If Redwood Summer demonstrators were terrorists, or merely just bullheaded, they would not attempt to dialog and negotiate with local timber operators. Throughout Redwood Summer, its organizers consistently approached their counterparts with openness and respect. Take the case of the locally owned R & J Lumber mill in Willits. The same day that P-L president and Maxxam collaborator John Campbell was running down activists in his luxury sedan, approximately thirty Redwood Summer activists and representatives of SherPA held an informational picket at the aforementioned mill on the shoulder of California State Highway 20. Most of the demonstrators were local, living in or around Willits, though a few hailed from nearby Laytonville, a handful from the Mendocino Coast and a smattering from the San Francisco Bay Area. They assembled to protest overcutting, resource depletion, and conversion of forestlands to subdivisions. The organizers had chosen the R & J Lumber Company, co-owned by Rich Padula and Bob Harrah, in response to the latter’s recent application for Certificates of Conversion to reduce more than 40,000 acres in the Garcia Watershed into several hundred parcels, which they felt could be a prelude to conversion of forestland into subdivisions. Already, Certificates of Conversion had been completed for 11,000 acres in the Willits Woods, which was located nearby, and the North Fork of Big River creating 69 parcels approximately 160 acres each, which was the currently existing minimum size limit on timber production zones. Naomi Wagner, one of the organizers of the rally, explained that in this case, R & J’s plan included many parcels only sixty acres in size, which did not meet the minimum threshold.[1] The presence of the Greens put the lie to Senator Barry Keene’s claim, made in opposition to Proposition 130, the Forests Forever initiative, that the supporters of forest reform were unwittingly bringing about such forestland conversions.[2]
SherPA was calling on all local timber operators to grow maximum amounts of high quality timber and to manage the resource sustainably, so that all the benefits of the high quality timber would continue undiminished for present and future generations. Four representatives from R & J, including co-owner Rich Padula approached the demonstrators and offered to discuss the issues, which was welcomed by the Greens gathered there. Wagner described the dialog as “positive”, elaborating, “We had an excellent, in-depth discussion, although we agreed to disagree on some points. I appreciated their willingness to talk, and I think we did reach some common ground.” Said Wagner, “they say they are practicing sustained yield because their cut will equal growth over a 20-year period. We say that by then, there will be nothing left. We did agree that some (CDF) rules do not encourage sustained yield practices.” [3] Padula shared similar sentiments about the positive nature of the dialog, stating, “I thought they were real responsive to what we told them. I think they even trusted us a little bit…I feel real positive about it… I think they understood that we are trying to come up with viable alternatives, and that we are doing a good job of managing the watershed.” [4]
Five days later, on August 22, 1990, a similar number of Redwood Summer demonstrators and SherPA members held one of the most creative demonstrations yet that season, when they organized an eight mile bicycle ride early that morning to a haul road beyond the third Sherwood Road gate. There, they hung a banner with the slogan, “Stop the Overcutting!” At 8 AM, however some of the participants noticed the banner was missing. They soon spotted it on a logging truck with a yellow circle and slash covering the slogan. Some of the bikers tailed the truck to Willits where it stopped near a local pizzeria. When the activists attempted to retrieve their absconded property, the unidentified driver allegedly exited the cab brandishing a tire iron. Naomi Wagner, who was not present for this confrontation, as she was busy at the logging site engaged in dialog with gyppo Cecil Matthews, described what happened next, based on accounts given by those there. She said, “The people who confronted him put up their hands in a nonviolent position, and people along the highway stopped and, in son of a chorus, said, ‘no violence’ over and over again. The driver got back in his truck and continued down the road, but didn’t return the banner.” The truck then continued down Main Street, still followed by the bikers, who kept requesting that the banner be returned. The trucker finally stopped on the south side of town and removed the banner with the help of Mariana River, one of the demonstrators. The trucker turned back towards Sherwood Road and was pulled over by a Willits Police officer, but not arrested. The trucker returned to logging site, still angry over being pulled over, but Matthews diffused the situation effectively, according to Wagner. She cited the meeting with Matthews as being positive and productive. “Our approach is to be open and out there. We did a lot of talking and listening and I think those to whom we talked will talk to others. This is about communication. It was obvious (Matthews) was able and willing to keep the peace.”[5]
One week later, on Friday, August 29, 1990, Naomi Wagner, Walter Smith, and Smith’s assistant met with Rich Padula who led the trio on a guided tour of Willits Woods, accompanied by R & J Registered Professional Forester (RPF) John Burns, engineer Art Haschak, and Willits News reporter Carrie Smith,. Smith, an RPF himself, wore suspenders and boots—the traditional garb of a lumberjack. Wagner called the tour a welcome response to and a positive outcome of the informational picket held two weeks previously. Padula had invited Smith and Wagner to examine a demonstration forest site of growth survey plots which he described as exemplifying uneven-age harvesting, which was one of the alternatives proposed to clearcutting by Earth First! and other advocates of sustainable forestry. Both parties agreed that clearcutting was an unsustainable method of logging, but beyond that, the two parties disagreed on much. Said Padula:
“We believe in selective farming because of the generic variability it leaves in the forests. Clearcutting wipes out that generic variability. We haven’t begun to understand all the issues around timber harvesting, but strictly from a yield standpoint, we’ve got to take the bigger trees so the little trees can grow faster.”[6]
Padula argued that the CDF was making it very difficult for his company to practice alternate methods to clearcutting. He pointed out that the CDF THP process was limiting in several ways, not the least of which is that the method of cutting they practiced was routinely submitted as “shelterwood” removal, but in reality the small logging firm actually did something significantly different than a traditional shelterwood cut. Instead, R & J capitalized on the “crown closure” of conifers, which involved entering the forest stand every ten years, selectively logging the trees that reached a plateau in their growth, and removing them so that understory, which had been limited by the now removed dominant trees, could replace them. Any tree thirty years old or older is considered too old to remain standing under this method, and this method of thinning trees was considered the only economically viable alternative to clearcutting. “We are losing our option to selectively cut if the trees are too tall and too old,” argued Padula.[7]
Naomi Wagner acknowledged that the CDF was generally closed to alternatives, though this was more a result of them having been dominated by corporate timber apologists for far too long. She agreed, that in principle, R & J’s somewhat modified shelterwood removal cut sounded good in theory, but in practice it fell short, not because the trees they were cutting were too old or too large, but rather that the trees currently lying on their log deck were, in fact, too small. Padula countered that none of the trees they cut were less than sixteen inches in diameter. He suggested that the debate wasn’t one of even-aged versus uneven-aged forests but rather young uneven-aged forests versus old uneven-aged forests. Carrie Switzer summarized the back-and-forth discussion that followed:
“Questions arose concerning how old a tree should be before it is harvested; selective cutting versus shelterwood removal…alternative land use in the face of timber initiatives which may remove some timberlands from timber production zones; private tree farming versus industrial tree farming; and taxes which encourage the harvesting of trees as opposed to allowing transition periods for regrowth.
“Wagner continued to bring the dialogue back to whether R&J Lumber is actively pursuing an unmerger of 40,000 acres to 160acre parcels available for sale, and due to tax disincentives potentially subject to real estate development. Padula maintained that individuals could purchase the 160acre parcels and maintain small tree farms of their own.
“Smith agreed that private ownership of tree farms is traditionally more sensitive to environmental concerns, but because the land is in Timber Production Zone, taxes are higher for those who don’t harvest the timber than for those who do.”[8]
At this point, Padula all but conceded that they were not ruling out the possibility of converting the land to subdivisions, arguing that the CDF, under Walt’s “New Directions” policies had made the THP approval process much more difficult than it had been previously, had brought about “Draconian penalties” for oversights in actual harvests, and that “CDF has basically shut us down,” in his own words.[9]
Wagner tried to point out that this was the result of years and years of corporate timber’s liquidation logging, and that only they benefitted if small timber operators and environmentalists fought amongst each other for the crumbs. A better strategy would have been for the two forces to form a united front against corporate timber’s pillage of what little viable forestland remained. Smith, on the other hand, was not as optimistic, and remained unconvinced that R & J was not preparing to convert the land to subdivisions. Smith was also wholly unconvinced that Willits Woods could support a mill or survive continued timber harvests, declaring, “The mill is not doing well and they are preparing the public for a shut down within a year or two...The mill is not equipped for small logs and these woods can’t feed it.” R & J had recently downsized at least two shifts and was running one of its nearby mills at half capacity. Padula reiterated that he had no intention of converting Willits Woods to subdivisions and that it could potentially yield as much as 1000 bbf per acre, a projection Smith considered unlikely even in the best of times.[10]
At this point, Haschak interjected and declared that the unmerged 160 acre parcels were attached to “conditions, covenants, and restrictions” that would preserve at least ten contiguous acres of trees per parcel, and would further impose a limit on the size of trees that could be cut, and that these “conditions, covenants, and restrictions” were unprecedented. Wagner responded, “If it’s going to be subdivided, then I congratulate you for doing it right…But as environmentalists, we don’t want to be criticized for taking property in the timber production zone out of production when it is really being converted for real estate.” John Burns responded by attempting to reassure Wagner and Smith that converting the timberlands to subdivisions was a last resort, only to be used if R & J could not log the land. He further declared, “We were initially for the Forests Forever initiative because it would stop clearcutting…But now so much has been attached to it there may be penalties for all kinds of logging. I’m not trying to be insulting, but if not small tree farms, what do you guys want?”[11] Switzer’s article concluded at this point, but Naomi Wagner had a response, which she sent to the Willits News as a letter to the editor. In it she declared:
“[T]he following suggestions might be a good place to start the attempt to salvage some semblance of sustainable, long-term health and productivity in our local forests.
“Stream and watershed rehabilitation projects.
“Massive replanting as needed to increase board feet per acre inventories.
“Harvesting for stand improvement, biodiversity, and habitat enhancement as well as forest products.
“Complete rest where needed for watershed and site specific recovery.
“Appropriate State funding for transition from our present depletion forestry to future sustainable forest management.
“Local control of decisions affecting jobs, resources and development.
“Now that the Willits mill is apparently closing, the impact of non-sustainable forestry, driven by profits and market forces, will be more painfully apparent at the local level. Ultimately, not only we, but all generations to come, and all co-species, will pay the price of short term money management for the benefit of a few, in the degradation of our environment—the planet—and our own extinction.
“As a community, including Bob Harrah and Rich Padula, we owe it to ourselves to find and implement constructive alternatives to the problems at hand, in this instance, depletion and land conversion without a viable watershed management plan. Not being the “experts,” we do hope to help stimulate frank discussion of these issues…”[12]
This last sentence is in reference to a snarky letter to the Willits News by local RFP Charles Groff At who balked at the fact that Naomi Wagner, who was not an RFP, as if such a title conveyed a lack of bias—was taken seriously for her opinions. That Smith, who was an RFP was in near total agreement with Wagner was evidently unimportant to the letter writer.[13] In fact, Wagner, like many Redwood Summer activists, whether locals or travelers had a fairly thorough command of the facts and the issues at hand.
Notes:
[1] “Protest Centers on Land Subdivision Issue”, Willits News, August 29, 1990.
[2] “Close to Home: Don’t Be Fooled”, guest editorial by Barry Keene, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, July 1, 1990; emphasis added.
[3] “Protest Centers on Land Subdivision Issue”, Willits News, August 29, 1990.
[4] “Protest Centers on Land Subdivision Issue”, Willits News, August 29, 1990.
[5] “Bicycle Run Leads to Chase and Fruitful Discussion”, Willits News, August 29, 1990.
[6] “Differences on Timber Management”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 7, 1990.
[7] “Differences on Timber Management”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 7, 1990.
[8] “Differences on Timber Management”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 7, 1990.
[9] “Differences on Timber Management”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 7, 1990.
[10] “Differences on Timber Management”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 7, 1990.
[11] “Differences on Timber Management”, by Carrie Switzer, Willits News, September 7, 1990.
[12] “Watershed Awareness”, letter to the editor, by Naomi Wagner, Willits News, September 23, 1990.
[13] “Armchair Experts”, letter to the editor by Charlie Groff, Forester, Willits, Willits News, September 12, 1990.