The second portion, however, was extremely damaging to the "Forests Forever" initiative. It was released on October 23, 1990. Interested persons who heard about its existence before the election had no time to read, analyze, and respond to it until after the election. This portion contained computer-generated estimates of the initiatives' dollar and environmental impact. The technical content--obscure, difficult to understand or paraphrase--was of little use to the media. They focused instead on the summary section, and also on a six-page report attached to the main report which purported to be a sociological study of Northern California timber communities. This report, known as the "Fortmann Report", and the summary section provided the press with the imagery and predictions of doom that resulted in numerous articles being written, citing the reports word for word, about the harm being done to timber workers by environmentalists and the devastation of an industry and way of life that would result from passage of Proposition 130. Readers of the report after the election were horrified to find that the passages so widely quoted had no basis in scholarly research or fact. The "Davis Report" technical section was riddled with errors that even a lay-person could easily spot, and in many cases simply did not conclude what the summary said it concluded. The shoddiness of the scholarship and the clear bias emanating from an institution quoted so widely, simply because of its perceived "objectivity", provoked scathing letters and comments from other scholars. But, the "Fortmann Report" continues to elicit the most outrage. Not one source was identified for its conclusions and no methodology of any type was indicated. Environmentalists in Northern California, after reading this report, recalled being contacted by some of the writers earlier in the year. However, they concealed their true occupation, and no one had the impression that they were being interviewed as no tape recorders, formal questions, or notes were used. It appears that these "interviews" were thrown out anyway. Only opinions from the timber industry were included in the report, but often given as statements of fact rather than opinions. For example, the report cites timber workers being harassed by wealthy and well-dressed outside agitators. The Fortmann team wrote that they "feel a deep responsi-bility to provide a voice for these people." At taxpayer expense?! Just before a crucial election?!
It is common knowledge that the University's research facilities have often financed private interests at public expense. But here the line has been clearly crossed: a state department commissioned and helped shape and pay for a report that would be perceived as objective, and credited over any report prepared by the proponents of "Forests Forever" (in fact such a report was prepared but virtually ignored by the press as inherently biased). The report was released too close to the election to be challenged. As hoped, the summary section was quoted verbatim and helped shape public opinion that the cost of Proposition 130 outweighed environmental benefit, and that the timber workers were getting an unfair deal. Not from the timber corporations, but from environmentalists. In fact, Dr. Louise Fortmann has appeared at numerous timber industry conferences with variations on her theme of the endangered and maligned loggers greeted enthusiastically.
Helen Libeu, Lily Phoenix, and others have determined that this blatant scheme of releasing misinformation from a revered and perceivedly objective source like UCB must be challenged. The University has met inquiries and demands for documentation, defense, and retraction with hostility and silence. An inquiry into scientific misconduct was promised. However, because of the University's hostility and the refusal of the Davis and Fortmann report authors to respond to criticism and defend their work, a legal challenge will probably be pursued. It is important that the public and media image of UCB as being unbiased be corrected before any further initiatives on forestry hit the ballot. Anyone interested in reading the reports or assisting in the effort to discredit them is urged to contact Helen Libeu at (707) 823-7785, or Lily Phoenix at the MEC.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2004
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited