HLSS523Wk6
Rawono1
Extremism_in_America_----_The_Radical_Environmental_and_Animal_Liberation_Movements.pdf
249
chapter 9
The Radical Environmental and
Animal Liberation Movements
Donald R. Liddick
Crimes perpetrated in the name of environmental protection and animal rights/liberation are largely a modern phenomenon, with the majority of activity occurring from the 1970s to the present. Drawn from the larger pool of “mainstream” groups such as Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), some disaffected environmentalists and animal rights advocates have turned from politi- cal lobbying and lawful protest to “direct action” in the form of property destruction, even arson. Groups such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) attack research facilities, farming operations, construction companies, timber companies, fishing operations, fast-food restaurants, building sites, and sport utility dealerships to further their cause. While the majority of actions involve relatively minor property crimes, an emerging trend (principally in the animal liberation movement) is the targeting of people for threats and violence. Law enforcement and government officials have recognized the increasing threat—the U.S. Con- gress has held numerous hearings on the subject, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has declared these forms of violence to be the most serious domestic terrorism threat in the United States.1
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of radical environmen- talism and the animal rights/liberation movements. While the emphasis will be on criminal activities, the background of these social movements
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
250 · Donald R. Liddick
(most of which are legal) cannot be ignored—philosophical underpinnings and the role of the broader “mainstream” animal rights and environmental movements will be examined. Although there is some overlap between the movements, they will be examined separately for the sake of clarity, begin- ning with radical environmentalism.
Radical Environmentalism and “Ecoterror”
The development of environmentalism as a mass movement is perhaps best understood as beginning with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s seminal book, Silent Spring. Numerous federal laws were passed in subse- quent years, and memberships in environmental groups grew exponen- tially, culminating in the sponsorship of the first Earth Day in 1970. On April 22, 1970, twenty million people at thousands of colleges and schools across the country participated in events, and 250,000 people marched in Washington D.C. The Nixon administration responded by creating the En- vironmental Protection Agency and implementing the revised Clean Air Act in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972, and the Endangered Species Act in 1973. By the 1980s the larger mainstream environmental groups had be- come professionalized, local grassroots organizations were proliferating, and the environmental movement acquired global dimensions with a ral- lying cry of “environmental justice.”2
Concurrent with the growth of the environmental movement has been the development of a sophisticated body of philosophical literature.3 While these ideologies are diverse and at times incongruent, it is also true that a central core of ideas is embodied in a concept called “deep ecology.” In- troduced by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, deep ecology suggests that biocentrism should efface anthropocentrism: as opposed to humans enjoying special status in the world, all elements of the ecosystem should be considered when formulating a moral calculus regarding proper behav- iors. One view, called biocentric equality, posits that all life forms, from single-celled organisms to primates, are inherently equal. To the deep ecol- ogist, mainstream environmentalists act from anthropocentric motives (they seek to protect the environment in order to foster the health and well-being of humans), but true adherents to the principles of deep ecol- ogy recognize that all of nature has intrinsic worth, including nonsentient forms (i.e., those unable to feel sensations) such as mountains and rivers. Applied to human society and its relationship to the natural world, deep ecology suggests the proper course is a significant reduction in the planet’s
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 251
human population as well as lifestyle changes that would necessarily limit economic prosperity and produce (from an anthropomorphic perspective) lower standards of living.4
For many radical environmentalists the thought behind the action adopts religious and millenarian dimensions. “Mother Earth,” or “Gaia,” is typically viewed as sacred. For example, pagan Earth worship is charac- teristic of Earth First!, and some members feel that it is their responsibility to shepherd mankind into a postapocalyptic society where the interests of nature transcend human interests.5 Indeed, the adoption of deep ecol- ogy as a guiding set of principles implies truly radical changes in how hu- mans participate in the natural world. Arne Naess called for a fundamen- tal change in human consciousness in order to accommodate a biocentric view.6 Moreover, because all objects in the biosphere have an equal right to live and flourish, the implementation of deep ecology principles requires that human society be returned to a preindustrial state, where centralized bureaucratic authority and advanced technology is banished. The deep ecologist and the radical environmentalist who espouses its basic tenets predict an environmental apocalypse but also envision a postapocalyptic primitive society where people are organized into small communities living in harmony with nature. Dave Foreman, a cofounder of Earth First!, seeks a planet dominated by wilderness where humans exist in primitive hunter- gatherer collectives that use minimal amounts of natural resources in order to exist.7
If deep ecology represents a central core of ideas, the ideological frame- work underlying what has come to be called “ecoterrorism” is nevertheless composed of a rich stew of notions with no single cohesive template to direct activists. Certainly the underlying philosophy is leftist, with elements of Marxism, socialism, Eastern religions, feminist theory, and postmodern thought all represented to some degree. The mindset is clearly anticapital- ist, with a strong current of anarchy flowing through the stream of activist thinking. The ideologies of the radical environmental activist are in polar opposition to mainstream notions of capitalism, patriarchy, and Judeo- Christianity, and have been quite naturally adopted by defenders of the en- vironment—to the radical environmentalist, the Earth is being “raped” and exploited by mankind in a pattern of oppression repeated over and over in much the same way that prevailing power structures victimize minorities, women, and other marginalized societal players.8
While it is true that a significant portion of radical environmental ac- tivists advocate noncriminal actions to effect change, some philosophical
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
252 · Donald R. Liddick
postures suggest misanthropy. When Christopher Manes, author of Green Rage, infamously suggested that the AIDS epidemic just might be a viable solution to the human overpopulation problem, Dave Foreman of Earth First! agreed.9 After all (as the thinking goes), only the implementation of a drastic reduction in the human population can bring about the postapoca- lyptic, millenarian, primitive, earth-centered utopia that is envisioned. It follows that if an environmental apocalypse is inevitable, imminent, and necessary, then some motivated deep ecologists may seek to hasten the event.
Disenchantment with the mainstream environmental movement evolved into criminal behaviors slowly at first but has nevertheless accel- erated in the past several decades. Several important publications during the 1970s disseminated the sentiments of the more radical elements within the environmental movement and provided the foundation for what would become the modus operandi of radical groups such as EarthFirst! and ELF. The group Environmental Action published the Earth Tool Kit in 1971, which advocated both violent and nonviolent “direct actions”; the next year the group published Ecotage, a how-to-guide for activists. While most of the ideas espoused in Ecotage were innocuous, other methods promoted criminal activity, including the destruction of construction equipment. In 1975 Edward Abbey published The Monkeywrench Gang, a fictional ac- count of environmental saboteurs responsible for property damage in the Southwestern United States. In the writings of Abbey can be seen the later anticapitalist, apocalyptic, anarchistic, and millenarian doctrines that char- acterize the contemporary radical environmental movement. Abbey’s book also provided the operational model for later groups such as EarthFirst! and ELF: disorganized movements composed of small groups of anony- mous cells that perpetrate acts of economic sabotage.10
The best-known and the first of the more radical environmental groups is Greenpeace, begun by a few Canadian activists concerned about un- derwater nuclear tests near Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.11 Since its inception Greenpeace has expanded its targets, most famously disrupting whaling and seal hunting operations. The group has always advocated nonviolent protest and has over the years grown closer to the mainstream environ- mental movement, adopting the traditional methods of political lobbying and public relations.12 A spin-off of Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Con- servation Society (SSCS) was formed in 1977 by activist Paul Watson, who believed that the destruction of private property was an acceptable means
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 253
to preserve life. Still, the SSCS adopted strict rules of engagement that pre- cluded “even a remote possibility of causing injury to a living thing.”13 The group’s most successful exploit occurred in 1986, when two SSCS activists caused $1.8 million in damage at a Reykjavik, Iceland, whale processing plant and proceeded to sink two whaling vessels. The SSCS is credited with sinking nine fishing or whaling vessels, ramming at least a dozen others, and blockading the Canadian sealing fleet.14
One of the best-known environmental groups that advocates criminal- ity to advance its agenda is EarthFirst!. Founded by a handful of disaf- fected activists in 1980, the group from its inception advocated a massive increase in designated wilderness areas, the cessation of strip mining, the dismantling of all nuclear weapons, the elimination of dams, the prohi- bition against roads on public lands, the dismantling of all power plants, and a total ban on the use of automobiles. At first EarthFirst! was simply a loose coalition of people that rejected a rigid organizational structure or formal constraints on members—in many ways it was more like a social movement than an organization, shaped by a shared culture. Creative tra- ditions became an important part of the movement—poetry, song, dance, and storytelling facilitated an expanding folklore communicated through roadshows, the EF! Journal and the annual Round River Rendezvous. It was in fact very much like a distinct subculture that provided a sense of com- munity and a shared belief system, which in turn provided cohesion and helped EarthFirst! grow into a national and then an international network of entities.15
While EarthFirst! has its colorful and creative traditions, it has also been, from its inception, quite militant in tone and antagonistic toward indus- trial society (an EarthFirst! slogan remains “Back to the Pleistocene”).16 And coupled with militancy is spirituality: EarthFirst!ers see themselves as “ecowarriors” engaged in something very much like a holy war, where “ecotage” (property destruction) is a sacrament.17 Typical methods of eco- tage include pulling up survey stakes and dumping sugar in the gas tanks of construction vehicles. Inserting pieces of metal in trees to deter log- ging, called tree-spiking, has been an especially controversial tactic, since it poses a physical threat to loggers (on at least one occasion an industrial saw exploded in shrapnel when it hit an embedded spike, seriously injur- ing an operator). While some tree spikings are announced in advance to provide fair warning, the use of ceramic spikes (in order to avoid metal detectors) is an ominous development. Other common EarthFirst! actions
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
254 · Donald R. Liddick
include simple trespass and acts of civil disobedience such as “tree-sits,” burying oneself up to the neck to prevent the building of a road, or chaining oneself to a piece of construction equipment. “Monkeywrenching” tactics are featured in the EF! Journal. Dave Foreman, affectionately referred to in the movement as “Uncle Digger,” long remained a unifying force, writing articles committing the loose coalition of activists to tactics that included property crime.18
Regional EarthFirst! chapters proliferated in the early and mid-1980s, and the movement soon boasted as many as ten thousand members. Be- tween 1984 and 1987 hundreds of demonstrations and acts of civil disobe- dience were claimed by EarthFirst!. Notable actions included tree spikings in Washington’s Wenatchee Forest and Virginia’s George Washington Na- tional Forest. Other crimes have been more destructive, such as the arson of a woodchipping site in Hawaii. In 1986 a group of saboteurs cut the power lines leading to the Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix.19
In 1990 evolving differences in the movement’s ideology and vision precipitated a fracture. In one camp was Dave Foreman and like-minded individuals who sacrificed the idea that the creation of a postapocalyptic biocentric society was a realistic goal. This faction was misanthropic and saw no hope that human nature could be changed—their goal now became saving as much wilderness as possible until the inevitable environmental crash occurred. In opposition to the Foreman group was the social jus- tice faction, led by another EarthFirst! cofounder, Mike Roselle. The social justice faction linked human concerns with environmental needs and em- braced the millenarian concept of creating a utopian society after the apoc- alypse. When Foreman suggested eliminating immigration to the United States and deporting illegal migrants as a means of protecting the environ- ment, the social justice faction labeled him an “ecofascist,” “redneck,” and “right-wing thug.” To Foreman, the social justice people were “West Coast hippies” adhering to a “woo-woo” culture—a derisive term for the mysti- cal-pagan-ecofeminism that had co-opted EarthFirst!.20 The final split was precipitated by the arrest of five EarthFirst!ers in a major FBI sting. Begin- ning in 1987 a small cell calling themselves the Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy (EMETIC) had begun a campaign against com- mercial development of sacred Navajo and Hopi land. The group damaged a ski resort twice, severing bolts on chair lift towers and cutting the lift’s main support pylon. In another action EMETIC cut twenty-nine power poles at the Grand Canyon Uranium Mine, costing the company $200,000.
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 255
But EMETIC had been infiltrated by the FBI, and a resultant sting opera- tion led to prison terms for four members and a felony conviction (but no jail term) for Dave Foreman. Coupled with the ideological schism, the strain was too great and EarthFirst! split.21
After the fracture EarthFirst! continued to grow, solidly controlled by the social justice faction. A 60 Minutes episode in 1990 generated significant publicity, and subscriptions to the EF! Journal increased dramatically. Judi Bari became a leading activist in the “new” EarthFirst!, organizing the Red- wood Summer campaign in 1990 to protest logging in Northern California. Moving away from the “macho, beer-drinking tradition,” Bari denounced sabotage and tree-spiking, even finding common ground with loggers by forming an alliance with the radical labor group Industrial Workers of the World.22
Since the 1990s EarthFirst! has evolved into a large international move- ment far removed from the small entity envisioned by Dave Foreman in 1980. Neither is it simply a loose coalition of people—EarthFirst! includes numerous incorporated organizations, such as Daily Planet Publishing (which puts out the EF! Journal), the Fund for Wild Nature (previously the EarthFirst! Foundation), the Trees Foundation, and the EarthFirst! Direct Action Fund. These tax-exempt foundations rely on private donations to finance a broad variety of EarthFirst! projects and campaigns, including the establishment of spin-off groups such as Mike Roselle’s Rainforest Action Network and the Ruckus Society. The EarthFirst! Web site provides links to dozens of regional and international chapters and affiliates—there may be as many as several hundred EarthFirst! entities in America, with at least fifty in other nations (a precise tally is impossible because many groups are ad hoc, forming and disbanding as regional issues and campaigns arise).23
Recent EarthFirst! letter-writing campaigns exemplify the broad social justice orientation of the movement and include Iraq antiwar petitions and other themes such as “save the Barents Sea,” “stop Office Max,” “impeach Bush Now,” and “stop the seal pup slaughter.” The ecofeminist influence seems to be particularly strong—mission statements emphasize the social justice and feminist orientation of the movement, highlighting the impor- tance of fighting patriarchy, oppression, racism, and the plight of indig- enous peoples. Recent EarthFirst! literature suggests elevating environ- mental concerns to the level of human interests—a subtle but significant shift, since placing human interests on a par with environmental concerns implies that the Earth no longer comes first.24 As opposed to a singular
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
256 · Donald R. Liddick
environmental coalition, it may be more appropriate to describe today’s EarthFirst! as a collection of social movements loosely tied together under a familiar banner.
But not everything at EarthFirst! has changed. While lobbying and liti- gation have been added to the “toolbox,” civil disobedience and “monkey- wrenching” remain central components of direct action campaigns. A re- cent EF! Journal article denouncing the war in Iraq proclaimed, “By every means necessary we will bring this and every other empire down! Mutiny and sabotage in defense of Mother Earth!” Concerning informants, an- other EF! Journal contributor wrote: “A snitch is no longer entitled to basic expectations of safety. As such, it is righteous to hurt them, burn down their house or do similarly naughty things to them.” A 2002 EF! Journal piece listed the names and addresses of employees who worked for the biotechnology company Monsanto, explicitly endorsing intimidation and harassment of those individuals. Other EarthFirst!ers have expressed sup- port for methods employed by animal rights groups such as Stop Hunting- don Animal Cruelty (SHAC), which routinely employs threats of violence against researchers who use animals in research.25
ELF is a radical spin-off of EarthFirst! One account holds that ELF started in Brighton, England, in 1992 when EarthFirst! activists decided to distance themselves from illegal activities. The strategy of decoupling aboveground from underground operations took hold in the United States by the mid-1990s. U.S. activist Judi Bari wrote in 1994 that the EarthFirst! movement in Great Britain had been separating criminal and aboveground activities, and that it was time to do the same in the United States.26 ELF’s Web site describes the group as “an international underground organiza- tion that uses direct action in the form of economic sabotage to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment.”27 In terms of structure and mode of operation, ELF models itself on its “sister organiza- tion,” ALF (in fact, there is some crossover, as ELF and ALF have jointly claimed responsibility for some criminal acts). There is no official member- ship or organizational hierarchy. ELF members generally operate in small autonomous cells of two to five people. Anonymity is fostered by the ad hoc structure, thus hampering the effectiveness of law enforcement. One im- portant aboveground organizational structure is the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office (NAELFPO), which publishes and distributes organization literature and reports on ELF actions and communiqués.28
The NAELFPO lists the following ELF guidelines on its Web site:
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 257
(1) To cause as much economic damage as possible to a given entity that is profiting off the destruction of the natural environment and life for selfish greed and profit.
(2) To educate the public on the atrocities committed against the en- vironment and life.
(3) To take all necessary precautions against harming life.29
The rationale underlying ELF actions and its modus operandi are fur- ther summarized by NAELFPO: “The ELF realizes the profit motive caused and reinforced by the capitalist society is destroying all life on this planet. The only way, at this point in time, to stop that continued destruction of life is to by any means necessary take the profit out of killing.”30
The first ELF actions in the United States occurred in 1996 when several McDonald’s restaurants were vandalized with spray paint and had their locks glued. The severity of ELF “direct actions” soon graduated to arson, when in October 1996 a U.S. Forest Service pickup truck was torched in Detroit, Oregon, and then a fire destroyed a forest service ranger station in Eugene, Oregon, causing $5 million in damage.31 An anonymous commu- niqué posted to the Internet in 1997 taunted law enforcers and announced the purpose of the ELF:
Welcome to the struggle of all species to be free. We are the burning rage of a dying planet. . . . The war of greed ravages the earth and spe- cies die out every day. ELF works to speed up the collapse of industry, to scare the rich, and to undermine the foundations of the state. We embrace social and deep ecology as a practical resistance movement. We have to show the enemy that we are serious about defending what is sacred. Together we have teeth and claws to match our dreams. Our greatest weapons are imagination and the ability to strike when least expected. . . .
Many elves are moving to the Pacific Northwest and other sacred areas. Some elves will leave surprises as they go. Find your family! And let’s dance as we make ruins of the corporate money system.32
Since 1997 ELF has perpetrated dozens of crime ranging from simple vandalism to million-dollar arsons. ELF actions have been claimed in Eu- rope, across North America, and in South America. One of ELF’s most infamous actions occurred on October 18, 1998, when activists torched five buildings and four ski lifts at a Vail ski resort in Colorado.33 The arson
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
258 · Donald R. Liddick
caused more than $26 million in damage, but ELF’s most destructive ac- tion occurred on August 1, 2003, when activists burned down a condo- minium complex in San Diego and destroyed a one-hundred-foot crane. A twelve-foot banner bearing the ELF acronym read: “If you build it, we will burn it.” The arson caused $50 million in damage.34 The majority of recent ELF actions have involved the destruction of SUVs and newly constructed or partially constructed luxury homes. Some recent ELF attacks include the destruction of four newly completed but unoccupied homes in Hag- erstown, Maryland, in 2004; the destruction by explosive devices of four luxury homes near Seattle, Washington, in 2008; and the toppling of two radio towers in Washington state in 2009.35
In a trend reminiscent of EarthFirst!, ELF has increasingly linked its environmental cause with related “social justice” endeavors. In addition to striking at those responsible for deforestation and ecosystem destruction, ELF has perpetrated criminal actions to highlight issues like urban sprawl, the production and distribution of genetically modified crops, the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the use of “slave labor.” Nike retail outlets, SUV dealerships, unfinished housing projects, and university of- fices and labs have all been favorite ELF targets.36
Politically, ELF activists lean toward anarchism or are themselves an- archists; certainly they view the destruction of the global capitalistic eco- nomic system as a necessary component of protecting the environment. Although never identified as members of ELF, Craig Rosebraugh and Leslie James Pickering served as press officers at NAELFPO from 1997 to 2001. They went on to form Arissa, an organization dedicated to the violent over- throw of the U.S. government. Citing the “founding fathers” and events such as the Boston Tea Party, Rosebraugh views himself as a patriot or freedom fighter who merely endorses the same violent methods to achieve his aims as did the men who brought about the American Revolution.37
Appearing before a congressional hearing in 2002, Rosebraugh explained the invocation of his Fifth Amendment right by saying: “In light of the events on September 11, my country has told me that I should not cooperate with terrorists. I therefore am refusing to cooperate with members of Con- gress who are some of the most extreme terrorists in history.”38 Countless additional statements by underground activists concur with Rosebraugh’s sentiments.39
Some elements of ELF have adopted an even more radical stance, with activists expressing support for violence against people. After a 2002 arson at a U.S. Forest Service research facility in Pennsylvania, activists claiming
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 259
responsibility said: “While innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles, pleading, protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to achieve.”40 For some members of ELF, eschewing violence may no longer apply to those persons deemed guilty of harming the environment—in their view, they are not the terrorists; rather the U.S. government and greedy corporations that destroy the natural world are the real criminals. It follows that criminal methods employed by ELF are part of a just war to save the planet—and, since the stakes are so high, win- ning justifies the use of such methods. Fortunately, the violent rhetoric has not been matched by radical environmentalists to date (although some of their methods do create a substantial risk of harm), and it remains to be seen whether the radical fringe carries out the threat to employ “whatever means necessary” to accomplish its aims.
The Radical Animal Rights/Liberation Movement
Concern for animal welfare dates to antiquity, with philosophers through- out the ages arguing that lower life forms deserve moral consideration. During the Enlightenment John Locke and David Hume advocated the kind treatment of animals, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau felt that killing ani- mals for food was murder. And although Immanuel Kant said that because lower forms cannot reason, humans have no direct duties toward them, Jeremy Bentham countered that the benchmark should not be whether animals can reason but if they have the capacity to suffer. It follows that if animals do feel pain, then people have a responsibility to extend to ani- mals moral consideration—perhaps even rights.41 By the early nineteenth century sentiment and concern for animals were translated into organized efforts to decrease their maltreatment and suffering. Animal protection societies in Great Britain and North America were formed to introduce and enforce legislation, educate the public, and build shelters. By the late 1800s antivivisectionists organized to oppose the use of animals in medi- cal and scientific research.42 In the United States the first real progress in the realm of animal welfare occurred in 1866 when Henry Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.43 In the twentieth century progress in the animal welfare movement was uneven, but certainly significant improvements were made through the passage of numerous laws and regulations, especially in Europe and North America.
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
260 · Donald R. Liddick
Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with the mainstream animal welfare move- ment and the slow incremental improvement in conditions afforded to “ex- ploited” animals has led many animal rights advocates to become more ag- gressive in their methods. Beginning in the 1960s the idea that nonhuman animals did not just deserve humane treatment but actually had rights, perhaps rights equal to those of humans, propelled many in the movement toward the position that nonhuman animals should be liberated.44
By the 1970s the philosophical argument that humankind’s use of ani- mals amounted to immoral discrimination began to grow. Richard Ryder, the head of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, first coined the term “speciesism” in 1971, but the concept was firmly established with the publication in 1975 of Peter Singer’s book, Animal Liberation.45
Drawing on ideas originally voiced by Jeremy Bentham and Henry Salt, Singer suggested that racism, sexism, and speciesism are the same breed of human behavior, and that the Holocaust, slavery, the subjugation of women, factory farming, and vivisection all reflect unjustified discrimina- tion. In his book Singer argued that the suffering inflicted on animals in agribusiness and scientific experimentation far outweighed the benefits to humans.46 The ideological groundwork for liberating animals from “hu- man oppression” was even more firmly established with the publication of Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights in 1983. While Peter Singer ar- gues that animals should be granted moral consideration, Regan explicitly states that animals have inherent value and are therefore deserving of moral equality.47 Regan’s position is embodied in the modern animal liberation movement, which advocates banning the use of animals for any reason. Lawrence and Susan Finsen summarize the important distinction between animal welfare/humane movement and animal rights:
The humane movement promoted kindness and the elimination of cruelty without challenging the assumption of human superiority or the institutions that reflect that assumption. The animal rights movement, on the other hand, does not seek humane reforms but challenges the assumption of human superiority and demands aboli- tion of institutions it considers exploitative. Rather than asking for a greater (and optional) charity toward animals, the animal rights movement demands justice, equality, fairness, and rights.48
While there are countless animal rights organizations worldwide (most of which are legal and peaceful), the most well-known is PETA, cofounded in 1980 by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk. By using targeted campaigns
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 261
for maximum media exposure, PETA, a 501c tax-exempt nonprofit organi- zation, has grown over the years into a large international organization with seven hundred thousand members and a multimillion dollar operating budget. The PETA Web site contains numerous links to other PETA pages, including a Web page for kids, action alerts, news of ongoing campaigns, and numerous international offices, including PETA-U.K., Germany, the Netherlands, France, and India. The organization uses education and me- dia to draw attention to itself and the animal rights cause by sponsoring demonstrations, producing documentaries, and staging performances and street theatre.49
But PETA is also directly involved in the criminal side of the animal rights movement. For example, it has served as a media outlet for ALF and has provided financial assistance to persons involved in criminal activity. PETA co-founders Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk have repeatedly ex- pressed support for ALF criminality. Pacheco once said that “arson, prop- erty destruction, burglary and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animal cause,”50 and Newkirk has expressed remorse that she does not personally have the “guts to light a match.”51 In some cases, PETA members have crossed the line and committed crimes; others are or have been mem- bers of ALF. PETA also serves as a conduit for legitimate donations and foundation money that is funneled to radical activists, and has infiltrated and radicalized more mainstream animal rights groups such as the New England Anti-vivisection Society.52 In sum, while the organization does engage in perfectly legal activities, PETA also serves as the “aboveground” wing of radical “underground” groups such as ALF—moreover, the separa- tion is largely fiction.
Since the 1970s animal rights/liberation groups have reflected an in- creasingly radical ideology in their methods, adopting “direct action” (criminal behaviors) as their modus operandi. In a worldview that views the slaughter of chickens as a moral evil equivalent to that of the Jewish Ho- locaust, animal liberation rhetoric and actions have become progressively violent. For example, Fran Trutt was arrested for planting a bomb outside the offices of the U.S. Surgical Corporation in 1988, and in 1999 an animal rights group calling itself the Justice Department mailed razor blades to eighty-seven American scientists working with primates—the blades were inserted in the envelopes so as to slice fingers when opened.53 In another case an undercover operative working for PETA infiltrated the Boys Town research facility in Omaha, Nebraska, triggering federal investigations. Contemporaneous with the PETA investigation, Boys Town researchers
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
262 · Donald R. Liddick
were threatened with hate mail and phone calls—one letter read “we will kill you and every member of your family in the exact same way you killed the cats, no matter where you hide! We will slice open your heads and cut the nerves in your brains while you are alive.”54 Yet another infamous ex- ample of animal rights extremism involved Dr. Michael Podell, who walked away from a tenured position and $1.7 million in research funding at Ohio State after PETA posted his experiments on their “action alert” list. Podell received a dozen death threats and was sent a photograph of a British sci- entist whose car had been bombed—scrawled on the top of the photo was “you’re next.”55
Violence directly targeting humans is becoming more acceptable among a fringe of animal rights extremists. Daniel Andreas San Diego detonated ten-pound shrapnel bombs in 2003 at two California biomedical research facilities—one device was timed to detonate an hour after an initial explo- sion in an attempt to kill first responders.56 In a sustained animal rights campaign, attacks against Huntingdon Life Sciences—one of the world’s largest product testing laboratories—have involved personal attacks on company executives. Greg Avery and Heather James started SHAC in Great Britain in 1999, and its illegal activities quickly spread to the United States. In addition to relatively innocuous (albeit criminal) actions such as hack- ing company computers and making harassing phone calls, SHAC’s modus operandi involves the “intimidation of HLS, its employees, its employees’ families, its business partners, their business partners, their insurers, their caterers, and cleaners.”57 SHAC operatives target HLS employees by posting their personal information including home addresses and phone numbers on Internet sites; female employees of HLS or HLS associates have been threatened with sexual assault and followed home from work. Threatening e-mails ask HLS employees “do you know where your children are?” To date, SHAC operatives have firebombed eleven privately owned cars and attacked numerous private residences. Letter bombs have injured several people, including a furrier and his three-year-old daughter.58 Dr. Jerry Vla- sak, a heart surgeon from Los Angeles and member of the radical group Animal Defense League (his wife is the head of SHAC-USA), stated at a 2003 animal rights conference that the assassination of biomedical scien- tists would save millions of animal lives: “I don’t think you’d have to kill too many. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save one million, two million, 10 million non-human lives.”59
In 2003 SHAC posted private information of Chiron (an HLS affili- ate) employees online, and later two groups called the Animal Liberation
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 263
Brigade and the Revolutionary Cells set off pipe bombs at Chiron’s Em- eryville, California, offices—a communiqué posted to the SHAC Web site said “You might protect your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?” In September 2003 the Animal Liberation Brigade and the Revolutionary Cells claimed credit for another bombing, this time at the offices of Shaklee Inc. (also associated with HLS) in Pleasanton, Califor- nia, with an accompanying e-mail reiterating that HLS employees and their families are legitimate targets. A communiqué from the Animal Liberation Brigade said that it was “time to bring the bomb and the gun back into amerikan politics,” while the Revolutionary Cells taunted the Chiron chair- man: “Hey, Sean Lance and the rest of the Chiron team, how are you sleep- ing? You never know when your house, your car even, might go boom.”60
The most well-known and prolific of criminal animal rights organiza- tions is ALF, the “sister organization” of ELF. The roots of the ALF lie with an earlier group called the Band of Mercy, formed in 1972 by Ronnie Lee and Cliff Goodman, with the initial relatively innocuous aim of thwarting hunters in Great Britain. Today ALF has grown far beyond its British ori- gins and is a significant international movement with an unknown number of members and supporters worldwide. ALF cells are or have been active in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Croatia, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, and the United States—more than twenty countries in all. According to a 1993 U.S. Jus- tice Department study the number of “hardcore” members of ALF in both Great Britain and the United States is thought to be one hundred or fewer; however, the total of all ALF activists who commit property crimes and animal liberations are certainly far greater in number (in the United States, the Animal Liberation Front Support Group claims a membership of ten thousand).61
ALF actions range in severity from the release of single animals where activists pay for any damages (called “open rescues”) to multimillion dollar blazes that threaten life. In cases of burglary and vandalism, perpetrators typically spray-paint the “ALF” initials on walls along with other graffiti and threats. Direct actions tend to be well organized and preceded by care- ful surveillance of the target—infiltrating facilities by cultivating friend- ships or even becoming an employee is thought to be a common tactic. ALF cells often document their work on video, showing a small group of people destroying laboratories and other property, then posing in ski masks with “liberated” animals. For security reasons, the ALF Web site advises activists
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
264 · Donald R. Liddick
to start their own ALF cell, as opposed to finding or becoming part of an existing one.62
While ALF is best characterized as an underground movement com- posed of an unknown number of anonymous cells, certain aboveground structures exist that promote ALF objectives. Online journals such as No Compromise, Arkangel, and Bite Back Magazine as well as numerous addi- tional “zines” (amateur electronic publications) give voice to the movement by publishing reports of direct actions and “action alerts” that highlight tar- gets. Aboveground activists maintain the North American ALF press office that serves as a media outlet and makes public anonymous communiqués that claim credit for attacks. There is also an ALF Web site that describes the history and purpose of the movement, highlights recent campaigns and actions, provides links to international ALF sites, and publishes videos and how-to guides for aspiring activists.63
Globally ALF attacks over the years have increased in frequency and intensity. A “Diary of Actions” posted in Bite Back Magazine reveals that in recent years, ALF attacks ranging from minor vandalism to arson occur practically every day worldwide.64 A significant trend in ALF attacks has been the targeting of people in addition to property. Also, several signifi- cant spin-off groups have emerged with the mission of bringing more vio- lent attacks against industries viewed as animal exploiters. The FBI believes that there is a significant overlap in personnel and support networks among the ALF and more militant groups such as SHAC, the Animal Rights Mili- tia, and the Justice Department.65
Discussion and Analysis
Criminality within the radical environmental and animal liberation move- ments is not well organized structurally: the activists who perpetrate crimes are not part of formal organizations with rigid authority structures, special- ization of works tasks, rational divisions of labor, or even common goals. The criminal elements that commit “ecocrimes” are one small segment of much larger social movements, where the majority of people denounce criminality and are bound together in only the broadest sense by the goals of environmental protection and the mitigation of animal suffering.66
Operations in the criminal segment of the animal liberation and en- vironmental movements are best characterized as “leaderless resistance,” where small groups and individuals attempt to further their goals through
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 265
independent acts of criminality. Popularized by Louis Beam as a means for white nationalists to fight against the government, leaderless resistance was first used effectively in the United States by right-wing terror groups such as the Order, Posse Comitatus, and the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. The technique involves splitting a social movement into an aboveground sector that deals with propaganda and an underground seg- ment that commits crimes. Because underground activists remain anony- mous and isolated (seen as a strength in that it thwarts law enforcement), a critical element of their success is a dependence on “aboveground” mem- bers in the movement who provide support and direction. The aboveg- round sector also provides a veneer of legitimacy, or at least the perception of legitimacy, to a given social movement that employs criminal methods— essentially, noncriminal “leaders” must provide a socially acceptable front if there is to be any hope for political change. Hence, groups such as the Irish Republican Army have Sinn Fein, and ALF has PETA.67
In the animal liberation and radical environmental movements there ap- pears to be a relatively small cadre of high-profile persons who provide (or attempt to provide) the appearance of legitimacy, who communicate agen- das, and who articulate ideological positions. Press officers, authors, uni- versity professors, and officers of nonprofit groups provide inspiration and direction to underground activists—Ingrid Newkirk, Peter Singer, Steven Best, Edward Abbey, Paul Watson, Craig Rosebraugh, Leslie James Picker- ing, and Dave Foreman are just a few relevant examples. Movement icons are an especially important component, and provide inspiration. (Barry Horne engaged in several lengthy hunger strikes and died while incarcer- ated for animal liberation crimes, and Julia “Butterfly” Hill engaged in a tree sit that spanned two years).68
In addition to aboveground leaders, underground sectors of the move- ments are supported by formal organizations that provide critical leader- ship functions. Organizations such as NAELPO, Earth First! Foundation, SHAC-USA, and PETA are nonprofit tax-exempt organizations, incorpo- rated to provide direction, inspire underground activists, disseminate in- formation, and even provide financial support for direct action, including legal defense funds for arrested activists. (Well-maintained Internet-based prisoner support networks exist for activists incarcerated for both animal liberation and radical environmental crimes.69)
Since the 1970s criminality associated with the radical environmental and animal rights movements has become more pronounced. Interestingly, the more radical components developed concurrent with the civil rights
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
266 · Donald R. Liddick
and the equal rights for women movements of the 1960s. In this light the impetus for arguments favoring the extension of rights to nonhuman ani- mals and the adoption of a biocentric view of humankind’s relation to the environment may be seen as part of broader historical trends characterized by heightened awareness of and mobilization against institutional oppres- sion. Today we see a diverse range of ideas and approaches (sometimes conflicting) in the animal rights and environmental movements, a fact il- lustrated by the monikers of groups such as Gays and Lesbians for Animal Rights and Feminists for Animal Rights. But if social movements such as animal rights and radical environmentalism are inextricably linked to the zeitgeist of the late twentieth century, the most pronounced feature has been a process of “progressive radicalization”: as traditional methods for bringing about change fail, or do not bring about change quickly enough, disaffected activists break off and form a new group or movement that ad- vocates more extreme methods. Consider the following examples:
Example 1: The Wilderness Society → Greenpeace → Sea Shepherd Conservation Society → Earth First! → Earth Liberation Front
Example 2: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani- mals → Hunt Saboteurs Association → Band of Mercy → Animal Lib- eration Front → Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.
Both examples demonstrate the progressively immoderate methods ad- opted by animal rights and environmental activists, beginning with legal protest and lobbying, advancing to civil disobedience, and graduating to major acts of property destruction and violent attacks against people. The danger is that as the most extreme elements are pushed to the margins even within their own movements, a relatively small number of “hardcore” activists may become more desperate and violent.
Having noted the potential for the “fringe of the fringe” in the move- ments to progress to violent attacks against humans (an eventuality real- ized in a few cases within the animal liberation movement), a sober assess- ment indicates that neither the animal rights nor the radical environmental movements are likely to achieve their goals. There are several very good reasons for this, which include concerted law enforcement efforts, acri- mony and disagreement over philosophy and tactics within the move- ments, and a lack of sympathy among the public for their cause, especially when criminal methods are employed. This general lack of success for ani- mal liberationists and radical environmentalists probably means that their activities will not rise to the level of a national security threat.70
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 267
The reasons for the ultimate failure of radical environmentalism and animal liberation warrant further discussion. First and foremost is the con- certed government effort directed against the movements. From 1988 to 1992 thirty-two states enacted laws meant to protect animal enterprises, and in 1992 the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was passed by the U.S. Congress, making it a federal offense to cause economic damage or physi- cal disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise that results in economic damage exceeding ten thousand dollars.71 Under the federal act, violators may be punished with a year in federal prison, and if the action causes serious bodily harm or death, ten years to life. Similar legislative ef- forts exist on the environmental side; for example, a rider attached to the Drug Act of 1988 made tree-spiking a federal felony offense.72
Beginning in the late 1990s an increased number of ELF attacks prompted congressional hearings, and then the FBI declared that ELF and ALF were the most serious domestic terrorism threat facing the United States.73 Soon the government applied its resources, and arrests and convictions of ani- mal liberation and radical environmental activists accelerated. On January 25, 2001, Frank Ambrose (who turned informant) became the first ELF activist arrested in North America.74 Additional arrests and convictions followed, typically resulting in lengthy prison terms. In 2006 the “SHAC 7” and SHAC-USA were indicted under the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protec- tion Act. The SHAC 7 case is especially notable because a central feature of the government’s case involved political speech that encourages coer- cive/criminal actions—a free speech versus incitement-of-violence battle that epitomizes the aggressive nature of recent prosecutions.75 The most successful prosecution of ELF members arose out of Operation Backfire, which involved the merging of seven investigations in the Portland, Or- egon, field office of the FBI in 2004. Operation Backfire and subsequent law enforcement efforts resulted in the indictment of eighteen ELF members, eight of whom have been convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Eleven of those indicted were part of an ELF subgroup called The Family, responsible for the Vail, Colorado, ski resort arson.76 Ostensibly, ELF has been decimated by these law enforcement successes. The “diary of actions” available at the NAELFPO Web site records a marked decrease in crimes claimed by ELF in the United States: with a peak of nineteen attacks in 2000 and twenty-six in 2001, the numbers have steadily decreased, with only two attacks in 2007, one in 2008, and five in 2009 (the attacks in 2009 involved acts best characterized as minor vandalism—with one exception—and there were no arsons).77
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
268 · Donald R. Liddick
Aggressive law enforcement has exacerbated a pronounced rift in ELF concerning its future direction, especially the appropriate tactics to be employed. The current Web site, http://www.earth-liberation-front.org/, denounces criminal “direction actions” as counterproductive to the envi- ronmental cause and excoriates former ELF spokespersons Leslie James Pickering and Craig Rosebraugh. The “new ELF” Web site also cites the experience of John Hanna, the original founder of Environmental Life Force (ELF) in the late 1970s, who now repudiates direct action as a useful method. At least some activists are advocating a new direction for the ELF: “in order to win the hearts and minds of the people ELF hopes to influence and gain support from, a thoughtful, even-handed approach is necessary.”78
In addition to the massive law enforcement effort directed against them, a principal reason both the radical environmental and animal liberation movements are unlikely to accomplish their goals (or cause major disrup- tions) is a lack of agreement regarding theory, tactics, and mission. In e- mail correspondence, Leslie James Pickering, former NAELFPO spokes- person, spoke of a “fatal underdevelopment of theory and strategy” in ELF:
With the loose autonomous structure that the ELF embraces it wouldn’t at all be surprising to see a non-linear relationship between strategy and theory, or even the fatal underdevelopment of theory and strategy prior to action. While this type of structure is in some ways very egalitarian and works to keep the membership out of prison, in this example it may have failed to foster a healthy development and relationship between strategy and theory necessary to lead the ELF to achieve their goals.79
In a letter to the author, Ted Kaczynski (aka the “Unabomber”), who espouses the downfall of “technological civilization” as the only means to save the planet, observed that the divergent ideologies and agendas in the environmental and animal rights movements spell certain failure for them. Kaczynski cited Paul Hollander’s book The Survival of the Adversary Cul- ture and made the following statement:
Roughly, “the left” comprises people who are fixated on such issues as racism, sexism, neocolonialism, gay rights, animal rights, indigenous people’s rights, etc., etc. These people like to think of themselves as rebels or revolutionaries, but they wouldn’t really want to overturn the existing structure of society. They have in fact achieved a relatively comfortable adjustment to the present society, which allows them to
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 269
satisfy their psychological needs by playing at rebellion as long as they stay within certain limits (of course, not all of them do so), and as long as they espouse causes that are consistent with the well-being of technological society. Furthermore, the values of the left are essen- tially the soft values of modern society: women, homosexuals, and animals are to be protected, poor people are to be cared for, workers are to be given easy conditions and decent wages, etc., etc. A move- ment dominated by these soft values could never take the frankly bru- tal and reckless measures needed to bring down the techno-industrial system, nor would such a movement be prepared to accept the harsh consequences of the collapse of the system.80
Kaczynski went on to observe that in the case of animal rights and radi- cal environmentalism, left-wing activists with competing agendas have “swarmed” the movements “in droves” until they have become “swamped with leftists . . . absorbed into the adversary culture,” and are “thereby ren- dered ineffectual.” Kaczynski cited the schism in EarthFirst! as a prime ex- ample of this.81
The final, and perhaps most significant, reason for the dim outlook in the movements (from the radicals’ perspective) is the failure to garner support with the general public. Aboveground spokespersons, like Ingrid Newkirk at PETA, continuously walk a tightrope between legitimizing their movements while voicing support for illegal behavior—it simply does not work. The fundamental dilemma, and the reason why animal liberation and radical environmentalism are likely to fail, is expressed well by Eric Hoffer: “Those who would transform a nation or the world cannot do so by breeding and captaining discontent or by demonstrating the reasonable- ness and desirability of the intended changes or by coercing people into a new way of life. They must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope.”82
While most people are against the reckless abuse of animals and the wan- ton destruction of the natural world, few are willing to accept the premise that lab rats possess moral value equivalent to that of a child, or that torch- ing corporate headquarters is the best way to preserve the environment. Moreover, very few people (including many individuals within the move- ments, one suspects) are truly willing to make the sacrifices and lifestyle changes required to produce animal liberation, or the kind of natural world (largely devoid of technology) envisioned by radical environmentalists.
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
270 · Donald R. Liddick
Notes
1. Acts of Ecoterrorism by Radical Environmental Organizations, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, 2nd session, June 9, 1998; Ecoterrorism and Lawlessness on the National Forests, Oversight Hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health of the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 2nd session, Febru- ary 12, 2002; Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd session, May 18, 2004; Oversight on Ecoter- rorism Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Hearing statements, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, May 18, 2005; and Douglas Long, Ecoterrorism (New York: Facts on File, 2004).
2. Long, Ecoterrorism. 3. Some leading works include the following: Arne Naess, Ecology, Community and
Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Bill De- vall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as if Life Mattered (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1985); Alan Drengson and Yuichi Inoue, The Deep Ecology Movement: an Introductory Anthology, (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1995); and David Landis Barnhill and Roger S. Gottlieb, Deep Ecology and World Religions (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001).
4. Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. 5. Martha F. Lee, EarthFirst!: Environmental Apocalypse (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Uni-
versity Press, 1995). 6. Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. 7. Lee, EarthFirst!. 8. Environmental philosophers have found a home in the varied perspectives of “post-
modernism,” where deconstructing basic assumptions about human-environmental rela- tions is a central theme. See Michael E. Zimmerman, J. Baird Callicott, John Clark, Karen J. Warren, and Irene J. Klaver, Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001); and Michael E. Zimmer- man, Contesting Earth’s Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). “Ecofeminism” is a distinct branch of environmental philosophy that sees the present environmental crisis as a direct result of patriarchy. Readers inter- ested in the large and growing body of ecofeminist literature might begin with Carolyn Merchant, Radical Ecology: The Search for A Livable World (New York: Psychology Press, 1992).
9. Lee, EarthFirst!; and Long, Ecoterrorism. 10. Long, Ecoterrorism. 11. Christopher Manes, Green Rage (New York: Back Bay Books, 1990). 12. Long, Ecoterrorism; and Manes, Green Rage. 13. Long, Ecoterrorism, 26. 14. Sean P. Egan, “From Spikes to Bombs: The Rise of Eco-terrorism,” Studies in Conflict
and Terrorism 19 (1996): 1–18; Long, Ecoterrorism; and Manes, Green Rage. 15. Lee, EarthFirst!. 16. Manes, Green Rage, 235.
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 271
17. Lee, EarthFirst!; and Donald R. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006).
18. Lee, EarthFirst!. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. “EarthFirst!” at http://www.earthfirst.org/; Lee, EarthFirst!; and Long, Ecoterrorism. 24. http://www.earthfirst.org. 25. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism; “Snitches get Stitches,” http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/
article.php?id=171; “The War This Time,” http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id =167; “Most Wanted Eco-terrorists: The Biotechnology Industry,” http://www.earth firstjournal.org/article.php?id=128.
26. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism; and Kelly Stoner and Gary Perlstein, “Implementing ‘Jus- tice’ through Terror and Destruction: Ecoterror’s Violent Agenda to Save Nature,” in Ter- rorism: Research, Readings, and Realities, edited by Lynne L. Snowden and Bradley Whitsel (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005), 104.
27. Stoner and Perlstein, “Implementing ‘Justice,’” 93. 28. Ibid.; and Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 29. “Frequently Asked Questions about the Earth Liberation Front,” p. 17, www.
animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ELF/elf_faq.pdf. 30. Ibid. 31. Ron Arnold, Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature (Bellevue, WA: Free En-
terprise Press, 1997); and Craig Rosebraugh, Burning Rage of a Dying Planet: Speaking for the Earth Liberation Front (Brooklyn: Lantern Books, 2004).
32. Quoted in Rosebraugh, Burning Rage, 20. 33. “Eco-terrorism and Lawlessness on the National Forests, 2002. 34. Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network, “Ecoterrorism: Extremism in
the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements,” www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_subCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco.
35. “What Is the Earth Liberation Front? History and List of ELF Actions,” NowPub- lic, September 4, 2009, www.nowpublic.com/environment/what-earth-liberation-front -history-list-elf-actions.
36. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 37. Ibid. 38. Ecoterrorism and Lawlessness on the National Forests, February 12, 2002. 39. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 40. Audrey Hudson, “ELF Admits to Arson,” Washington Times, September 10, 2002. 41. Kim Masters Evans, Animal Rights (San Luis Obispo, CA: Information Plus, 2004);
and Lawrence Finsen and Susan Finsen, The Animal Rights Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1994).
42. Finsen and Finsen, Animal Rights Movement; James M. Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin, The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest (New York: Free Press, 1992); and Harold D. Guither, Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1998).
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
272 · Donald R. Liddick
43. Guither, Animal Rights. 44. Evans, Animal Rights. 45. Finsen and Finsen, Animal Rights Movement. 46. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Pimlico, 1975). 47. Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1983). 48. Finsen and Finsen, Animal Rights Movement, 3. 49. Lisa Yount, Animal Rights (New York: Facts on File, 2004). 50. Daniel T. Oliver, Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade, (Bellevue, WA: Meril Press,
1999), 207. 51. Brian Carnell, “PETA and Animal Rights Violence,” for AnimalRights.Net, Novem-
ber 16, 2001, at http://animalrights.net/2001/peta-and-animal-rights-violence/. 52. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 53. Dave Workman, PETA Files: The Dark Side of the Animal Rights Movement (Bel-
levue, WA: Meril Press, 2003). 54. Ron Arnold, Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant-Driven Environmental
Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats that Control Your Future (Bellevue, WA: Free Enterprise Press, 1999); Oliver, Animal Rights; and Workman, PETA Files.
55. Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser, “From Push to Shove,” Intelligence Report, no. 107 (Fall 2002), http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues /2002/fall/from-push-to-shove.
56. Oversight on Ecoterrorism Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
57. “Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty,” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHAC; “SHAC History” at http://www.shac.net/SHAC/shac_intro.html; Oversight on Ecoterrorism Specif- ically Examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
58. Oversight on Ecoterrorism Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
59. Center for Consumer Freedom, “Jerry Vlasak,” http://activistcash.com/biography. cfm/b/3437-jerry-vlasak-dr.
60. Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality, 10; Oversight on Ecoterrorism Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), 8–9.
61. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 62. Stoner and Perlstein, “Implementing ‘Justice’ through Terror and Destruction.” 63. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 64. See www.animalliberationfront.org; and Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 65. Oversight on Ecoterrorism Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). 66. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 67. Simson L. Garfinkel, “Leaderless Resistance Today,” First Monday 8, no. 3 (March
3, 2003), http://www.firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view /1040/961.
68. Liddick, Eco-Terrorism. 69. Ibid.
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
The Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements · 273
70. In the broadest sense, “ecoterrorism” has been and will likely remain a relatively minor nuisance. In fact, in most (but not all) cases it is probably hyperbole to charac- terize so-called ecocrimes as terrorism. That the U.S. government has labeled this type of criminality as “ecoterrorism” for political and prosecutorial reasons is obvious. The vast majority of all actions committed by groups such as ELF and ALF are minor prop- erty crimes properly characterized as vandalism. One database of almost three thousand crimes committed by environmental and animal rights radicals showed that only about 10 percent of “direct actions” involved a risk of harm to humans (including arsons) with only a handful of actual physical attacks and injuries (direct attacks against people have been largely confined to the animal rights side). Liddick, Eco-Terrorism.
71. Guither, Animal Rights. 72. Long, Ecoterrorism. 73. Ecoterrorism and Lawlessness on the National Forests. 74. 2001 Year-End Direct Action Report, North American Animal Liberation Front
Press Office, http://www.ainfos.ca/02/jan/ainfos00219.html. 75. Steven Best and Richard Kahn, “Trial by Fire: The SHAC 7 and the Future of De-
mocracy,” http://www.drstevebest.org/TrialByFire.htm. 76. See the entry for “Operation Backfire (FBI),” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation
_Backfire_(FBI). 77. Ibid. 78. “The Evolution of ELF after Operation Backfire,” at http://earth-liberation-front.
org/. 79. Quoted in Liddick, Eco-Terrorism, 102–3. 80. Quoted in ibid., 106. 81. Quoted in ibid., 107. 82. Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (New York: Perennial Library, 1951), 18.
Michael, G. (Ed.). (2013). Extremism in america. University Press of Florida. Created from apus on 2023-09-07 07:24:20.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
3. U
ni ve
rs ity
P re
ss o
f F lo
rid a.
A ll
rig ht
s re
se rv
ed .
