As the action in Fort Bragg subsided and the crowds of counterposed green and yellow demonstrators dispersed, the battle for nearby Osprey Grove resumed. However, unlike the days before the big standoff in the coastal Mendocino County mill town, where the agents of Louisiana-Pacific violently attacked Redwood Summer activists, the struggles now took place mostly in the legal courts and courts of public opinion. Neighbors formed “Friends of Osprey Grove” (FOG). FOG sued L-P and the California Department of Forestry over THP 1-89-468, demanding that it be recalled based on L-P’s failure to report that old growth existed among the forestlands in (or near) the THP; that the cut actually crossed the boundary of the THP; and that the plan failed to protect wildlife habitat. The last issue was of paramount importance due to the impending interim provisions for the protection of now listed as endangered Northern Spotted Owl, which was due on July 23, 1990. Environmentalists had observed the existence of both spotted owls and ospreys in the grove. The case, which turned out the first involving the new spotted owl ruling[1], was presided over by Mendocino County Superior Court judge Luther.[2] Luther initially granted a temporary stay on the 23rd of July after an initial refusal[3], but indications were that on or around July 31, he would rule in favor of L-P who challenged the ruling on the grounds that it was retroactive.[4] Protesters remained in the grove in case the judge ruled against them.[5] Luther made it clear that he had received letters on both sides of the issue, but would make his ruling strictly on the basis of the law. Redwood Summer activist Louis Korn, a supporter of Osprey Grove opined:
“That seems eminently fair, until one realizes that our laws are skewed to promote corporate profit, not our welfare or the welfare of other beings. Even a ruling saving the Grove, based solely on law, would be for the wrong reason. But when the law’s application serves genocide, diminishing all remaining life, judges must recognize the law’s hubris and humble it. Law cannot be-master of life. Law serves life, or destroys it.”[6]
Korn, admonished Luther to look beyond the narrow confines of the law, stating, “Any ruling based strictly on law would abdicate your greater responsibility to fellow beings, to many species whose extinctions are abetted by law.”[7] Unfortunately, Judge Luther did not share Korn’s enlightened perspective. He declined to accept as evidence a videotape depicting Rod Jones, the plaintiff’s attorney, identifying logging roads that crossed the boundaries of the THP, though the judge did allow the tape to be played in court. More significantly, the judge seemed to favor L-P attorney Jared Carter’s argument (on behalf of L-P resource manager Rob Morris) that the new state rules protecting the spotted owl should not be allowed to apply retroactively to THPs currently in effect, rather than merely effecting new THPs.[8] If the rules did apply retroactively, argued Carter, then the law of contracts required market value compensation for all of the retroactively affected THPs. Of course, this fell under the narrow constraints of laws based on the principles of private property rights established well before the interconnectedness of the web of life was fully understood, and this was Korn’s principle argument.[9]
Jones asked Morris, under cross examination, what would be the effect of applying the rules retroactively, to which Morris responded, “It would be hard to justify keeping the mills open if there are no logs on the deck,” and added that all of the company’s current THPs in the county were adjacent to or between registered spotted owl habitat conservation areas (HCAs).[10] This statement conjured forth nightmare scenarios of “massive unemployment and economic ruin.” Rod Jones tried to dispel Morris’s pessimistic projections by pointing out that accelerated harvesting had provided lumber mills with a glut of “cold decked” logs, and these could supply peak demand for months on end.[11] Also, L-P had a record number of acres under approved THPs on its 350,000 acres of timberland in Mendocino County at the time. Robert Morris admitted that L-P had known for some time that the state would issue new rules protecting the spotted owl, but made no contingency plan for such an event, stating, “We were hoping there would be no effect on our operations.”[12]Jones argued that Judge Luther’s decision turned on the lack of confirming evidence of spotted owls’ nests within or near L-P’s intended harvest. The problem was that an independent search for one would technically violate trespass laws, and though the Redwood Summer activists had already trespassed (and some of them had been arrested), they were not officially qualified to identify such nests. Judge Luther sustained Carter’s objection of Rod Jones’ motion to continue the stay three days to appeal, and demanded a $200,000 indemnity bond if it was granted.[13] A narrow interpretation of the law summarily condemned Osprey Grove to almost certain death.
Even during the temporary stay, L-P had sent Pardini’s crew into the grove to cut, but Redwood Summer protesters remained steadfast in their resolve to defend it.[14] During that time, a total of 39 protesters were arrested. FOG and Redwood Summer organizers attempted to negotiate with Robert Pardini’s logging crew, hoping to inspire the logging contractor to see that L-P was using them as pawns, and that any short term gain the former might accrue would be insufficient to offset the ultimate loss they would suffer when the latter had finished liquidating what little was left of the county’s forestlands. As a gesture of good faith, they even offered to raise funds to offset the loss of potential revenue to Pardini that had thus far resulted from the direct actions plus any future legal or direct action against logging.[15] Almost immediately, over $1,000 in relief funds were raised by FOG, Sonoma County Earth First![16], and the IWW.[17] Judi Bari and Bruce Anderson were two notable contributors.[18] Redwood Summer organizer Meridian Green explained the rationale behind the efforts:
“L-P knew (Pardini) weren’t going (to be able) to cut. They were just putting pressure on the demonstrators and maintaining a presence at the loggers’ expense. Each day, Pardini and his crew have to show up at the grove to fulfill their contract, and then they have to go right back home. L-P won’t let Pardini move his equipment out of there. L-P’s treatment of the Pardinis reveals their strategy to pit loggers against the Redwood Summer coalition.”[19]
Green added
“This is not a fund for all loggers who find themselves out of work because of overcutting, but for these particular loggers who were displaced by this TRO. These men have the same skills that are needed in watershed restoration and reforestation. A lot of THPs are being held up now, and we need to put some realistic proposals on the table to replace these jobs with real jobs.”[20]
Green and other organizers challenged the Yellow Ribbon dominated “Community Solidarity” committee to put or shut up by matching the contributions made by the IWW, Earth First!, Redwood Summer, and FOG. The Yellows demurred.[21] The efforts received the attention of the Ukiah Daily Journal[22] and the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.[23] The latter got the story halfway right (though they misidentified the IWW as “International” Workers of the World, like so many others had and have done), but printed it under a misleading headline (referring to the Redwood Summer and FOG folks as “timber foes”, which they weren’t). Robert Pardini’s son, Danny, was not impressed, however, and made his thoughts known publically, stating:
“Today Earth First! representatives announced to me that they are setting up a “Logger’s Relief Fund” to try to compensate for all the hard working loggers (some with families to feed) that have been recently put out of work due to their restraining order against the Barton Gulch job. Any minuscule amount of cash they could manage to muster up could not begin to compensate for the damages and losses suffered.
“I come from a fourth generation logging family. Timber is what we know and have been exposed to all of our lives. Our company does a very good job, our jobs and clean, we have a good reputation in the industry and we’re proud to be loggers. We are as concerned about the planet as much as any other group of people, maybe more so than these terrorists. Earth First! claims to be a nonviolent group, but what about law-abiding? They promote the spiking of trees, pulling up of survey stakes, and severe damage of heavy equipment. The spiking of trees hurts innocent people—fallers, mill workers, etc.”[24]
The younger Pardini’s restatement of a claim he knew perfectly well was false (Earth First! had renounced both tree spiking and monkeywrenching) demonstrates that he was likely both crying crocodile tears and a willing collaborator with L-P. While it’s true that some of Pardini’s equipment was apparently sabotaged, there is absolutely no proof that participants in Redwood Summer had anything to do with it, a fact which even Jack Sweeley publically acknowledged.[25] Redwood Summer would have disavowed any such actions on the part of people participating in any of the actions under its banner at any rate. Given L-P’s willingness to engage in subterfuge over the tree spiking incident in the Cloverdale mill in 1987 (which may have been a fabrication by L-P itself, given the evidence), it is not out of the question that the equipment sabotaged at Osprey Grove may have been an attempt to undermine the trust that FOG and Redwood Summer organizers were attempting to build with the loggers’ relief fund. Danny Pardini had more to say in his statement, however:
“The real issue here should be that the trees they are trying to save are on privately owned property. I can only speculate the outrage Louisiana Pacific is experiencing over this situation. L-P generously allowed the bordering property owners to mark the specific trees along their property lines that they did not want cut, and L-P agreed to leave those trees. They could have cut those as well, but didn’t.
“I was hired to do a job—get L-P’s logs to the mill. These logs will in turn be made into lumber and paper products for the people. When the Barton Gulch harvest plan is reapproved we will complete the job we started.”[26]
This was the height of chutzpah. Louisiana-Pacific’s inclusion of Osprey Grove in the cut, which had not even been in the original THP was by itself, illegal (though the CDF had allowed it, which was par for the course). L-P had even gone so far as to flag trees on “private property” that wasn’t their own.[27] The only reason why L-P was “allowing” locals to mark trees along their property lines that they didn’t want cut, was because to do anything else would be illegal. Evidently Danny Pardini was only willing to defend “private property” if it suited the hand that he apparently believed fed him. Further, his insistence on calling the contested grove “Barton Gulch”, when everyone else (including the media) referred to it as Osprey Grove was pure pettiness. However, he had no shortage of that:
“What is Earth First! going to do when the ‘Redwood Summer’ party is over? How about looking into some either issues affecting us all—like the outrageous amount of taxes we are forced to pay. Or maybe it’s been so long since some of these people have earned an honest paycheck that they hadn’t noticed.
“So they think the ‘Logger’s Relief Fund’ will keep peace between them and the Loggers? Just one more of the many inconsistencies found within this organization. My philosophy is ‘People first, owls second, Earth First! last.’”[28]
This was purely verbatim regurgitation of all of the standard corporate talking points, which was wearing very thing among the Redwood Summer coalition. Although many were too polite to say it, Bruce Anderson’s response to Danny Pardini no doubt summed up most of what everyone else was feeling at the time:
“Any so-called logger who feels sorry for L-P won’t find much sympathy any place else. L-P is a scab company that rapes the land, operates unsafe mills, and exports logs and jobs to Mexico. And, your taxes are high enough because the rich don’t pay taxes anymore. And what evidence do you have to support your statement that Earth First! is a terrorist organization?”[29]
On the other hand, at least one local corporate timber apologist, Susan Crawford, spoke in agreement with the younger Pardini, and rehashed the standard accusation that Earth First!ers hailed from anywhere but Mendocino County (even though Mendocino County Earth First! was one of the largest such chapters in the Earth First! movement and most of them had lived in the county for much of their lives) and cost the county tens of thousands of dollars.[30] That L-P had siphoned far more out of the county and was likely to cost the county significantly more in the coming years simply wasn’t on her radar.
On August 1, 1990, Judge Luther decided that the laws of private property (based on precedents established centuries earlier) trumped prudent science and ruled in favor of L-P, lifting the temporary stay.[31] The next morning, protesters returned to the grove, but Pardini’s crew did not.[32] Rumors had surfaced that Save the Redwoods League would attempt to purchase it and L-P was apparently open to the idea.[33] For the time being, direct action had gotten the goods.
Notes:
[1] “Clear Cut Case Goes to Court”, by Tobias Young, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 28, 1990; and “Spotted Owl Court Test Could Set Precedent”, by Chris Calder, Ukiah Daily Journal, August 2, 1990.
[2] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[3] “Judge Halts Mendocino Clearcut: First Application of Forestry Rules to Protect Owl”, by Tobias Young, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 24, 1990.
[4] “Gyppos Shafted at Osprey Grove”, Industrial Worker, September 1990.
[5] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[6] “THP 1-89-468: Osprey Grove”, by Louis Korn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 8, 1990.
[7] “Far Reaching Decision”, letter to the editor by Louis Korn, Ukiah Daily Journal, August 3, 1990.
[8] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[9] “THP 1-89-468: Osprey Grove”, by Louis Korn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 8, 1990.
[10] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[11] “THP 1-89-468: Osprey Grove”, by Louis Korn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 8, 1990.
[12] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[13] “THP 1-89-468: Osprey Grove”, by Louis Korn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 8, 1990.
[14] “Gyppos Shafted at Osprey Grove”, Industrial Worker, September 1990.
[15] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[16] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[17] “Gyppos Shafted at Osprey Grove”, Industrial Worker, September 1990.
[18] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[19] “Gyppos Shafted at Osprey Grove”, Industrial Worker, September 1990.
[20] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[21] “Gyppos Shafted at Osprey Grove”, Industrial Worker, September 1990.
[22] “Environmental Group Sets Up Timber Worker Relief Fund”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, July 27, 1990.
[23] “Timber Foes Offer Hand to Idle Loggers”, by Mike Geniella, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 25, 1990.
[24] Letter to the editor, by Danny Pardini, various publications, including Ukiah Daily Journal, July 26, 1990 (“Wrong Type of Help”); Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 1, 1990 (“Pardini’s Priorities”); and Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 7, 1990 (“My Job is Logging”).
[25] “Logging Equipment at Protest Site Damaged”, Mendocino Beacon, July 26, 1990.
[26] Letter to the editor, by Danny Pardini, various publications, including Ukiah Daily Journal, July 26, 1990 (“Wrong Type of Help”); Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 1, 1990 (“Pardini’s Priorities”); and Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 7, 1990 (“My Job is Logging”).
[27] “Osprey Grove Action Exemplary”, by Richard Johnson, Mendocino Country Environmentalist, August 1, 1990.
[28] Letter to the editor, by Danny Pardini, various publications, including Ukiah Daily Journal, July 26, 1990 (“Wrong Type of Help”); Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 1, 1990 (“Pardini’s Priorities”); and Santa Rosa Press Democrat, August 7, 1990 (“My Job is Logging”).
[29] Bruce Anderson’s response to “Pardini’s Priorities”, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 1, 1990.
[30] “Negative Impact”, letter to the editor by Susan Crawford, Ukiah Daily Journal, August 5, 1990.
[31] “Judge Rules L-P Clearcut Can Proceed”, by Chris Calder, Ukiah Daily Journal, August 2, 1990.
[32] “THP 1-89-468: Osprey Grove”, by Louis Korn, Anderson Valley Advertiser, August 8, 1990.
[33] “Save the Redwoods Offers to Buy Grove”, by Chris Calder, Ukiah Daily Journal, August 5, 1990.