainly tried. Paula Langager, spokeswoman for WeCARE argued against Forests Forever based on the supposed strength of Forest Practices Act, evidently unconvinced that the latter was little more than a paper tiger.[9] Corporate Timber instead focused its opposition campaign on either claiming that passage of the proposition would result in unintended consequences or that the initiative’s backers had ulterior motives of their own.
Debates on the actual provisions of Proposition 130 were rare, and when they did take place, usually the proposition’s opponents focused on the potential unintended consequences of passing the measure. Proposition 130 opponent, timber consultant Craig Blencowe, a Mendocino County resident, expressed the concerns of many small landowners, arguing that the initiative would place them at an unfair disadvantage. Small landowners were not an insignificant constituency, because according to studies conducted by the State of California’s Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program (FRRAP), in the California north coast counties of Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte, they comprised just over a third of the timberland potentially affected by the proposition. If passed, Section 4801.5a of Forests Forever would have required long term sustained yield plans (SYPs) by each owner before the approval of any THPs. According to Blencowe, SYPs could cost anywhere from $500-$5000. Under Section 4804a and 4804b, on steep slopes with grades in excess of 65 percent, log skidding was prohibited, requiring the use of cable logging, which was more expensive. According to Blencowe this would require small land owners to log more trees to break even. Section 4582.7 extended the review period of THPs from the current 25 days to the 90 days as recommended by the LSA report. To Blencowe, this represented yet another blow to small land owners, because, in his opinion, the 90 day period would really become closer to five-to-six months—though he offered no compelling evidence to support such a contention—and this was a problem for small landowners because it potentially limited their ability to take advantage of market spikes.[10]
Leaving aside the argument that basing one’s logging plans on volatile market forces was generally most advantageous to those small land owners speculating on the possibility of making a quick buck and was, in most cases, potentially devastating for the long term viability of timberlands, Blencowe’s arguments overlooked a very important provision in Proposition 130 that protected small landowners. Section 4805.6 of the initiative would grant the Board of Forestry the authority to provide simplified rules to landowners with 5,000 or fewer acres of forestland, allowing them to “comply without reasonable cost or delay.” Most of the measure’s limitations were intended to limit liquidation logging by large concerns, particularly corporations, not small landowners.[11] Craig Blencowe, however, dismissed the provision as a late addition to the initiative, designed to throw small landowners “a bone”, as if to suggest that the writers of the initiative had hastily overlooked the former. Blencowe assessed the provision as irrelevant, because most small landowners were—in his opinion—“undercutting their growth”, which betrayed the forester’s perspective that the best use of forestland was maximum yield as opposed to long term sustainability.[12] Corporate timber tended to argue that the Board of Forestry would use their latitude given by the exemption to set unreasonable fees and burdensome requirements. Forests Forever supporter Eric Swanson called these fears unfounded, arguing that the BOF’s mandate was to promote forestry, namely timber harvesting, not discourage it. The actual debate centered on what sort of forestry they were charged with promoting.[13]
Corporate timber and its enablers especially opposed Section 731 of the initiative which was intended to remove the fox from the henhouse by changing the requirements for serving on the BOF. Under the existing law, the nine member Board, appointed by the state governor, required five members of the general public, three members from the timber industry, and one member from the range livestock industry.[14] Critics of the current balance charged, and the LSA report confirmed, that the board tended to be composed mostly or entirely of individuals whose primary motivation in their duties was ensuring the maximization of profit. For the long term health of the forest, not to mention a timber economy, however, such an emphasis was unsustainable, even genocidal.[15] Under the new law, if passed, the BOF would instead be composed of three members of the general public, three members from environmental organizations, one member from a timber dependent county’s local government (either a supervisor or member of its planning commission), one member who was a small landowner, and one member from the timber industry. Craig Blencowe articulated this perspective by declaring, “The proposed changes seem to take ‘forestry’ out of the Board of Forestry,” and that they, “Delete range management as a criteria…and replace it with interest in mycology (fungus) or Native American forest uses.”[16] Blencowe’s charge was echoed by Scott Wall, president of the California Licensed Forester Association, who said that the proposition, “takes forest management decisions away from trained professional foresters and puts Sacramento politicians
And bureaucrats in charge of our forests.”[17] IWA Local #3-469 Union Representative Don Nelson likewise argued that sustainable forestry must be primarily based on “market criteria.”[18] In other words, “forestry” meant making a profit first and foremost, and that any other criteria should be secondary.
Forest Forever’s supporters argued vehemently that the proposed changes to the BOF’s makeup were necessary to correct the weaknesses cited in the LSA report.[19] Of course, corporate timber never raised the specter of unintended consequence of corporate control over supposedly objective government agencies, and there was every possibility that even under Proposition 130, they could find a way to subvert the regulations to suit their needs. Even under the newly proposed language, a majority of the board could have been composed of a pro-corporate majority. Certainly under the then current California Governor, George Deukmejian, a Reagan Republican, such a scenario was likely. Logger Walter Smith, a cautious supporter of Proposition 130 elaborated:
“The director of the Department of Forestry will still have to enforce these rules. The bigger industries will learn how to run around it. (The Proposition) doesn’t (even) change the way things are. When forestry will change is when the whole system changes. The conflicts will still be about money and politics.”[20]
Corporate timber knew full well, however, that in many cases they would no longer have a free hand, if California voters approved 130.
Still one more claim made by corporate timber was that the ban on old growth harvesting meant that even small landowners with a mere handful of old growth trees would be counted as ancient forest. However, according to Eric Swanson, this was yet another falsehood:
“The initiative requires the Department of Fish and Game to inspect areas proposed for timber harvesting to determine if any operations will take place in ‘ancient forest.’ If the department determines that the harvest will occur within an ancient forest, then the timber harvest plan may be suspended pending acquisition of the ancient forest. But the initiative also states that this provision does not apply when the Department of Fish and Game determines that an ancient forest would be a low priority for acquisition.”[21]
A related provision that caused the measure’s critics some consternation was section 4807.3, which called for the sale of general obligation bonds totaling $742,000,000 in bond principle with an estimated $584,000,000 in interest to acquire the 3,000 acre Headwaters Forest from Pacific Lumber. Craig Blencowe questioned the wisdom of paying Hurwitz and Maxxam that much for one grove, when the same amount of money could potentially be used to purchase 600,000 acres of forestland from L-P, G-P, and R&J Lumber in Mendocino County. This was a fair question, except that it ignored the comparison of old growth forests to non old growth. The quality and density of biomass in the latter, even at 600,000 acres was scarcely as rich and vital as it was in the former, even at a mere 3,000 acres.[22] In fact, Proposition 130 allocated bond money sufficient to purchase as much as 7,000 – 14,000 acres of ancient forestland, and which forestlands were to be selected were to be based on the following criteria:
“The forests will be rated according to: the size of the ancient forest; the extent to which the forest provides actual or potential habitat for dependent wildlife species, including its importance to populations of such species; the extent to which the forest has been free of disturbance from roads or timber operations; the extent to which the forest contributes to biological diversity; the extent to which the forest’s integrity has been compromised by fragmentation of surrounding landscapes; the importance of the forest as a potential biological corridor or habitat island that may facilitate movement or dispersal of wildlife and plants.”[23]
Craig Blencowe also raised objections to Section 4562.8 which limited the cutting of forests within 100 feet of fish bearing streams and 50 feet of non fish bearing, but life bearing streams to 20 percent of volume. Though he admitted that some protection of riparian corridors was essential, Blencowe claimed that the provision in Forests Forever “effectively eliminated” any harvesting within streamside areas, arguing that careful and selective harvests of up to 40 percent of volume in as little as a ten-year period in such areas needn’t have detrimental impacts on either the forest canopy, water temperature, or riparian vegetation.[24] This claim had no scientific merit, however, and the record of corporate timber’s treatment of vital fishing areas had been atrocious. Nat Bingham, who penned a regular column in the North Coast News focusing on issues relevant to both small commercial fishermen and environmentalists, speaking for a much overlooked third opinion in the Proposition 130 and Redwood Summer debate, whose interests were often divided, described the streamside protections in the measure “solid”. Bingham elaborated:
“We in the fishing industry have been asking for real stream canopy protection to provide shade and nutrition for fish for years. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
“The present rules allow up to half the trees to be removed from a stream corridor. Exemptions that allow even more than half the trees by the creek to be cut are granted routinely.
“The simple fact that 70 percent of the salmon caught off California come from the dammed up rivers of the Central Valley when most of the free-flowing rivers of the North Coast only manage to produce 30 percent says something about the long-term effects of forestry on fisheries. Add in erosion and siltation of streams and the sorry story is complete.
“Fishermen have been reluctant to speak out publicly on this issue because they are often related by family to woodworkers and have already suffered from regulated shutdowns of the fishery (with no compensation) and so are keenly aware of the personal economic issues here.
“Also the big timber companies have successfully co-opted the fishery issue by participating in show-case’ restoration fish hatcheries. Their ownership of land and control of access to fishery project sites has given them the means to suppress dissent. The fishing industry has preferred a quiet, behind-the-scenes, site-specific approach to watershed problems.”[25]
Still another provision that raised corporate timber’s hackles was the supposed ban on clear cutting. There were still many corporate timber spokespeople, including Don Nelson, who insisted that clearcuts were beneficial to wildlife.[26] Craig Blencowe similarly asserted, “There is a common misconception that overcutting is clearcutting.”[27] In reality, 130 didn’t so much ban clearcutting so much as mandate uneven-age forest management. According to Eric Swanson,
“In all-aged forestry there is a continual thinning and harvesting of all diameter classes including mature trees. The majority of the basal area of the stand is dedicated to trees in the smaller diameter classes and the actual number of mature trees in the stand is quite small. A large component of mature trees is neither productive nor sustainable. Maintenance of a large component would lead to high-grading, an undesirable and counterproductive form of forestry practiced extensively in the past.
“The timber industry has criticized the Forests Forever Initiative for severely restricting silvicultural options for even-aged management. In some cases, they have gone so far as to say that selective forestry simply doesn’t work.
“Such statements ignore the fact that large areas, such as the 87,000 acre Collins Pine holdings, large portions of many other industrial holdings, and many small ownerships have been managed successfully for the past 50 years using selective forestry techniques. They also ignore the fact that Europe’s only successful forests are those which have been managed using all-aged forestry principles.”[28]
The proposition did limit clearcuts to one half acre for the most part, and only if they amounted to less than twenty percent of the volume, but there were exceptions.[29] There were several instances where clearcutting was allowed under the provisions of the initiative, including:
“The harvest of Christmas trees, Eucalyptus plantations or fiber plantations; authorized emergency sanitation cutting; salvage of dead trees; lands that have been approved for conversion to uses other than growing timber pursuant to Article 9 of the Z’Berg Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973; fire breaks, fuel breaks and rights-of-way; and in the Northern and Southern forest districts harvesting areas up to five acres in size in Lodgepole Pine, Ponderosa Pine and Sierran Mixed Conifer cover types as defined . . . where the Department of Forestry finds that clearcutting would cause less adverse environmental impacts than the selection method on a particular site.”[30]
The largest supposed unintended consequence of Proposition 130 was the corporate timber claim that it would result in an economic disaster for timber workers. Although industry spokespeople generally cited a possible 68 percent reduction in forestry, logging, sawmill, pulp mill, and related industry activities[31], the most outrageous claims placed the worst case scenario at an 80 percent shutdown and the loss of perhaps 171,250 jobs.[32] Of these, corporate timber’s spokespeople claimed that 26,000 jobs directly related to timber harvesting and milling would be lost, even though FRRAP’s statistics showed that there were only 23,000 such jobs in all of California at the time. Furthermore, the only way that a 68 percent reduction in timber related activity could occur would have been a complete halt to all logging operations on private land and a 40 percent reduction on public lands.[33] LSA Associates, who had already published their shocking expose of the CDFs subservience to corporate timber, published another study showing that at most Forests Forever would result in a total short term reduction of timber harvesting statewide of between 7.3 and 12.6 percent once the bill’s provisions were fully implemented.[34]
Since timber corporations in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties were harvesting timber at as much as 300 percent the rate of current growth, such a slow down would hardly have represented “a complete shutdown” of the timber industry. Both G-P and L-P had admitted to this, and FRRAP estimates had shown that if harvest remained as they were, the reduction in timber harvesting that would be forced upon the industry due to depletion of the forest resources, otherwise known as the “timber gap” would be 50 percent.[35]
By contrast, according to LSA’s numbers, the harvest reductions under Proposition 130 would result in no more than 2,778 to 4,956 direct and indirect jobs at most. Since the measure contained both a compensation package for displaced timber workers as well as restoration jobs, the job losses would be more than offset in the near term, though LSA’s study did not consider these factors.[36] Plenty of jobs had already been lost over the past decade due to log exports, automation, outsourcing, union busting, and over cutting.[37] FRRAP studies showed that 45,000 direct and indirect jobs had been lost between 1975 and 1985 due to mill automation alone.[38] Sierra Club state forestry practices chair Gail Lucas argued that Proposition 130 was actually intended (among other things) to preserve, not destroy, long term timber jobs. Stating, “Companies are going to run out of trees in the near future and then the jobs will be gone. Forests Forever means jobs forever.”[39] The facts bore this out. Independent economic studies carried out by Dr. Robert Hrubes found that the long term results of implementing Forests Forever would in fact be a gradual increase in harvest levels by about 9 percent and timber employment by 7 to 8 percent over the next sixty years.[40]
Clearly corporate timber was lying, and it was easy to determine why if one were not utterly beholden to the dictates of capitalist economics. While Proposition 130 would have ideally guaranteed both long term ecological and economic sustainability for California’s forests, it represented a substantial threat to the ability of corporations and large private land owners to turn a quick profit from liquidation logging. Yet liquidation logging was then the current dominant practice of the timber industry as determined by the dictates of capital, and any threat to those dictates would be quickly slated to be neutralized.[41] It was simply more profitable for the corporations in the short term to engage in liquidation logging, outsourcing, and raw log exporting.[42] Whether intended or not, Forests Forever would have put serious brakes on the ever accelerating pace of timber liquidation and to the industry, this was intolerable. It has long been demonstrated that truth and accuracy do not win elections, especially when one has neither on their side, and this was certainly the case for the opponents of Proposition 130. The timber corporations crafted their opposition well. They found willing spokespeople in the likes of IWA Local 3-469 Union Representative Don Nelson, State Senator Barry Keene, and Congressman Doug Bosco in particular.
Nelson’s opposition to Forests Forever was already well established. He had come out against the initiative as early as December of 1989, well before it had qualified for the ballot or even had a proposition number.[43] In March of 1990, he had dispatched two IWA Local 3-469 union members, grader Dave Bowmen and machinist Richard Hargreaves—who were mostly compliant to his class collaborationism with Georgia Pacific—to harass supporters of the proposition, including IWW member Anna Marie Stenberg, who were gathering signatures to place it on the ballot.[44] Stenberg deduced, and later confirmed via conversations with rank and file IWA dissidents, that Nelson had not been authorized by the membership to campaign against the proposition.[45] He had thrown a political temper tantrum resigning from the Mendocino County Democratic Party Central Committee in April when it voted 10-3 to endorse the proposition (Nelson had been one of the three minority votes).[46] He then reversed his decision and asked to be reinstated in May just before Bari and Cherney were bombed.[47] Nelson was hardly alone however.
State Senator Barry Keene, whose home district was located in Benicia, California, joined the chorus of corporate timber apologists by writing a guest editorial, published on July 1, 1990 in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, opposing the Forests Forever. He dismissively called the proposition, “a clear case of good intentions clashing with harsh reality.” His single halfway cogent argument was that since the measure would make timber harvesting prohibitively expensive and the regulations governing the harvesting of timber burdensome beyond reason, the provision in the initiative exempting non industrial forestlands from clearcutting would create an unintended incentive for large timber holders to sell their timberlands to developers. These sales would result in clearcutting on an unheard of scale which would be implemented to make way for subdivisions.[48] In other words, the writers of the proposition were either naïvely unaware of the proposition’s unintended consequences, or they were part of a sinister plot to destroy the logging industry. Craig Blencowe[49] and Nat Bingham[50] each independently raised this concern. Certainly the possibility existed and it was no doubt one overlooked by the proposition’s authors, but the threat was remote. Most remaining old growth forestlands were located in very isolated areas highly unsuitable economically for rapid transformation into subdivisions, especially due to inadequate roads and scant water resources. In the case of many second and later growth forestlands, timber dependent communities were moving quickly—independently of Proposition 130—to enact safeguards against exactly that sort of activity. For example, just two weeks before the Press Democrat published Keene’s op-ed piece, Mendocino County’s Board of Supervisors had voted 3-2 to forward several recommendations by its Forestry Advisory Committee, including one banning the conversion of forestlands to subdivisions to the California State Legislature in Sacramento. The members of the FAC and the Board of Supervisors who voted in the majority were generally favorable to Proposition 130. Those that opposed them were those most hostile to it.[51]
While the State Senator may have simply been in error or exaggerating about this one point, every other point he raised in his guest editorial was a bald-faced lie. Keene repeated the myth that if 130 passed, it would prohibit all logging for 120 years.[52] This was pure corporate timber propaganda, and even Craig Blencowe elected not to make such an outrageous claim in his substantive arguments against the initiative.[53] Don Nelson had made a similar assertion the previous December, stating:
“This Act would only allow logging of ‘mature forests’ which were covered by a ‘sustainable forestry program’ which each owner of timberland would be required to have filed on his lands within 6 years of this act even if the timber were too small to harvest! It would require land owners to harvest less than their potential growth and it would not allow them to encourage faster growth on their timberlands. It makes the planting of young trees difficult if not impossible because it bans brush burning, a common practice and one that is part of the nature’s process of redwood forest regeneration. A mature forest would be at least 120 years old. Only then could logging occur. Since most of California private timber stands are less than 60 years old, it would cause at least 60 years of unemployment for the loggers and mill workers in California today.”[54]
However, this argument had been thoroughly debunked by Eric Swanson:
“Don’s allegation that the Initiative would result in 60 years of unemployment is absurd. The Initiative does require the sustainable harvest of mature trees (that is, trees which have reached their peak lumber production) by the year 2140. That’s 150 years from now! Even more time would be allowed for poor growing sites. The Initiative specifically states that periodic harvests are to continue throughout this period. As the lands are restored to maximum productivity the harvest will steadily increase.
“According to FRRAP, the projected growth in California for the 1990-2000 time frame is 3,667,211 MBF per year. The projected harvest for the same period is 3,992,569 MBF. Thus, if we reduced the harvest by 6.5% statewide, we would achieve sustained yield. That hardly sounds like 60 years of unemployment.” [55]
Additionally, Keene tried to argue that Proposition 130 was unnecessary, because he had introduced his own, milder legislation.[56] The State Senator’s bill included a provision for a bond initiative allocating $300 million to purchase and preserve a select number of old growth redwood and Douglas fir stands. Sensing that this provision had little support, Keene struck it from the bill, and though the modified version passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on a 7-1 vote, there would be no “compromise” proposition.[57] Sierra Club spokesperson Gail Lucas fired off a strongly worded rebuttal to Keene, pointing out that measures like Forests Forever were necessary to keep the timber industry “from committing suicide.” To bolster her arguments, she cited statistics compiled by FRRAP—a state agency ironically created by Barry Keene’s own legislation in 1977—which conclusively demonstrated that over the previous ten years, timber corporations had been harvesting timber at 205 percent on the North Coast in general and at 320 percent in Mendocino County in particular.[58] This drew a rebuke from Don Nelson, who called Lucas his “close friend and often times comrade in forest practice politics”, declaring “Senator Keene’s assessment in my opinion is entirely accurate and Gail’s misuse of the, FRAPP statistics does not increase her credibility with me and the other workers who sincerely want sustained jobs in the forest industry in California.”[59] Nowhere did Nelson explain how he thought Lucas was misusing the FRRAP statistics, which were, in fact, as accurate as one could get by most accounts.
Presumably Nelson was referring to his own dubious arguments that the FAC recommendations exempted the more than half of Mendocino County’s timberland that was owned by non-industrial landowners, who, for the most part, were harvesting timber well below the rate of growth if they cut it all.[60] The fallacy in the latter argument was that the quality of timber that existed on nonindustrial land in Mendocino County was nowhere near that of the timber on industrial land, and Mendocino County was not a microcosm of the state in general. In any case, the FRRAP statistics did include the numbers on non-industrial timberlands. Outspoken opponents of Forests Forever, such as forestry consultant Craig Blencowe, used them extensively to try and build a case against the proposition on its merits.[61] Elsewhere Nelson argued that the FRRAP numbers were in error because they were derived from a report that admitted to sampling errors that resulted in a 68 percent probability level. FRRAP statistics were inadequate, according to Nelson, because they only counted an average of 58,000 jobs in California in contrast with the statistics offered in the industry journal, Products, Prices, Employment and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries, Fourth Quarter, 1989 issue, which placed the annual average number of timber related jobs in California during the 1980s at 98,780.[62] The problem with the latter’s statistics, however, is that they were not based on any verifiable source; they were merely an assertion by an industry trade journal which represented those who opposed Proposition 130. FRRAP’s statistics were, flawed though they may have been, the only remotely reliable figures available, as the California Timber Association, the official lobbying organization for corporate timber, had refused to share its own statistics publically,[63] and timber corporations consistently refused to open their books to the public for independent review.[64]
Nelson also contradicted himself, because in the very same rebuttal to Gail Lucas, he decried the lack of access to corporate timber’s inventories, stating specifically:
“I would like to…demand from the timber companies hard information about their inventories and rates of cut. If that information shows a company is clearly cutting beyond a sustainable capacity for their forestlands, then that timber company’s property should be subject to eminent domain and purchased by the state.” [65]
Perhaps the most blatant falsehood in Keene’s guest editorial, however, was his describing Forests Forever as being “sponsored by groups like Earth First!”[66] This misleading statement parroted a talking point issued by 130’s opponents, in particular, Californians for New Forestry, which was (yet another) Sacramento based corporate timber lobbying front group. According to Warner Chabot, “With the exception of the campaign staff (Californians for a New Forestry) is 100 percent (corporate) timber industry.”[67]
Linking Forests Forever to Earth First! was a calculated move taken by the timber corporations who assessed—with some justification—that Redwood Summer was unpopular enough among timber dependent communities as well as uninformed voters that the association would doom the measure.[68] However, Earth First! neither wrote nor endorsed the measure. According to Mendocino County Forests Forever spokesman David Drell, who had a long history as an environmental activist in that county stretching back before Earth First! even existed, the proposition was sponsored by fifteen major environmental organizations, ten congressmen, two senators, four assemblymen, and twelve supervisors from various California counties.[69] Eventually the proposition would be supported by virtually every mainstream environmental organization.[70] The proposition was also sponsored by a handful of labor unions, including the State Park Rangers Association and the California Teachers’ Association. It earned the support of sport and commercial fishermen, including United Anglers and Trout Unlimited.[71] Sierra Club spokesperson Gail Lucas, who was no supporter of Earth First! or Redwood Summer elaborated:
“The initiative was written by the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Planning and Conservation League and EPIC and is endorsed by more than 100 environmental and business groups. To the best of our knowledge it has not been endorsed by Earth First!, nor do we seek their endorsement.”[72]
Warner Chabot, a member of the Sierra Club steering committee that was campaigning for Proposition 130, angrily declared, “The Earth First! charge is simply a lie.”[73]
There was however a grain of truth in the association of Proposition 130 with Earth First!, and that was that the so called “reasonable” environmentalists who had drafted the measure had hitherto been generally subservient to the needs of capital, hence the need for Earth First! in the first place whose mission it was, according to its founders, to push the mainstream environmental groups “to the left.” If it had not been for Earth First!, or some other movement like it, it’s entirely possible that Proposition 130 would never have been drafted in the first place. Indeed, many Earth First!ers and their fellow travelers supported the proposition individually, though generally they were critical of it arguing—in many cases—that id did not go far enough at protecting the forests or the workers. Bruce Anderson was among those who reluctantly supported it, but agreed that the professional environmentalists who rain the mainstream environmentalist NGOs who were actually responsible for writing the measure were indeed elitists, because they hadn’t actually consulted any timber workers—even those critical of corporate timber.[74] Mendocino Commentary coeditor Harold Blythe declared,
“Earth First!, Redwood Summer, and local watershed groups do not have an initiative; we take initiative for sane and responsible forestry. For instance, (we advocate): stream and watershed rehabilitation; massive replanting as needed; harvesting for stand improvement, biodiversity and habitat improvement as well as forest products; complete rest where needed for recovery; appropriate funding for transition from depletion to sustainable forestry; and local control of decisions affecting our jobs, resources and development.”[75]
Sequoia Greenfield was even more blunt, declaring:
“An EF! initiative would have required wildlife corridors all over the state. An EF! initiative would have required the timber corporations to sell back their lands to the people for the price they originally paid for them plus the taxes they paid minus the cost of restoring those lands to viable forest (not tree farm) habitat. An EF! initiative would end all clearcutting immediately…”[76]
Forests Forever proposed none of these things, though Sequoia commented that she would support Proposition 130, as it was the least objectionable option. Sequoia, of course, only spoke for herself, though it is likely true that her opinions matched those of many other Earth First!ers, including her perspective that “An EF! initiative wouldn’t allow National Sierra Clubbers, those slimy compromisers, to be a part of it.”[77] Whatever the facts, Keene’s misleading statement was a propaganda coup for corporate timber. The idea that Forests Forever was “the Earth First! Initiative” had been firmly planted in its opponents’ minds.[78]
The official argument against Proposition 130 submitted to California Secretary of State March Fong Eu for publication in the the sample ballot mailed to all registered California voters, signed by Gerald Partain, Phillip Lowell, Scott Wall, Sam Merryman, and Sue Dickson claimed that Earth First! was an official sponsor of the initiative. In fact, in each reference they specifically stated, “the radical environmental group Earth First!.” Earth First! cofounder Mike Roselle, however, denied that it was a sponsor, declaring, We’re not endorsing it or directly supporting it.” He added that the opponents of Proposition 130 were “just trying to scare people by making us the bogeyman. They know that they’re going to lose this election on the merits of the initiative itself.” Roselle noted that Earth First!’s reputation made it an easy target for corporate timber, whether it was an endorser of the proposition or not.[79] The proposition’s opponents claimed that among Earth First! spokespeople, Roselle specifically had encouraged voters to support the initiative. Roselle countered this claim arguing, “What I said…was that we had an initiative that would solve the problem. When I said ‘we’ I was talking about the citizens of California (not Earth First!). (Earth First! doesn’t) make a practice of endorsing political campaigns or initiatives.”[80] Additionally, Darryl Cherney was listed as an individual supporter of the initiative and he neither supported nor opposed Proposition 130 sued the Secretary of State to remove his name from the arguments against Forests Forever, but was unsuccessful.[81]
The Secretary of State agreed with Roselle, at least and rejected the text submitted by the measure’s opponents, stating that the California elections code prevented them from mentioning Earth First! without the latter’s permission. Instead of the opponents’ wording, he would allow only the words, “a radical environmental group”. No doubt with strong urgings from the heads of corporate timber, the authors of the argument against Forests Forever immediately filed a lawsuit against Eu in Sacramento County Superior Court, claiming the Secretary of State’s decision constituted a denial of their constitutional rights to free speech. Their attorney, Joseph Rancho didn’t fault Eu’s interpretation of the elections code statute, but rather the law itself, arguing that opponents and supporters of an initiative should be able to say whatever they wanted, apparently even if it was a bald faced lie. Specifically in the case of Proposition 130, Rancho argued, “The burden ought to be on Earth First! to come in and show it’s false instead of having the Secretary of State drop it out without knowing whether it’s true or false.”[82] That Eu was willing to allow even an indirect association with Earth First!, which itself was inaccurate, was evidently insufficient to the timber industry who were going to make damn sure that they would escalate their two pronged attack associating Earth First! with “violent eco-terrorism” and Forests Forever specifically with “Earth First!” in order to soundly defeat Forests Forever.
Corporate timber’s strategy also had an indirect third prong, which was driving a wedge between Earth First! (and by extension, Redwood Summer) and mainstream environmental groups supporting the proposition. EPIC’s executive director Jama Chaplin declared, “The impression that the timber industry wants to give the voter is that Prop. 130 is an impulsive act of environmental sabotage.”[83] While Chaplin’s statement was meant to defend the proposition it was also something of a backhanded slap at Earth First!, whether intended or not, because the latter was neither impulsive nor primarily focused on sabotage. That the actual groups that did support 130 did not want to be associated with Earth First! was evidenced by their own countersuit against Eu, filed by San Francisco attorney Thomas Lippe asking that any reference to Earth First!, whether direct or indirect, be deleted from the ballot arguments.[84] Less than three weeks later, on Thursday, August 9, Sacramento Superior Court Justice James Ford ruled that the statute in question was indeed unconstitutional and that the opponents of the Proposition could mention Earth First! in their arguments, but he also ruled that the opponents could not identify Earth First! as one of the initiative’s cosponsors. While this was partial vindication for Earth First!, in a sense, it was a major defeat for Forests Forever’s actual sponsors.[85]
Corporate timber and its spokespeople had other tricks up their sleeve as well. Although it was hinted, for some time, that the backers of Proposition 130 had received a substantial donation from a wealthy individual[86], on Saturday, July 14, 1990, Congressman Doug Bosco created a huge media circus by “exposing” the identity of the proposition’s benefactor, venture capitalist Harold “Hal” Arbit.[87] Arbit had made a donation to the campaign totaling $940,578.50. [88] It represented almost 95 percent of the contributions had thus far received. To be certain, Arbit’s donation was controversial, because his firm, Concord Capital Management in San Mateo, California, which managed $2.08 billion overall on behalf of its clients included $154 million invested in paper and forest products, $77 million of it invested specifically in G-P, L-P, and Weyerhauser. According to Gail Lucas, the remainder of the $140 million the firm had invested in forest products was in paper and pulp mills. Overall, Concord Management had 150 companies representing 40 industries in its portfolio. Bosco angrily declared:
“I think an explanation is owed as to why someone in his situation would suddenly take a major interest in legislation of this type. A scenario could be developed that the passage of Forests Forever could greatly benefit Arbit personally and his corporate clients…
“These initiatives will rearrange our entire way of life on the North Coast. They will affect many innocent people—families that depend on the timber industry for the food on their table, sending their kids to school and paying their home mortgages.
“I want to be sure that they’re not being victimized by financial manipulations, especially ones that would go so far as to use the ballot box as part of those manipulations…
“There is at least a possibility that manipulation of the electoral process would have an effect on the value of these stocks and bonds.”[89]
One of Bosco’s aides, Bruce Taylor, elaborated:
“He seems to be a very canny investor. He may very well be playing this as a ploy to enhance the value of his investments. There is substantial money to be made in betting on winners and losers. It (would be) a little disingenuous (to suggest) that the money just showed up on their doorstep like a baby in a basket one night.”[90]
Hal Arbit quickly retorted, “(This is a) smear campaign against me by the timber industry and their political allies (and it) just tells me how terrified they are of letting the voters focus on the real issue—saving our ancient forests… (Environmental) organizations seized the opportunity.” Bosco aide Nick Tibbuts responded, “This is in no fashion a smear campaign. Somebody contributes almost a million dollars and the public has a right to know who that person is and what their agenda is.”[91]
A major weakness in Bosco’s accusations was that G-P and L-P had already contributed $550,000 to the campaign against the proposition from which they would supposedly benefit. It didn’t make sense that if Arbit hoped the benefit from market manipulations that he would donate to a campaign that his supposed handlers would oppose.[92] One could have easily asked Bosco the same question about his familial relationship to his father-in-law, log exporter, Victor Guynup, whose activities had substantially more effect on the livelihoods of timber workers than anything proposed in Proposition 130.[93] Bosco’s own record of having accepted large campaign contributions from corporate timber firms might just as well have motivated the latter to make misleading claims about Hal Arbit and Forests Forever.[94] It was also very coincidental timing that about the same time as Bosco claimed to have “exposed” Arbit, the congressman himself and his wife, Gayle Guynup, were under scrutiny for the sale of a 20 acre parcel of a 100-acre ranch they owned in Sonoma County between Sebastopol and Freestone to a Liberian corporation for $395,000. Liberia was known as a popular tax shelter for wealthy individuals and corporations.[95]
Bosco’s claim to have “exposed” Arbit was purely political theater, as anyone with the motivation could obtain such information through various campaign disclosure laws. The venture capitalist had filed a disclosure report in late May of 1990.[96] Still, Bosco demanded that Forests Forever’s chief backers, including the Sierra Club, the Planning and Conservation League, and EPIC disclose additional information about Arbit. Bosco framed the issue as a matter of the supporters of the proposition having something to hide:
“In effect, I want the same sort of disclosure from these environmental groups that any congressional candidate or others would have to make. If I, as a congressional candidate were to receive a million dollars in funding from one person who had major timber interests and then glibly say that I refused to discuss what interests those were, those groups would have me for lunch.”[97]
Other corporate timber spokespeople quickly joined in the chorus. State Senator Barry Keene chimed in suggesting that Bosco’s accusation was “plausible”.[98] Don Nelson jumped on the bandwagon and suggested that perhaps Forests Forever should in fact be called “the Arbit – Earth First!” Initiative, even though Arbit and Earth First! certainly had no connection. The maligned IWA Local #-469 official went so far as to accuse Arbit of secretly working with Maxxam (since Forests Forever included a provision for the buyout of the 3,000-plus acre Headwaters Forest), and that Proposition 130 was written by Charles Hurwitz himself and that the measure’s supporters were having the wool pulled over their eyes.[99] This last claim was utterly ridiculous, since the actual authors of measure were well known[100], but it didn’t stop Nelson and others from repeating it as if it were fact.[101] It also didn’t stop paranoid conspiracy theory minded people from drawing their own conclusions, such as Carlotta resident Gus Erickson from going so far as to suggest that Earth First! had been the brainchild of Charles Hurwitz![102] However, Maxxam also opposed Forests Forever, so if Hurwitz stood to benefit from the measure, he certainly didn’t believe it.[103]
The backers of Proposition 130 were not intentionally trying to deny anything. Leo McElroy, the Forests Forever campaign manager confirmed that Arbit had donated to the campaign, but that the money came from his private financial accounts and were not connected to Concord Capital Management. “If he hadn’t contributed the money, we wouldn’t be on the ballot”, declared McElroy.[104] Warner Chabot declared:
“Doug (Bosco) is trying to raise a cloud of suspicion because a wealthy man has been generous to this campaign with his personal money. Doug’s trying to raise questions and suspicions when he knows he doesn’t have any facts…
“Georgia-Pacific and Louisiana-Pacific claim that Forests Forever will hurt them financially. So if Mr. Arbit’s intentions were only financial, he would be opposing Forests Forever.”[105]
Gail Lucas likewise defended Arbit’s contribution, declaring, “Environmental groups expected an industry smear campaign to try and derail our forestry reform initiative. What’s really sad is the willingness of Congressman Bosco to do the timber industry’s dirty work.”[106] Lucas protested too much, however. Had she not been so quick to discount Earth First! she might have been enlightened enough to realize that the congressman had been carrying the water for corporate timber for most of his tenure.[107] Bosco aide Bruce Taylor recoiled from what he called unnecessarily harsh criticism of his boss, stating, “There’s no question that we’re opposed to the initiative, but that doesn’t mean we’re opposed to good forest practices. I don’t think we suggested that there’s anything criminally wrong with contributing to this initiative. We just question wither his motives were (pure).”[108]
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat quickly came to the congressman’s aide, editorializing:
“You can sense the discomfort in (the environmental groups’) denials. If it were proved that Arbit and his clients stand to make money off Forests Forever, it would be a major embarrassment…
“The fact is that timber companies outside California would be enriched by Forests Forever. For mega-companies such as Weyerhauser, without major holdings here, a measure that reduces timber harvests also reduces the competition…
“The history or regulation in the timber industry demonstrates that the biggest companies absorb the costs associated with stricter regulation and the small companies disappear…
“It is not difficult to speculate how environmental groups would have reacted if Arbit donated almost $1 million to defeat Forests Forever. They would have charged that monied (sic) interests were attempting to buy the election.”[109]
The editorial neglected to acknowledge the exemptions for small timber holdings, thus making the argument about regulations affecting small companies moot. Furthermore, moneyed interests were trying to buy the election. By September, corporate timber practically bragged that it had already spent $12 million to defeat Proposition 130 and intended to spend $8 million more.[110]
The Eureka Times-Standard likewise published an editorial lauding Bosco for his “very reasonable” questions. The publication even admitted that, “over the years many industries and special interests have waged multimillion dollar campaigns over the outcome of California initiatives,” (and no doubt the Times-Standard probably endorsed or opposed many such measures in the interest of those industries), but decried this “first instance” of a wealthy individual funding an initiative “in apparent pursuit of personal financial gain.”[111] The Times-Standard had nothing to say about the $12 to 20 million that corporate timber would raise to defeat Proposition 130.[112] Corporations by their nature operated in overt pursuit of financial gain, and inevitably this affected the lives of most of the workers directly employed by them, often with no regard to the latter’s long term benefit, evidently the issue was not one of the pursuit of profit per se, but pursuit of profit in opposition to the regional economic kingpins.
That Arbit had a long history of supporting environmental causes might have given Bosco, et. al. a clue to his actual motivations.[113] He had offered a contribution to an initiative campaign as long as it was “reviewed, drafted, and approved” by the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Planning and Conservation League (Earth First! was not part of the plan). Arbit had quietly made numerous donations to those and other environmental organizations for over a decade.[114] The venture capitalist insisted that his motivations were purely ecological:
“I suggested to (the leaders of various environmental organizations) that if they could write a forestry-reform initiative that had widespread support in the mainstream environmental community, I would contribute enough finances to at least help get the reform measure on the ballot…
“What has been happening to California’s forests is a tragedy. Big timber is overcutting our forests in general and destroying our ancient forests in particular to such an extent that it will have devastating consequences for the environment and the people of California.”[115]
In any case, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, on July 24, 1990, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission showed that Concord Capital Management had no investment interest in either Pacific Lumber or Maxxam, nor did Arbit or any members of his immediate family have such holdings.[116] Concord handled principally retirement funds and charitable institutions; it did not manage funds for private investors. The donation to the campaign didn’t even have a direct financial connection to the brokerage, except in Arbit’s own salary. The venture capitalist had made the donation from his personal savings.[117] Many of the measure’s supporters were untroubled by Arbit’s “big-league” support, and were quite welcoming of a wealthy backer having the courage of their convictions.[118] Still, the “revelation” was enough to provide corporate timber and its willing spokespeople plenty of ammunition. The opponents of Proposition 130 milked Arbit’s donation—or rather the false allegations of it—for all they could. Corporate Agribusiness’ constant labeling of Big Green as the “Tom Hayden Initiative” worked to turn potential voters against it, it therefore stood to reason that a similar campaign against Arbit would yield similar results.[119]
As if this weren’t enough, corporate timber and corporate agribusiness drafted their own counter propositions to Big Green and Forests Forever. These were Proposition 135, known by its nickname “Careful”, but also popularly known among its opponents as “Big Brown” and Proposition 138, the so-called, “Global Warming and Clearcutting Reduction Wildlife Protection and Reforestation Act of 1990”, known among its opponents as “Big Stump”.[120] According to its supporters, Proposition 138 would:
“Authorize $300,000,000 in general obligation bonds to fund, subject to Legislature approval, programs for loans, grants to public entities and others for forest and park restoration, urban forestry projects, and reforestation of private timberlands under 5,000 acres; limit timber cutting practices; require state-approved timber and wildlife management plans on certain private timberlands exceeding 5,000 acres; mandate timberland, wildlife, global warming studies; authorize state acquisition of designated timberlands, and urge Congress to ban foreign timber exports.”[121]
Claudia Jennings, a Ukiah timber broker and supporter of the Yellow Ribbon campaign declared:
“It’s written by foresters and wildlife biologists, and strikes a balance between public demands for protection of the forest and human and economic losses due to harvest reductions.
“I think it’s a real advantage for everybody to know the overall plan for managing large forest lands. The same forest practice rules will still apply, and if anything, Proposition 138 will strengthen them.”[122]
Proposition 138 also included a ten year moratorium on the use of eminent domain thus making it impossible for public agencies to acquire private timberlands, except through sales—which were difficult enough under existing conditions. Still worse than that, the initiative included language stipulating that if it as wells Propositions 128 and 130 passed, and 138 received a greater number of “yes” votes than either or both, the latter’s provisions would supersede any of the formers’.[123] Proposition 135 contained similar language designed to undermine Proposition 128. Essentially, Proposition 138 was corporate timber’s answer to both Forests Forever and the LSA Report. Their solution was to make the problems disappear by engineering them away. The problem was, by most non corporate timber funded research, the long term results of Proposition 138 would be that all of California’s ancient forests would be harvested away, only much quicker than was currently happening. The capitalists were determined not to be reined in by the ballot box under any circumstances.
Eric Swanson called the proposition “a cleverly written fraud,” not constituting an improvement over the status quo, but in fact a substantial rollback. Swanson specifically noted very specific provisions that undermined ate mpts to institute an end to liquidation logging included in the proposition, including:
“Section 4595.3 (f) of this initiative would exempt timber harvesting from CEQA and eliminate the ability of the public to sue CDF for not enforcing CEQA standards.
“This initiative claims to ban clearcutting in ancient forests. But under their definition of clearcutting, leaving just one large tree per acre would mean it really wasn’t a clearcut.
“Section 4582.1 (b) talks about the goal of reducing clearcutting on timberland other than old-growth forests by limiting clearcutting to not more than 10 percent of the acreage logged by any one timberland owner each year. But, since Section 4582.1 (c) specifically exempts “harvest for which no timber harvest plan is required,” and Section 4595.2 (a) requires owners of 5,000 acres or more to file Timber Management Plans rather than timber harvest plans, the provision for reducing clearcutting on industrial ownerships is little more than a fraud. The burden of reducing clearcutting will be shifted to the small landowners.
“And the industry’s Timber Management Plans (TMP) would last forever. Once approved, they would be permanent plans that could not be revoked by CDF.”[124]
Warner Chabot said of Proposition 138, “It would give (corporate timber) one-stop shopping for timber harvest approval of the entire corporate lands.”[125] Nat Bingham was similarly alarmed with Proposition 138 and while he was not overwhelmingly in favor of 130, he stated quite unequivocally that the latter was a better option than either the status quo or voting for Big Stump. He explained:
“The balance has been tilted against the fish for a long time. The time to restore it has come. The fisheries and the air we breathe are public trust responsibilities. Congress and the California Legislature have failed to protect our trust. As I said, 130 is far from perfect But the fish are gone from too many rivers. I feel that I must vote for Forests Forever.”[126]
Walter Smith was even more opposed to 138, which he saw as an obvious attempt to create an end run around not only 130, but the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act as well. Even Craig Blencowe, an outspoken opponent of Forests Forever opposed 138, arguing that “the best thing that could happen is to have all these initiatives defeated.”[127]
Proposition 138’s principal supporters who were, for the most part, Proposition 130’s opponents were not content with simply opposing and undermining the latter. The supporters of 138 were generally the same forces that opposed the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl as an endangered species.[128] They were also just as interested in driving wedges between timber workers and environmental activists. Sensing that it would not do to have Proposition 138 associated with the employing class, its supporters hatched a plan to cynically manipulate California voters by using the timber workers as its public face. Even though studies clearly showed corporate timber’s claims of massive job losses should Forests Forever passed to be entirely baseless, they nevertheless continued to perpetually repeat them regardless. The corporate commissars constantly ignored the fact that only Proposition 130 included any funds—$32 million in fact—for reparations and retraining for displaced workers.[129] There was some legitimate criticism that perhaps that figure wasn’t quite enough to offset the potential job losses. Nat Bingham, for example, suggested that the funds should have been specifically tied to watershed restoration, which was one of the more pressing concerns for commercial fishermen.[130] Still, the amount would be substantially greater than the paltry thirteen weeks of unemployment compensation most timber workers would have otherwise received.[131] Proposition 138, on the other hand, offered no such funds whatsoever.[132]
Furthermore, a secret memo circulated among 130’s foes instructed coordinators at each timber company to encourage employees to write letters to the editor in opposition to 130 and/or in support of 138. These letters were to be carefully screened, of course, by management and the industry’s coordinators first. This same memo envisioned well orchestrated campaigns by residents of timber dependent communities on California’s north coast to the perceived strongholds of Forest Forever’s support, namely the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles.[133] There were numerous letters to the editor of various local publications in both Humboldt and Mendocino Counties (as well as many of the ones nearby) opposing Forests Forever and Supporting Big Stump.[134] Many of the letters opposing 130 and supporting 138 were filled with dubious claims and unscientific opinions no doubt taken from various Corporate Timber propaganda sources. These included those of Frank Holland, who regurgitated the nonsensical claim that large scale clearcuts were beneficial to the long term viability of diverse forests[135]; Greg Blomstrom, who claimed to be an environmentalist, but argued that the uneven-aged forestry methods proposed by 130 would result in increased cutting, not less[136]; or Teresa Sand who repeated the “redwoods cause pollution” myth perpetuated by former President Ronald Reagan (as well as the usual litany of accusations against Earth First!, including tree spiking, sabotaging equipment, and the like).[137] Many of them singled out Earth First! as the primary culprit, and some of them named Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney in particular as the chief backers—if not masterminds—behind Forests Forever.[138] The most bizarre example was penned by Cindy Simpson that accused Earth First! and Hal Arbit of forcing rural timber workers to move to industry choked cities and—at the same time—wanting to crush industry altogether. Simpson’s opinions included statements such as:
“It’s really hard to take when someone drives up in their limo or brand new BMW, dressed in a three-piece suit and tells you that your community doesn’t matter.
“It doesn’t matter to them that you don’t want to move to the city to compete for jobs, housing, and services.
“It doesn’t matter to them that you choose to live in a rural community and raise your children away from crime, drugs and pollution. It doesn’t matter to them because it doesn’t affect them.
“Then there is Earth First! who helped to write Proposition 130. They want to reclaim all for wilderness and smash industrial civilization.
“That should tell people what Proposition 130 is all about. Forests Forever is guilty by association if nothing else.”[139]
Proposition 130’s supporters weren’t silent either, and did whatever they could to try and counter the propaganda against the initiative, and for the most part, their opinions were well reasoned and scientific.[140] On occasion, Forest Forever even received a letter of support from registered Republicans.[141] Such matters, however, are of little consequence when one is opposed by big money, however, and Corporate Timber was sparing no expense at winning.
In late July, Californians for New Forestry supplied timber companies with sample form letters to send to their employees requesting that they donate a day’s wages to support Proposition. CFNF spokeswoman Jann Taber made it quite clear that this was about more than just financing the proposition. “We want to get (timber workers) involved in this campaign. It’s not just a campaign being run by the timber industry.”[142] This was too much for even Don Nelson who argued that his members had a right to decide for themselves whether or not to fund Proposition 138, which was an ironic stance given his rather unprincipled opposition to Proposition 130.[143] At least one north coast timber company, Simpson, publically disclosed that they mailed letters to the homes of its employees. Simpson spokesman Ryan Hamilton defended the act saying, “Running this campaign is clearly a live or die situation for the industry. It not only impacts the companies and managers, but all of the employees.” He also indicated that other companies, including G-P, L-P, and P-L, no doubt, had sent similar letters, though the other companies did not publically verify this claim. Hamilton argued that the appeal for one day’s wages was a “suggestion” (which was smart, because requiring it would have been blatantly illegal), and he conceded that most of Simpson’s employees could scarcely afford it. CFNF’s campaign had listed a number of other suggested actions timber workers could take to support Proposition 138.[144] One anonymous rank and file G-P employee complained bitterly, “We haven’t gotten raises in four years, and now they want us to pay to fight the environmentalists.”[145]
Simpson’s conduct was part of a pattern of Job blackmail to intimidate its workers. As early as May, the company had informed its employees that if voters approved Proposition 130, it would have to lay off half of its workforce. The company, which had purchased Arcata Redwood, withheld the information that both of the latter company’s recently acquired mills would be closed in five years because Simpson was running out of harvestable wood.[146] A 50 percent reduction in the workforce at Simpson had happened in recent memory, but it hadn’t been due to environmental regulations. During the early 1980s, Simpson upgraded its Korbel facility, doubling its output while at the same time reducing its workforce by half, thus resulting in a quadrupling of its productivity. The company’s increased production enabled the massive clearcutting of its forestlands, in particular the Mad River watershed.[147] Simpson was hardly the exception. Pacific Lumber president John Campbell had likewise forecasted massive cutbacks if Forests Forever passed. Campbell did not disclose the fact that Maxxam CEO Charles Hurwitz paid himself a yearly salary of $8 million, which was the equivalent of 400 full time $20,000 a year jobs. Already hundreds of G-P and L-P jobs had been lost due to automation and outsourcing. Forests Forever would, at worst, have been but a drop in the bucket.[148] The corporate timber propaganda techniques were very sophisticated, however, and they were able to convince a great many of their workers as well as the residents of most nearby timber dependent communities that Forests Forever was the biggest threat to their way of life they could ever imagine, let alone experience. To make matters worse, although Redwood Summer was never intended to be linked with Proposition 130, corporate timber successfully equated the two in many people’s minds, and this negative association generated a substantial amount of negative press against both.
Notes:
[1] “‘Forests Forever’ Will be on the Ballot”, by Steve Hart, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 15, 1990. [RECHECK SOURCE].
[2] “‘Big Green’ Initiative Gets National Attention”, by Clyde Weiss, Ukiah Daily Journal, July 12, 1990.
[3] “Log Bill Won’t Go on Ballot: Keene Compromise Stripped of Bonds”, UPI Wire, Eureka Times-Standard, July 3, 1990.
[4] “‘Big Green Would Devastate Agriculture, Industry Says”, by Rudy Abramson, Los Angeles Times, reprinted in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 11, 1990.
[5] “Competing State Propositions”, table, San Francisco Examiner, November 4, 1990. LaRouche is a registered Democrat, but is for all intents and purposes an extremely racist and homophobic crypto-fascist whose political opinions are solidly within the milieu of the extreme authoritarian right. Proposition 132 called for a ban on gill and trammel nets used by commercial fishing interests in southern and central coastal California. One can only wonder why LaRouche’s followers saw any opportunity in opposing it.
[6] “Upshot and Downside of Prop 130”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 26, 1990
[7] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[8] “Forests Forever: Reform Bureaucrats”, letter to the editor by Margaret Dickenson, EcoNews, November 1990.
[9] “State has Strictest Forest Rules in Nation”, letter to the editor by Paula M. Langager, Eureka Times-Standard, Sept. 28, 1990
[10] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[11] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[12] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[13] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[14] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[15] “Planet Used to Be Forested”, Community Forum, by Gail Lucas, Mendocino Beacon, August 9, 1990
[16] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[17] “Environmentalists Open Fire in Battle of the Initiatives: Activists Charge ‘Lies and Fraud’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 7, 1990.
[18] “Don Nelson: The Man Environmentalists Love to Hate”, Don Nelson interviewed by Jim Shields, Mendocino County Observer, August 3, 1990.
[19] “Last Chance”, letter to the editor by Tony Orth, Willits News, October 31, 1990.
[20] “Upshot and Downside of Prop 130”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 26, 1990
[21] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[22] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[23] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[24] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[25] “Enough Already”, by Nat Bingham, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[26] “Don Nelson: The Man Environmentalists Love to Hate”, Don Nelson interviewed by Jim Shields, Mendocino County Observer, August 3, 1990.
[27] “Upshot and Downside of Prop 130”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 26, 1990
[28] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[29] “Upshot and Downside of Prop 130”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 26, 1990
[30] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[31] “Forests Forever Means More Timber, More Jobs”, by Marilyn Sterling, EcoNews, October 1990.
[32] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[33] “Forests Forever Means More Timber, More Jobs”, by Marilyn Sterling, EcoNews, October 1990.
[34] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[35] “Sustainable Forestry vs. Depletion Forestry: ‘Forests for Now’”, by Harold Blythe, Mendocino Commentary, September 6, 1990.
[36] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[37] “Sustainable Forestry vs. Depletion Forestry: ‘Forests for Now’”, by Harold Blythe, Mendocino Commentary, September 6, 1990.
[38] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[39] “California’s ‘Timber War’ Heats Up”, by Chuck Idelson and Tara Kramer, People’s Daily World, July 21, 1990.
[40] “Forests Forever Means More Timber, More Jobs”, by Marilyn Sterling, EcoNews, October 1990.
[41] Foster, John Bellamy, “The Limits of Environmentalism Without Class: Lessons from the Ancient Forest Struggle of the Pacific Northwest” New York, NY., Monthly Review Press (Capitalism, Nature, Socialism series), 1993., pp. ##-##.
[42] “Forests Forever Means More Timber, More Jobs”, by Marilyn Sterling, EcoNews, October 1990.
[43] Letter to the editor, by Don Nelson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1989 ( “Don Nelson Says No”), Mendocino Commentary, December 14, 1989, Mendocino Beacon, January 4, 1990 ( “Read it Completely”), and Eureka Times-Standard, January 7, 1990 (“Forest Measure Would be Disaster for the North Coast”).
[44] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, March 28, 1990.
[45] “Bruce Anderson’s Reply (to Don Nelson)”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 11, 1990.
[46] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, April 25, 1990
[47] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, May 23, 1990
[48] “Close to Home: Don’t Be Fooled”, guest editorial by Barry Keene, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 1, 1990.
[49] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[50] “Enough Already”, by Nat Bingham, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[51] “Board Confronts Timber Liars”, by Rob Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 20, 1990.
[52] “Close to Home: Don’t Be Fooled”, guest editorial by Barry Keene, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 1, 1990.
[53] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[54] Letter to the editor, by Don Nelson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 6, 1989 ( “Don Nelson Says No”), Mendocino Commentary, December 14, 1989, Mendocino Beacon, January 4, 1990 ( “Read it Completely”), and Eureka Times-Standard, January 7, 1990 (“Forest Measure Would be Disaster for the North Coast”).
[55] Letter to the editor, by Eric Swanson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, December 27, 1989 (“Sustained Yield and Don Nelson’s Credibility”), Ukiah Daily Journal, December 28, 1989 (“Assertions are Ridiculous”), and Mendocino Beacon, January 4, 1990 (“Disagrees With IWA’s Don Nelson”).
[56] “Close to Home: Don’t Be Fooled”, guest editorial by Barry Keene, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 1, 1990.
[57] “Log Bill Won’t Go on Ballot: Keene Compromise Stripped of Bonds”, UPI Wire, Eureka Times-Standard, July 3, 1990.
[58] “Forests Forever: What it is and isn’t”, by Gail Lucas, various publications, including Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 8, 1990; Fort Bragg Advocate News, July 12, 1990; Mendocino Beacon, July 12, 1990; Ukiah Daily Journal, July 17, 1990; Willits News, August 18, 1990, North Coast News, July 19, 1990, and EcoNews, August 1990.
[59] Letter to the editor by Don Nelson, various publications, including North Coast News, July 19, 1990; Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 19, 1990; Anderson Valley Advertiser, July 26, 1990 (which gave it the title, “More Lies from Corporate Union Man Don Nelson”); Mendocino Commentary, July 26, 1990; and Ukiah Daily Journal, August 2, 1990.
[60] “Don Nelson: The Man Environmentalists Love to Hate”, Don Nelson interviewed by Jim Shields, Mendocino County Observer, August 3, 1990.
[61] “Guest Commentary”, by Craig Blencowe, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[62] “Responsible Stats”, letter to the editor by Don Nelson, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 4, 1990 and Willits News, October 10, 1990.
[63] Letter to the editor by Bill Self, published in various sources, including Ukiah Daily Journal, September 3, 1990 (“Timber Statistics Need Review”); Willits News, September 5, 1990 (“Calm Concerns”); and Mendocino Beacon, September 6, 1990 (“Look at Stats”).
[64] Letter to the editor by Jim Sears, various publications, including Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 1, 1990 (“How About it, Don?”); Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 8, 1990; and Ukiah Daily Journal, August 8, 1990.
[65] “Stop Liquidation Logging!”, by Roanne Withers, Betty Ball, Kelpie Wilson, Anna Marie Stenberg, and Jennifer Biegel, Industrial Worker, September 1990.
[66] “Close to Home: Don’t Be Fooled”, guest editorial by Barry Keene, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 1, 1990; emphasis added.
[67] “Environmentalists Open Fire in Battle of the Initiatives: Activists Charge ‘Lies and Fraud’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 7, 1990.
[68] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[69] “Upshot and Downside of Prop 130”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 26, 1990
[70] “Competing State Propositions”, table, San Francisco Examiner, November 4, 1990.
[71] “Setting the Record Straight”, Press Release by Jama Chaplin, EPIC, Mendocino Commentary, October 18, 1990 and Anderson Valley Advertiser, October 31, 1990.
[72] “Forests Forever: What it is and isn’t”, by Gail Lucas, various publications, including Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 8, 1990; Fort Bragg Advocate News, July 12, 1990; Mendocino Beacon, July 12, 1990; Ukiah Daily Journal, July 17, 1990; Willits News, August 18, 1990, North Coast News, July 19, 1990, and EcoNews, August 1990.
[73] “Environmentalists Open Fire in Battle of the Initiatives: Activists Charge ‘Lies and Fraud’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 7, 1990.
[74] “Media Watch”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 19, 1990.
[75] “Sustainable Forestry vs. Depletion Forestry: ‘Forests for Now’”, by Harold Blythe, Mendocino Commentary, September 6, 1990.
[76] “Ol’ Yellow Balls”, letter to the editor by Sequoia, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 19, 1990.
[77] “Ol’ Yellow Balls”, letter to the editor by Sequoia, Anderson Valley Advertiser, September 19, 1990.
[78] “Keene Lies”, letter to the editor by Ron Glick, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 15, 1990.
[79] “Earth First! Denies Link to ‘Forests Forever’ Initiative”, by David Forester, Eureka Times-Standard, July 26, 1990.
[80] “‘Forests Forever’ Can Mention Earth First!”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, August 11, 1990.
[81] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 15, 1990.
[82] “Earth First! Denies Link to ‘Forests Forever’ Initiative”, by David Forester, Eureka Times-Standard, July 26, 1990.
[83] “Setting the Record Straight”, Press Release by Jama Chaplin, EPIC, Mendocino Commentary, October 18, 1990 and Anderson Valley Advertiser, October 31, 1990.
[84] “Earth First! Denies Link to ‘Forests Forever’ Initiative”, by David Forester, Eureka Times-Standard, July 26, 1990.
[85] “‘Forests Forever’ Can Mention Earth First!”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, August 11, 1990.
[86] “‘Forests Forever’ Million-Dollar Man Says it’s His Idea”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 19, 1990
[87] “Major Timber Investor Behind Forest Initiative, Bosco Claims”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, July 16, 1990; and “‘Forests’ Backer’s Motives Doubted”, by Alvarado Delgado, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 16, 1990.
[88] Letter to the editor by Don Nelson, various publications, including North Coast News, July 19, 1990; Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 19, 1990; Anderson Valley Advertiser, July 26, 1990 (which gave it the title, “More Lies from Corporate Union Man Don Nelson”); Mendocino Commentary, July 26, 1990; and Ukiah Daily Journal, August 2, 1990.
[89] “Major Timber Investor Behind Forest Initiative, Bosco Claims”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, July 16, 1990.
[90] “‘Forests’ Backer’s Motives Doubted”, by Alvarado Delgado, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 16, 1990.
[91] “Flap Over Forest Funds Heats Up: Financier Says Motives Honest”, by Randi Rossman, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 17, 1990.
[92] “‘Forests’ Backer’s Motives Doubted”, by Alvarado Delgado, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 16, 1990.
[93] “Appointment in Samoa, Part 1”, by Alexander Cockburn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, June 27, 1990.
[94] “Forest Forever’s Chief Financier Accused of Market Manipulations”, North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[95] “Mystery Over $395,000 Land Sale by Bosco”, by Mary Fricker, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 17, 1990.
[96] “‘Forests Forever’ Million-Dollar Man Says it’s His Idea”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 19, 1990
[97] “Major Timber Investor Behind Forest Initiative, Bosco Claims”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, July 16, 1990.
[98] “Forest Forever’s Chief Financier Accused of Market Manipulations”, North Coast News, July 19, 1990.
[99] “Don Nelson: The Man Environmentalists Love to Hate”, Don Nelson interviewed by Jim Shields, Mendocino County Observer, August 3, 1990.
[100] “Forests Forever: What it is and isn’t”, by Gail Lucas, various publications, including Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 8, 1990; Fort Bragg Advocate News, July 12, 1990; Mendocino Beacon, July 12, 1990; Ukiah Daily Journal, July 17, 1990; Willits News, August 18, 1990, North Coast News, July 19, 1990, and EcoNews, August 1990.
[101] “Don Nelson: The Man Environmentalists Love to Hate”, Don Nelson interviewed by Jim Shields, Mendocino County Observer, August 3, 1990.
[102] “Bedroom or Board Room?” letter to the editor by Gus Erickson, Eureka Times-Standard, August 7, 1990.
[103] “Some Cool Green for Forests Forever”, editorial, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 18, 1990.
[104] “Major Timber Investor Behind Forest Initiative, Bosco Claims”, by Mark Rathjen, Eureka Times-Standard, July 16, 1990.
[105] “‘Forests’ Backer’s Motives Doubted”, by Alvarado Delgado, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 16, 1990.
[106] “‘Forests Forever’ Million-Dollar Man Says it’s His Idea”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 19, 1990
[107] See in particular “Confessions of a Candidate”, by Darryl Cherney, Country Activist, March 1988, and “You Fine Haired Sons of Bitches”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser, January 31, 1990.
[108] “‘Forests Forever’ Million-Dollar Man Says it’s His Idea”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 19, 1990
[109] “Some Cool Green for Forests Forever”, editorial, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 18, 1990.
[110] “Environmentalists Open Fire in Battle of the Initiatives: Activists Charge ‘Lies and Fraud’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 7, 1990.
[111] “Who’s Pulling the Strings?”, editorial, Eureka Times-Standard, July 20, 1990.
[112] “Demonstrations End, Initiative Rhetoric Begins”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 12, 1990.
[113] “Here and There in Mendocino County”, by Bruce Anderson, Anderson Valley Advertiser¸ September 19, 1990.
[114] “‘Forests’ Backer’s Motives Doubted”, by Alvarado Delgado, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 16, 1990.
[115] “‘Forests Forever’ Million-Dollar Man Says it’s His Idea”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 19, 1990
[116] Letter to the editor, by Jan de Sipio, various publications, including Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 1, 1990 (“Don’s Credibility”) and Ukiah Daily Journal, August 6, 1990 (“Check the Facts”).
[117] “‘Forests Forever’ Million-Dollar Man Says it’s His Idea”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 19, 1990
[118] See for example, “Truth About Arbit”, letter to the editor by Heidi Freestone, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 26, 1990.
[119] “Hayden has Negative Impact, According to Poll”, AP Wire, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 27, 1990.
[120] “Log Industry Qualifies Own Measure”, by Steve Hart, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 28, 1990. [RECHECK SOURCE].
[121] “Upshot and Downside of Proposition 138”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 31, 1990.
[122] “Upshot and Downside of Proposition 138”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 31, 1990.
[123] “Upshot and Downside of Proposition 138”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 31, 1990.
[124] “Guest Commentary”, by Eric Swanson, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[125] “Environmentalists Open Fire in Battle of the Initiatives: Activists Charge ‘Lies and Fraud’”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 7, 1990.
[126] “Enough Already”, by Nat Bingham, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[127] “Upshot and Downside of Proposition 138”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, October 31, 1990.
[128] “Don’t be Fooled”, letter to the editor by Richard Stoney, EcoNews, November 1990.
[129] “Forests Forever Means More Timber, More Jobs”, by Marilyn Sterling, EcoNews, October 1990.
[130] “Enough Already”, by Nat Bingham, North Coast News, September 6, 1990.
[131] “130 Will Create Jobs”, letter to the editor by Dan Faulk, Anderson Valley Advertiser, October 31, 1990 and EcoNews, November 1990.
[132] “Forests or Stumps”, letter to the editor by Don Morris, Willits News, October 29, 1990.
[133] “Forests Forever Means More Timber, More Jobs”, by Marilyn Sterling, EcoNews, October 1990.
[134] See for example, “No 130, Yes 138”, by Judith Valadao, et. al., Mendocino Beacon, July 26, 1990; “Get the Facts”, by Tammy Connor, Ukiah Daily Journal, August 17, 1990; “No on Prop. 130”, by Mary Marcum, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 18, 1990; “Protect Humans”, by Harry N. Howard, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 17, 1990; “Threat to Logging”, by Tammy Gadberry, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 19, 1990; “Look Closely Before Voting on 130”, by J. Dunlap, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, September 27, 1990; “California’s Politicians at it Again”, by D.E. Whitchurch III, Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, November 1, 1990; “Forestry Concerns”, by Gloria Pittner, Ukiah Daily Journal, November 2, 1990; and “Undesirable Direction”, by Craig Blencowe, Willits News, November 2, 1990.
[135] “Misinformed Appeals”, letter to the editor by Frank Holland, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 7, 1990.
[136] “Why He’s Not for Forests Forever”, by Craig Blomstrom, EcoNews, October 1990.
[137] Letter to the editor by Teresa Sand, various publications, including Willits News, October 10, 1990 (“Forest Management”); and Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, November 1, 1990 (“Prop. 130 Poorly Written by Activists”).
[138] See for example, “Investigate Leaders”, by Charles R Greene, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 5, 1990; “PD’s Hidden Agenda”, by Gail Yarbrough, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 13, 1990; “Timber Families”, by Judy Valdao, et. al., Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 16, 1990; and “Plea to Arbit”, by Candace Boak, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 17, 1990.
[139] Letter to the editor by Cindy Simpson, various publications, including Humboldt Beacon and Fortuna Advance, October 11, 1990 (“Earth First! Wants Modern Industry Crushed”); and Willits News, October 19, 1990 (“Guilt by Association”).
[140] See for example, “Overcutting Danger”, by Lynn Ryan, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 3, 1990; “In Mars’ Image”, by Edgar Leslie, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 3, 1990; “Forest Control”, by Laurie Coluzzi, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 7, 1990; “Familiar Behavior”, by Fred and Lynn Holden, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 8, 1990; “Reply to Valiant, by Len Swanson, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Sonoma County Group, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 8, 1990; “Take a Long View”, by Michael J. Hogan, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, September 27, 1990; “I Wanted To Believe”, by Lanny Cotler, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 16, 1990; “The List Goes On and On, by Sandra Tilles, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 22, 1990; “Ridiculous Argument”, by Stanley E. Fisher, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 13, 1990; “Proposition 138 a Joke”, by Ellen Drell, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 24, 1990; “Timberland Dollars”, letter to thte editor by Eric Swanson, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 25, 1990; “Epic Supports 130”, by the Board of Directors of EPIC, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 26, 1990; “‘Big Stump’ Decried”, by Bill and Ramona Crooks, Ukiah Daily Journal, October 28, 1990; “Last Chance”, by Tony Orth, Willits News, October 31, 1990; “Native Says ‘Yea’ on 130”, by Christine Leigh Elder, EcoNews, November 1990; "untitled", by Sharon Iveland, Eureka Times-Standard, Nov. 3, 1990; and “Critical Election”, by Anette Morrison and 66 others, Ukiah Daily Journal, November 4, 1990.
[141] “Republicans Rapped”, letter to the editor by Peter Ryce, Eureka Times-Standard, November 1, 1990.
[142] “Timber Companies Want Workers’ Help: Wages Sought to Fight ‘Forests Forever’”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 28, 1990.
[143] “Timber Industry Asks Workers to Put Pay into Campaign”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 27, 1990.
[144] “Timber Companies Want Workers’ Help: Wages Sought to Fight ‘Forests Forever’”, by David Forster, Eureka Times-Standard, July 28, 1990.
[145] “Timber Industry Asks Workers to Put Pay into Campaign”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 27, 1990.
[146] “Fear at Work”, by Dan Faulk, Country Activist, July 1990.
[147] “Keene Lies”, letter to the editor by Ron Glick, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 15, 1990.
[148] “Fear at Work”, by Dan Faulk, Country Activist, July 1990.