Citation
Radical environmentalism as a form of political participation

Material Information

Title:
Radical environmentalism as a form of political participation a study of the history, trends and public policy response
Creator:
Hulbert, Scott Wesley
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v, 92 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Deep ecology -- United States ( lcsh )
Political participation -- United States ( lcsh )
Deep ecology ( fast )
Political participation ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 88-92).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Scott Wesley Hulbert.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
47108066 ( OCLC )
ocm47108066
Classification:
LD1190.P86 2000m .H85 ( lcc )

Full Text
RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM AS A FORM OF
--------POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: .
A STUDY OF THE HISTORY, TRENDS
AND PUBLIC POLICY RESPONSE
Scott Wesley Hulbert
B.A., Transylvania University, 1996
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Public Administration
1999
by


This thesis for the Master of Public Administration
degree by
Scott Wesley Hulbert
has been approved
by
Rob
age
Date


Hulbert, Scott Wesley (Master of Public Administration)
Radical Environmentalism as a Form of Political Participation:
A Study of the History Trends and Public Policy Response
Thesis directed by Dr. Toddi Steelman
ABSTRACT
From the spiking of trees, to the arson of public and private buildings, to the
issuing of death threats, incidents of radical environmentalism have been on the rise.
In the 1970s, frustrated by the inability of the mainstream environmental movement
to effect change in the political world, many environmentalists begun to take a more
radical approach to protecting the environment. Since the 1970s the radical
environmental movement has continued to expand and recruit activists. As the
movement has expanded it has also become more active and violent. In October of
1998 radical environmentalists claimed responsibility for the arson fires on Vail
Mountain. This action marked the culmination of a decade of radical environmental
acts that have destroyed public and private property across North America and Europe
totaling over 20 million dollars.
The purpose of this study is to answer the policy question: How should public
policy makers and the gem ral public address the increase in radical
environmentalism? After a a extensive analysis of the history and trends of radical
environmentalism, two things became very apparent. First, the number of direct
actions taken by members of the radical environmental movement has increased.
Second, these direct actions have also increased in their individual destructiveness.
Essentially, the movement is continuing to expand and employ new tactics in an ever-
increasing attempt to protect the environment
With these trends and history in mind, what policy responses are available to
policy makers? Essentially, policy makers have the option of several different
legislative solutions to the threat of radical environmentalism. To a large extent these
solutions increase the civil or criminal penalties that can be applied to a radical
environmentalist that is convicted of committing a crime. This study evaluates each
legislative response and recommends one response as the best solution available to
policy makers.
i


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my mother and father for their support and help while I was
researching and writing this study.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT
fift
co:
IV y thanks to the staff and faculty of the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the
University of Colorado-Denver for their support and understanding. I would also like to
ank my advisor, Dr. Toddi Steelman, for her patience and guidance during these past
jen months. I would like to thank Professor Linda Donnelly for serving on my thesis
mmittee. Furthermore, I should thank Dr. Steelman and Professor Donnelly for the
Mce they provided me with regard to my decision to pursue a law degree from the
rmont Law School
I would also like to thank Robert and Linda Kirscht for the employment opportunity they
prc vided me during my graduate school experience and for serving as readers of this
esis.
Fin
Un
Sc
sol
ally, I would like to take this time to thank the staff and faculty of Transylvania
niversity. Specifically, Dr. Don Dugi and Dr Jeffrey Freymen of Tranyslvanias Political
i ence Department for providing me with the knowledge needed to succeed in graduate
ool.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................1
2. DISCRETION OF THE POLICY PROBLEM...........................5
The Policy Problem......................................5
Clarification of Goals..................................6
Context of the Policy Problem...........................7
Stage of the Policy Process.............................9
Description of the Relevant Political Actors...........10
3. ANALYSIS OF THE POLICY PROBLEM............................17
Case Study: Vail Associates Category III Expansion.....17
Identification and Examination of the Factors that have
Influenced the Development of the Radical Environmental
Movement.................................................35
Early History of the Radical Environmental Movement......44
Earth First! and the Beginning of the Modem Radical
Environmental Movement...................................50
IV


The 1990s and the Continued Evolution of Radical
Environmentalism.............................
53
Past and Present Trends Influencing the Radical
Environmental Movement................................55 -
4. FUTURE TRENDS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS................64
Future Trends.........................................64
Invention of Possible Policy Solutions................67
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Policy Solutions..70
Selection and Justification of a Particular Strategy..75
5. CONCLUSION..............................................79
6. FOOTNOTES..............................................81
WORKS CITED......................................................88


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
From the spiking of trees, to the arson of public and private buildings, to the -
issuing of death threats, incidents of radical environmentalism have been on the rise.
In the decade of the 1990s radical environmentalism, also known as extreme
environmental activism, ecotage, monkey wrenching, ecodefense, and to some,
ecological or environmental terrorism, have been increasing in both the number of
actions taken and the destructiveness of each act. These actions culminated in the
1990s with a direct action taken against the ski industry giant, Vail Associates. Direct
action as defined by its supporters, is the nonviolent resistance to the environmentally
destructive forces of industry and government.1 In essence, direct action is a method
employed by the radical environmental movement that uses tactics that are outside
legal methods of protest. The tactics of direct action include civil disobedience and
property destruction. Environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club and
Earth First! (EF!), have all been accused of organizing and conducting direct actions
to undermine the industries and governments that these environmental groups feel
contribute to the destruction of the natural world." However, increasingly the above
mentioned environmental groups have been accused by many environmentalists of
failing to take a radical enough position to protect the environment. Greenpeace,


Sierra Club, EF! and other large national environmental organizations have been
accused of being too willing compromise their environmental goals with government
and industry. In response, splinter groups have formed with the goal of promoting a
no compromise form of environmentalism.
In October 1998, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), a splinter organization of
Earth First! claimed responsibility for what has been termed the most costly act of
eco-terrorism in American history.1" Seven separate fires were set atop Vail
Mountain Ski Resort destroying five buildings and four ski lifts. In an e-mail
communique, ELF claimed that the acts, totaling twelve million dollars, were
committed in an attempt to stop Vail Associates from continuing to expand their ski
resort.lv
The policy problem that will be the focus of this study is: How should public
officials and common citizens address radical environmental activity? Specifically, if
the 1990s signify a growing trend in the number and destructiveness of these actions,
what constitutes an appropriate public policy response?
The purpose of this thesis will be to provide a basic analysis and description
of the radical environmental movement and the Vail arson fires. The study will
include an investigative case study of the arson fires, an outline of the history and
development of the radical environmental movement and an examination of the past
2


and future trends of this relatively new branch of environmentalism. Finally, several
recommendations and proposals for policy direction will be provided.
My motivation for investigating radical environmentalism developed from
combining previous work in political extremism with my current field of study,
environmental policy and law. The environmental movement is the latest political
movement to develop a more radical and direct approach to accomplishing its goals.
Environmentalism follows in the footsteps of the movements of religious freedom,
pro-democracy, anti-slavery, radical labor, civil rights and more recently pro-life and
the militant separatists movement. Although concerned with the protection of the
natural world, I bring no preconceived bias with regard to environmentalism into this
study. I do not consider the more extreme and possibly violent actions of the radical
environmental movement to be either appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, I consider
these actions to be part of a natural political process for movements that exist in the
minority and struggle to overcome being marginalized by a majority of the political
world.v
The basic research method employed in this study was a nonexperimental
design. The research vehicle used was a traditional case study relying on a thorough
literature review, structured personal and telephone interviews, document analysis
and individual observations. There are two very practical justifications for the use of
the case study methodology. First, the relatively close proximity of the test subjects
3


and of the area to the location of the researcher allowed for the study of an extensive
amount of primary information sources. Second, because of the limited amount of
previously conducted research in this subject field, the case study allowed for a more
exploratory method of research. Careful observation of the case and criteria involved
allowed for some general explanations of the phenomena to be suggested. These
observations, in the form of hypotheses, then can be tested more systematically by
observing more cases at a later date.
4


CHAPTER2
DISCRETION OF THE POLICY PROBLEM
The Policy Problem
The purpose of this study was to address the policy problem that is created by
the radical environmental movement. In essence, the policy problem asks how should
public policy makers and the general public address the increase in radical
environmentalism? Through an analysis of the history and trends of the movement,
can conclusions be drawn about what represents an appropriate policy response?
After an extensive analysis of the history and trends of radical
environmentalism, two things became very apparent. First, the number of direct
actions taken by members of the radical environmental movement has increased.
Second, these direct actions ha 'e also increased in their individual destructiveness.
Essentially, the movement is continuing to expand and employ new tactics in an ever-
increasing attempt to protect the environment. How then should policy makers
respond to these trends of the radical environmental movement? Traditionally,
legislative responses have been designed at either the federal or state level to address
radical political protest. In the case of radical environmentalism, policy makers will
5


have to decide what represents an appropriate response and at what level or branch of
government the response should be initiated.
Clarification of Goals
The goal of this exercise is to answer the question why? Why have we seen an
increase in the number of direct actions? Why have these actions become more
destructive? Are these actions effecting change in the political world? What was the
outcome of the Vail arson fires? Finally, what can be learned by studying the trends
and history of the movement and how can this help policy makers in addressing
radical environmentalism?
It is understood that political movements have a natural life cycle. Many
movements begin the process by developing from small-regionalized grassroots
movements to large national and sometimes international movements. However, the
course and time frame for each movement is different. The anti-slavery movement of
the 1800s ultimately ended in war and the freedom of the slaves, where as, the radical
labor movement of the early to mid 20th century was widely successful in providing
better wages, safer work environments and child labor laws. To understand the future
path of the environmental movement, one must evaluate and analyze the past history
and current trends of the movement. Essentially, a researcher first must answer why
6


something happened in the past, before he or she may suggest what might happen in
the future.
Context of the Policy Problem
To accomplish the goals of the thesis it is first important to understand the
context of the policy problem. Anti-nuclear, environmental and animal rights
extremists, all considered elements of the radical environmental movement, have
been active for over two decades/1 Groups such as the Eco-Raiders, Earth First!
(EF!), the Sea Shepherds and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) have been conducting
direct actions in both North America and Europe. However, many of these
organizations actions did not attract attention from the media or gene: al public until
the late 1980s.v" In 1980, in a secluded part of the Mexican backcountry, five former
mainstream environmental activists formally created Earth First! These five activists,
led by Dave Foreman, decided that there was a need for a radical wing of the
environmental movement that would make the Sierra Club and other mainstream
groups look more moderate.'111 EF!s motto would be no compromise in the defense
of Mother Earth.ix The creation of EF! would be the first step in a continuing chain
of events that ultimately has led to the increase in the number and destructiveness of
radical environmental acts.
7


In 1991, after pleading guilty to conspiracy charges for environmental direct
actions, Dave Foreman split from EF! Foreman claimed that the organization no
longer represented the no compromise approach that he felt was necessary to
successfully defend the environment.x Almost at the same time, the EF! movement in
England was struggling to adjust to a new less violent form of resistance. Ultimately,
many of the England based EF! members could not adjust and in 1992 a splinter
group named Earth Liberation Front (ELF) formed/1 ELF served as the catalyst of the
radical environmental movement in the 1990s. In the next seven years, ELF claimed
responsibility for nearly fifteen separate attacks in North America and Europe totaling
an estimated twenty-two million dollars in damages. The actions ranged from tree
spiking to arson and included the twelve million-dollar action taken on Vail
Mountain/"
It is clear that the actions of ELF and other radical environmental groups have
increased and evolved over time. The traditional tools of EF!, tree spiking, de-
surveying, road deconstruction and heavy machinery sabotage have been transformed
into arson, bombing and in the case of the Unabomber, assassination/'" This alarming
trend then brings us back to the original policy question of how should normal
citizens and policy makers address the issue of radical environmentalism? The
movement has strengthened and diversified over time and given the above-mentioned
history, radical environmentalism simply cannot be ignored. It is evident that policy
8


makers must acknowledge the issues presented by the radical environmental
movement and consider solutions to the growing trends of the movement.
Stage of the Policy Process
In June of 1998, a United States House of Representatives Judiciary
Subcommittee was established and began meeting. The committee, which was
entitled the Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-terrorism, was charged with
discussing and evaluating the institution and potential threat of ecological or
environmental terrorism. During the last decade the phrase environmental terrorism
has served a duel role. First, the phrase was used to describe the actions of Sadaam
Hussein during the Gulf War. Hussein, in attempting to make a threatening political
statement, ordered the release of billions of gallons of oil into the ocean. The oil
release caused severe ecological damage. However, this release of oil was not the
type of environmental terrorism that the House Subcommittee was investigating.
Instead, the Subcommittee was investigating the actions and tactics used by radical
environmental organizations including several California chapters of EF! The
Subcommittee had defined these actions as environmental or ecological terrorism.XIV
These initial discussions of the radical environmental movement represented the first
stage of the policy process. After several direct actions in the west-coast states of
California and Oregon, including one that was staged at California Representative
9


Frank Riggs district office, it became clear to several members of Congress that a
legislative response was appropriate. In keeping true with the first stage of the policy
process, initiation, the Subcommittee heard several hours worth of testimony from
concerned citizens, anti-environmental critics and other Congressional members.
Although much of the testimony supported a Congressional response to the growing
institution of radical environmentalism, there was no further evidence of action by
either the House or Senate coming out of the hearings. For that reason, it seems
appropriate for this study to begin the process of evaluating possible responses and
solutions to the growing trends in the radical environmental movement at the policy
process stage of estimation.
Description of the Relevant Political Actors
The radical environmental movement and more specifically the arson fires on
Vail Mountain have drawn interest from several different elements of government,
industry, academia, the environmental movement and the general public. For that
reason, it will be necessary for this study to evaluate several different perspectives in
an attempt to draw conclusions about the extent and effect of the direct actions taken
by the radical environmentalists.
First, with regard to the environmental movement, the differences between the
mainstream movement and its radical branch must be defined. Mainstream and
10


radical environmentalism at their core have the protection of the environment as their
primary objective. However, how radical and mainstream environmentalists attempt
to accomplish this goal represents the primary difference between these two branches
of the environmental movement. The mainstream branch of environmentalism
focuses its efforts on methods and tactics that are mainly within the law. Mainstream
organizations like the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society have traditionally
employed the methods of grassroots campaigns, litigation and lobbying in an attempt
to affect change on behalf of the environment. Radical environmentalism, which
broke off from the mainstream movement, has several basic characteristics that
distinguish it from the mainstream environmentalism. First, radical environmentalists
use direct action in an attempt to protect the environment. Second, their ultimate goal
is the preservation of biological diversity. Third, radical environmentalists feel an
overwhelming sense of urgency because they believe that the Earths capacity to
withstand industrial civilization is almost at an end. Finally, radical environmentalists
belong to loose knit organizations that act without direction from any type of an
organizational hierarchy.xv Although it is true that many radical environmentalists
also participate in the efforts of the mainstream movement, radical environmentalists
also are willing to break the law, risking their personal safety and freedom, to protect
the environment.
11


The direct actions of radical environmentalists have been focused on small to
mid-sized industrial corporations. Logging and mining companies in the west have
been targeted for their destruction of public lands, national forests and wilderness
areas.xvl The radical environmental movement has focused on these corporations
because in many cases they lack the financial resources to take appropriate security
precautions. Quite often, areas that have been designated for logging and are currently
being worked in are left unprotected at night. This provides ample opportunity for
radical environmentalists to target heavy machinery as well as logging and mining
equipment. Furthermore, many of these smaller companies also fear reporting damage
because of the potential increase in insurance premiums.xv"
Increasingly, radical environmentalists also are targeting industrial
recreationists. Industrial recreation can be defined as an industry that uses large tracts
of public and private lands to provide recreational opportunities for members of the
general public. The ski industry is one of the larger industries that fall into this
category. Mainstream environmental organizations have feared for some time that the
United States Forest Service (USFS) has increasingly been focusing on the
development of industrial recreation on public lands under USFS control.XVI" This
represents a shift in emphasis from the use of national forests for the purpose of
logging, to the expansion of industries like skiing. Thus, industrial recreationists have
12


also been the subject of concern within the two branches of the environmental
movement.
Government has become more interested and involved in the actions of the
radical environmental movement because of damage to government property and
private interests. For instance, in a two-day span of attacks in October of 1996, the
ELF claimed responsibility for the destruction of several USFS vehicles and the
USFS Oakridge Ranger Station southeast of Eugene, Oregon. The estimated total cost
of the two separate actions was over $5.3 million dollars.3 Furthermore, because
many of these actions target both state and federal government entities, resources
1. ave been spent by governmental agencies ranging from local sheriff offices to
federal agencies like the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in an attempt to apprehend the individuals that have
committed these acts.
State and federal governments have been pressured to provide a legislative
response to radical environmental actions. In the state of Minnesota, in response to an
action by the ALF that released 116 animals from experimentation labs on the
University of Minnesota campus, the Minnesota General Assembly passed an
omnibus crime bill.xx The purpose of the bill was to increase civil penalties for
liberating animals used in medical experiments.3
13


The general public also has increasingly become involved in the debate
surrounding both radical and mainstream environmentalism. Previously,
environmentalists simply were dismissed by the public as tree huggers and
greens. However, more recently communities have become affected by the
practices of environmentalists. This change in attitude has been the result of several
different occurrences. First, beginning in the latter part of the 20th century much of
the general public became concerned with the quality of their individual lives.
Attentions have turned from financial issues to concerns about environmental health.
Citizens, understanding that they are affected by the surroundings in which they live
and work, are now showing an increased interest in the health and welfare of the
environment. The public has recently begun to openly oppose the siting of
environmental hazards, such as, waste sites, industrial factories and nuclear
facilities.XXM For that reason, environmentalists and those who attempt to protect the
environment have experienced greater support from the general public.xxm However,
at the same time both the mainstream and radical environmental movements have also
come into conflict with a large portion of the general public.
In June of 1998, Julie Rodgers, a member of a small community in Northern
California and an employee of Rep. Frank Riggs First Congressional District Office,
testified that for the past 19 years she had witnessed:
14


The growing controversy regarding timber and natural resource issues within my own
and surrounding communities. Many mills have closed, close friends have lost their
jobs, families have been torn apart, forth and fifth generation loggers have had to
leave the state in search of work, incidents of domestic violence and child abuse have
greatly increased, communities economies have been devastated, and community
resources have been depleted. The escalation of friction, frustration, and violence has
been exacerbated in large part by repeated and prolonged invasions of our
communities by extremists or radical environmental activists groups, their growing
aggression, and blatant disregard for private property rights or the law.xx,v
One of the strategies used by some mainstream and most radical environmentalists is
to stage large protest campaigns in the communities or areas where the groups are
currently active. The groups organize large numbers of protesters to move into an
area in an effort to disrupt the normal activities of the companies they are protesting.
A side effect of these large-scale campaigns is that quite often they also disrupt the
normal everyday lives of the citizens of the surrounding communities. A backlash is
then created towards the mainstream and radical environmentalists and at times these
incidents have become violent.
Finally, the academic community has increasingly become involved in the
study of environmental organizations and their activities. For many academicians, the
environmental movement represents a continuously evolving and changing political
movement. Researchers across the west have begun to study the individual successes
and failures of the environmental movement.xxv Furthermore, there exists an extensive
body of literature that critiques and tracks the different philosophies in the
environmental movement.
15


The institution of environmentalism, both radical and mainstream, has
attracted attention from many different segments of the population. To a certain
extent it is a subject that affects us all, whether because of environmental health
concerns or because of personal interests in the activities that occur on the public and
private lands of the natural world. For that reason, it will be important for this study
to attempt to gain an understanding of the diverse field of perspectives on the radical
environmental movement. For it is within these perspectives that a solution or
response to the growing trends of the radical environmental movement can be
obtained.
16


CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS OF THE POLICY PROBLEM
This section of the study will analyze and evaluate the history and trends of
the radical environmental movement. We will begin with a summary of the Vail arson
fire case study. Followed by a discussion of the factors that influenced the
development of the radical environmental movement. The third part of this section
will be a brief outline of the history of the radical environmental movement. Finally,
there will be an analysis of the past and present trends of the radical environmental
movement.
Case Study: Vail Associates Category III Expansion
To illustrate the trends and the reasoning behind this study of radical
environmentalism, the next section of this thesis will analyze the case of Vail
Associates Category III Expansion (Cat III). Vail Associates, the largest of the
Colorado ski companies, proposed in the 1970s the expansion of the resort into a
section of back-mountain bowls named Category III. This expansion and the battle to
stop the plans of Vail Associates, represent a perfect example of the history and
trends of the environmental movement. The case involves mainstream and radical
environmentalists, local, state and federal officials and all three branches of
17


government. Furthermore, the case demonstrates several of the tactics and methods
often employed by members of the radical environmental movement.
In 1972 Vail Associates petitioned and received approval for the companys
master plan of its ski resort. Vails master plan included three separate areas entitled
Category I (the front side of the mountain), Category II (the back bowls) and
Category III (a section of the mountain just south of Category II).XXV1 The approval of
the master plan allowed Vail Associates to operate and maintain ski trails, lift ticket
sales, ski schools, retail facilities and dining facilities. At that time, Vail Associates
went ahead with the development of the front side of Vail Mountain as approved and
designated by the USFS.XXV"
In 1984, Vail Associates reviewed, changed and resubmitted its master plan to
the USFS. During this stage of the development of Vail Resort, the company ,
informed the USFS of how it envisioned the Cat III area. For the time being, that part
of the mountain would remain undeveloped. Vail Associates new master plan as
revised was accepted by the USFS. With regard to Cat III, the USFS informed the
company that when Vail became ready to expand, the company and the USFS would
sit down and draw up a site-specific plan.xxvm
By early 1989, Colorado, the ski industry and Vail Resorts had experienced
enough growth that the company felt it was time to further expand the mountain. Vail
had just finished the China Bowl expansion that was approved in 1984 and had
18


already experienced a 12 percent increase in the number of skiers.xx,x In 1991, Vail
Associates went back to the USFS with specific plans for a 2,000-acre expansion of
its ski terrain.xxx This expansion would represent an increase of the ski area by 25
percent onto additional USFS land.xxxl
Up until 1989, the major players in the United States ski industry had had
their way when attempting to expand ski resorts. The USFS had come to the
conclusion that it was better to expand existing resorts than to approve new resorts.
For that reason, Beaver Creek was the last ski resort to be opened in 1981 on public
lands in Colorado.xxx" However, moving :'nto the 1990s the public began to become
increasingly alarmed at the growth of the Vail Resorts and other Colorado ski resorts.
Ski industry critics had in the past proven ineffective in stopping expansions
across Colorado and many considered the Cat III expansion to be too far along to be
stopped.xxxm The fight to stop the expansion revolved around the rare Canada lynx
and the fact that the prime habitat for the lynx lies between 8,000 to 11,000 feet of
elevation. The last time that the lynx had been spotted in Colorado was in 1974 when
a young adult lynx was illegally trapped. At the time the lynx was protected by the
Colorado Endangered Species Act but was not federally protected.xxxlv There had
been no sign of the lynx in the mountains of Colorado for several years, however, in
1980 a statewide report by the Colorado Division of Wildlife concluded that a viable,
low-density lynx population existed in Eagle County, the County where Vail Resorts
19


was based.xxxv Signs of the lynx were apparent again in 1989 when tracks were found
in Mushroom Bowl, Super Bowl and Commando Bowl.xxxvl All three of these bowls
were located within the Vail Resort and the Super Bowl is part of the Cat III
expansion. In 1991, lynx tracks were again spotted in the area of the Cat III.XXXV"
Based on the evidence of a lynx presence, the Boulder, Colorado based Biodiversity
Legal Foundation (BLF) filed suit to have the lynx placed on the Federal Endangered
Species list. This was the first of two attempts to use the judicial system to halt the
expansion.
Initially, the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) overruled its field biologists
and did not place the lynx on the Endangered Species List. However, the first lawsuit,
which was mounted by Jasper Carlton of the BLF and a former national figure in the
EF! movement, convinced a judge to order the USFWS to reconsider its decision.
In 1994 the USFS began the formal process that is required by the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).xxxvm NEPA requires a series of studies to be
conducted on the environmental impact the expansion might have on federally owned
public lands. Furthermore, NEPA required a series of public meetings to be held
before any decisions were made that might have an adverse effect on the environment
and the surrounding community. By 1996, a series of 75 public meetings were held
by both the USFS and Vail Associates.xxxlx Critics claim that at these meetings, over
80 percent of the public in attendance were against the expansion. In many cases,
20


opponents included Vail Resorts own employees/1 Vail Associates openingly
admitted that the general public was divided over the expansion but at the same time
stated that town and county officials along with members of the business community
favored the expansion/1' The environmental impact study, which had been
underwritten by Vail Associates, was completed in 1996 and in that same year the
USFS issued its approval of Vail Associates most recent master plan/1" The approved
plan called for a Cat III expansion of 885 acres and three new chair lifts, instead of
the 2000 acres and five chairlifts that were proposed by the initial master plan/1"1 The
approval of the plan by the USFS, would mark the beginning of the climax of a
decade long battle between hundreds of citizens, a coalition of environmental,
wildlife, animal rights organizations and the immenisely wealthy and powerful ski
industry giant Vail Associates.
Over the next year and a half opponents of the expansion waged a public
information campaign in an attempt to gain support for the halt of Cat III. Several
local organizations were formed with the goal of protesting the expansion.
Established Colorado environmental groups, such as, Boulder Earth First!, Colorado
Wild, Ancient Forest Rescue and the Colorado Wildlife Federation voiced their
concerns regarding the expansion in an attempt to further the grassroots opposition.
Even the national Sierra Club became involved on the regional level/liv To a large
extent the public information campaign failed to spawn any further reaction to the Cat
21


Ill expansion. The public had made it obvious that it was not in favor of the
expansion during the NEPA hearings, however, this had not stopped the USFS from
approving the plan for expansion. In March of 1998, the Boulder based public interest
law firm, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, filed the second lawsuit attempting to
stop the expansion.xlv This lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court, was in
response to the rejection of an administrative appeal made to the USFS by the
environmental opponents of the expansion. Central to the court debate was the
objectivity of the environmental impact statement that was produced by the USFS and
paid for by Vail Associates.xlvi
Less than a week after the second lawsuit was filled, the USFWS announced
that it had reconsidered the case of the lynx based on the court order from the
Biodiversity Legal Foundation lawsuit and intended to designate the Canada lynx as
threatened in the lower 48 states of America. The USFWS insisted that this status
would provide enough protection for lynx habitat. The environmentalists were
concerned that the threatened status provided landowners with too much flexibility in
how they could modify the lynx habitat/1'11 Furthermore, the proposal to list the lynx
as threatened was only the first step of the endangered species process, a waiting
period of nearly 12 months must now be completed before a final decision can be
made by the USFWS.xlvin During this waiting period, the lynx receives a moderate
22


amount of protection based on the provision that all federal agencies must consult
with the USFWS before modifying lynx habitat.xllx
During the spring and summer months of 1998, the environmental coalition
continued its public information campaign. The community of Vail from 1990 to
1997 saw a 44.1 percent increase in full time population, a 17 percent increase in
number of skiers per year and almost a 96 percent increase in retail sales and
services.1 Vail was growing at an enormous rate and local officials and community
members were struggling to determine how and where to grow.1' Community
members were also concerned about the increase in employees that Vail Resorts
required to staff Cat III. Employee recruitment was already a major concern for the
resort because of low wages, a lack of benefits and 0.03% Eagle County vacancy rate
that made housing enormously difficult.1" The public was not only concerned about
the expansion, they were outright frightened of the expansion by the summer and
early fall of 1998. The community had dealt with and accommodated Vail Resorts
during past expansions. Many would even say that the community had profited from
the resort expanding and drawing more skiers. However, this expansion, in the minds
of the public and the environmental coalition threatened the livelihood of not just the
lynx but also the long-term local residents.
In the fall of 1998 the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies went to federal
district court to battle the expansion of Vail Resort. The lawsuit centered around two
23


concepts. The first, as discussed earlier, was the possible violation of the NEPA
provision calling for an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be produced. It was
believed by the environmental coalition and its Land and Water Fund lawyers that the
EIS had been compromised because it was funded by Vail Associates. The company
would stand to lose a significant amount if the EIS showed an adverse impact on the
environment. The second contention made by the lawsuit was that Vail was not as
interested in expanding to provide better and more intermediate skiing as its
representatives claimed, instead, Vail Associates hoped to develop a section of real-
estate adjacent to the Cat III expansion.1"1 This piece of real estate, entitled the
Gilman tract was seemingly worthless prior to the expansion but with Cat III
providing a ski in, ski out option the market value would dramatically increase.llv
The lawsuit claimed that development of the Gilman track was the primary reason for
the Cat III expansion and that profiting off of the private development of public lands
would be illegal.lv Paul Witt, a Vail Associates spokesperson openly admitted that
the company did hold an option on the Gilman tract but Witt remained strong when
stating that there were three reasons for the Cat III expansion: first, to provide more
intermediate ski runs, second, to provide more early and late season skiing and finally
to address the issue of overcrowding.lvi The environmental coalition was not swayed
by these reasons, stating that Vail Associates knew that it would have to conduct
24


another NEPA environmental impact statement if it incorporated the plans for the
Gilman track into the original master plan for Cat III.Ivi1
To the environmental coalition, the lawsuit and court appearance seemed to be
nothing more than just a formal process. The lawyers for the Land and Water Fund
claimed that the judge failed to listen to the arguments that were being made and that
he arbitrarily made a decision based on personal beliefs.Ivi" In the end, the
environmental coalition lost the case in the federal district court. This marked a huge
set back to the environmental coalitions attempt to stop the Cat III expansion. The
coalition immediately appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals but
the decision from the lower court was very damaging.hx Ultimately, the lower court
decision would signify a crucial juncture in the battle to stop the expansion. On
October 19, 1998 less than three full days after the lower court decision, arsonists
would directly attack Vail Resort.
At approximately 3:00 A.M. on the morning of October 19, 1998 seven
separate fires were set on two different ridgetops above Vail Resort.lx The ridgetops,
which were nearly 1.5 miles apart contained the Two Elks Ski Lodge and the Vail Ski
Patrol Headquarters. At 4:00 A.M. alarms in both of these buildings went off. The fire
suppression system in the Two Elks Lodge was activated, however, when firefighters
finally arrived on the scene they saw the sprinkler system spraying in vain.lxi Within
hours the massive log structures of both the headquarters and the lodge had been
25


destroyed, furthermore, one additional building and four lifthouses were destroyed.
By late afternoon investigators from Vail, Eagle County, FBI, ATF and the Colorado
Bureau of Investigation were on site and beginning to analyze the evidence. The ATF
dispatched close to 100 agents, its largest response to a possible arson or terrorist
incident since the World Trade Building was bombed in 1993.lx" In all, nearly 70 state
and federal agencies participated in the investigation. The day after the fires,
Colorado Governor Roy Romer publicly called the actions arson and an act of
terrorism. Rumors immediately began to fly as to who committed the act. The
lawyers for the Land and Water Fund questioned whether it could have been their
clients.lxi" Jonathan Staufer, an outspoken Vail resident and opponent to the
expansion, found himself being questioned as to whether he had a role in the arson
fire.lxiv Spokespersons for Ancient Forest Rescue, Colorado Wildlife Federation and
the Environmental Defense Fund also found themselves on the defensive and openly
denounced the fires as being violent and non-productive.Ixv For a time, there was even
a rumor that Vail Resort itself had staged the fires.,xvl
Among all of the rumors and suspicions, one thing was becoming very clear,
this was a well-planned and executed action. The arsonists had used a mixture of
diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline with timing delays that allowed the assailants to
quietly slip out of the crime vicinity before the fire had fully erupted. The arsonists
had also strategically selected their targets. The Two Elks Lodge and ski patrol
26


headquarters were easy targets. Both structures were made out of solid wood and had
no real security measures. The structures also existed in a forested area that would
allow for easy escape of the arsonists and a long trek up the mountain for firefighters.
This was not a simple act designed and executed overnight. It was deliberately
planned and executed by an individual or most likely a group that was experienced in
this type of action. Furthermore, the initial investigation failed to uncover clues that
pointed to who committed the act. In the beginning the investigators failed to identify
the act as arson, claiming that for the fire to be determined as arson there must be a
motive and evidence of a deliberate act.lxvn However, the investigators missed many
of the relevant signs that could have led to an early arrest. First, the incendiary device
that was used is a classic example of the instructions that can be downloaded from the
ALF web site.,xvm Second, the actions were conducted during or towards the end of a
lengthy mainstream environmental protest. Finally, the Vail arson fires were the
outcome of a very complex and well-planned operation. This was not the random
work of a few disgruntled activists after a couple of beers on a weekend night. All of
these clues plus several others pointed towards an operation conducted by an
organization such as ALF or ELF. However, the investigators focused their attention
during the first 24 hours after the fires on local environmentalists, thus allowing the
real perpetrators to quietly slip out of state. Whether poor judgement or a lack of
understanding of the tactics employed by those on the fringe of the radical
27


environmental movement, the investigators made several crucial mistakes early in the
investigation.
On October 21,1998 the Liberation Collective received an encrypted email
message from ELF. The Liberation Collective, a social justice group founded by
Craig Rosenbraugh in 1997 outside Portland, Oregon, had served in the past as a
spokesperson for the ELF. Claiming no direct tie-: to the ELF but being sympathetic
to its cause, the Liberation Collective receives anonymous communiques from ELF
and from ALF when actions are conducted. The Liberation Collective then releases
the statements to the public and attempts to address any media questions. In the case
of the Vail arson fires ELFs e-mail communique simply stated that:
On behalf of the lynx, five buildings and four ski lifts at Vail were reduced to ashes
on the night of Sunday, October 18th, Vail, Inc. is already the largest ski operation in
North America and now wants to expand even further. The 12 miles of road and 885
acres of clearcuts will ruin the last, best lynx habitat in the state. Putting profits ahead
of Colorados wildlife will not be tolerated. This action is just a warning. We will be
back if this greedy corporation continues to trespass into wild and unroaded areas.
For your safety and convenience, we strongly advise skiers to choose other
destinations until Vail cancels its inexcusable plans for expansion.'"*
Earth Liberation Front had claimed responsibility for the fires on Vail Mountain.1
With that, the ATF promptly designated the action as arson.11
The Earth Liberation Front is a shadowy group of radical environmentalists
who operate in secret and follow their beliefs and not a written code of action. There
is no membership list or central organization. Inside the group it operates as a loosely
28


united organization committed to defending wildlife and the environment.'51
Specifically, ELF claims to be an international underground organization consisting
of autonomous groups of individuals that carry out direct actions according to ELF
guidelines. The autonomous groups, or cells, are not only unknown to the public but
also to each other. There is no specific method of contacting an ELF member and any
activists can become an ELF member simply by conducting an action that adheres to
ELF guidelines. There are three primary guidelines that outline how ELF actions are
to be conducted. First, the goal of an action is to inflict economic damage on those
who profit from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment. Second,
to reveal and educate the public on the atrocities committed against the environment
and all the species that cohabitate in it. Finally, to take all necessary precautions
against harming any animal, human and non-human.'xx,n
Investigators considered the acceptance of responsibility by ELF to be
credible even though none of the investigators had ever heard of ELF or knew of
anyone associated with the organization. By late December of 1998 ELF had struck
again. This time the victim was the.U.S. Forest Industries headquarters in Medford,
Oregon with an estimated destructive cost of over a half a million dollars. The
incendiary device that was used in this attack was the same type as the one used in
Vail.lxx,v In late January of 1999, a federal grand jury was established to begin hearing
testimony that was considered relevant to the Vail case.'xxv However, investigators
29


would quickly prove to the public that they still had relatively no clue as to who the
arsonists were.
The initial witnesses to be called before the grand jury were local protesters
associated with the Boulder based environmental group Ancient Forest Rescue
(AFR).The first AFR activist to be subpoenaed was a University of Colorado student.
The activist had played a very minor part in the protest against the Cat III expansion.
A spokesperson for the grand jury admitted that the young woman was probably not
involved in the case but it was still necessary to question her.lxxvlOne grand jury
expert who was quoted by the Denver Post Newspaper stated that grand juries usually
operate from the outside in, gathering names of people involved from those on the
fringe and working its way to the center of the situation.lxxv" If this was the strategy
being employed in this case, investigators had a long way to go to get to the center of
the highly elusive Earth Liberation Front.
In early May, 1999 the ATF, frustrated by its inability to develop any viable
leads or suspects in the case decided to offer a $50,000 dollar reward. The ATF,
which was now following a trail that was nearly seven months old, was confident that
$50,000 would be enough of an incentive for an informant to come forward.lxxvm
However, what the ATF failed to realize was that ELF works in small autonomous
groups. It is possible that only two or three people were involved in the arson attack.
Thus, given the secretive and loyal nature of ELF it was highly unlikely that
30


ideologically committed activists would come forward and give up the rest of their
cell for any sum of money.
While the investigation and the grand jury were proceeding with little or no
avail, the community was up in arms over the arson attacks. Many of the mainstream
environmental groups that had opposed the Vail expansion had been forced to take a
step back in their current opposition. These groups feared a public backlash towards
environmentalism in general. When asked what her initial reaction was to the arson
fires, Diana Gansauer, Executive Director of Colorado Wildlife Federation,
commented that she felt punched in the gut. I really cringed because it was a black
eye to reasonable people with reasonable organizations that were fighting within the
system for what they believed was right.lxxix Gansauer later went on to state that
these types of actions hurt the environmental cause, they allow citizens and
politicians to dismiss environmentalism as just a fringe concern.
The environmentalists were correct in expecting a public backlash. The arson
attack served as a rallying point for community and for Vail Resorts. A defiant Vail
Resorts president, Andy Daly, told 400 angry community members, just days after the
fires, that those responsible for the fires were outsiders, those who dont share our
values, who have forced their values on us, and who know no compromise.lxxx Paul
Witt, a spokesperson for Vail Associates, summed up the backlash with these words,
for a time there was a positive effect on the relationship between the community and
31


Vail Associates, a kind of someone came into our backyard and did this to us (the
community), yes we feel bad for Vail Associates but more we feel bad that this
happened to us. We still dont like the expansion, we still dont like Vail Associates
but we really dont like that this happened in our community.lxxxi
As time passed the environmental community became active again in
opposition to the expansion. AFR and Colorado Wild resumed their public
information campaign and the Land and Water Fund waited for a decision on their
appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Quietly the Coalition to Stop Vail
Expansion, a relatively new group, planned an all weekend rally in conjunction with
other Vail community activities on the Fourth of July, 1999. The rally was designed
to be a non-violent, passive resistance to the beginning of the Cat III expansion which
was scheduled for July 1, 1999. The emphasis of the protest would be placed on
distributing leaflets on the potential harm the expansion could cause to the lynx and
their habitat.lxxxn However, tensions began to mount after the Land and Water Fund
received the decision from the Tenth Circuit Court on their appeal to have the
expansion stopped.
In a one-paragraph decision, the Tenth Circuit rejected the contentions made
by the Land and Water Fund. The public interest law firm had made several claims
with the most significant claim being based on possible violations of at least three
federal environmental protection statutes.lxxxm In essence, the final court battle had
32


been lost and for some activists it was again time to use other methods to stop the
expansion.
On the morning of July 2, 1999 close to 30 activists, many affiliated with EF!
and AFR eluded the increased security measures on Vail Mountain and began to erect
a thirty-foot high tripod in the middle of the road leading to the Cat III construction
site. When the tripod had been erected, Michael Wold, who also used the names Bob
Cat and Spartacus, climbed to a perch underneath the tripod. Wold spent the rest of
the day on the tripod in an effort to stop construction vehicles from passing. Just
before 8:00 A.M. a town of Vail truck and a cherrypicker was sent to remove Wold

from his perch. IV The truck never made it to its destination. Approximately a
quarter mile from the tripod, the truck was met by protestors that were blocking the
road by locking their arms together. When the truck came to a stop two activists
broke from the arm lock and ran towards the truck. In what seemed like a rehearsed
maneuver, one of the activists locked the head of Mark Ingle, the other activist of San
Diego California, to the axle of the truck.Ixxxv It would take the Vail Fire Department
and the Vail Police nearly an hour to cut through the lock holding Ingles head to the
truck.lxxxvi When Ingle had been removed and the truck began to climb the mountain
again, several more activists began to throw their bodies in front of the truck. Vail
Security officers and local law enforcement agents began to remove activists one by
one from the road but the activists were not finished. Emily Wolf, an activist from
33


Boulder Colorado, attached herself to the bottom of the cherrypickers base using a
commonly used civil disobedience device called an iron sleeve. The iron sleeve,
which essentially locks a persons arms in a metal pipe, could not be cut off without
harming Wolf. As of the night of July 3, 1999 both Wold and Wolf remained in their
respective positions on the side of Vail Mountain.Ixxxv
The situation on the side of Vail Mountain remained essentially the same for
the next several days. Throughout the weekend, the Coalition to Stop Vail Expansion,
continued to be a force on the side of the mountain. As mountain bikers and hikers
passed by, the coalition handed out water and attempted to inform the public about
their concerns regarding the expansion. In many cases the general public was
receptive to the activists, however, at times the public was rather offensive in
expressing their views to the protestors.lxxxvl" On July 3, 1999 the researcher had the
opportunity to interview Mark Wold while he was still suspended above the ground in
his tripod. Wold, who was now using the name Spartacus, stated that he was
protesting the ever growing greed of Vail Associates and the industrial recreation
industry. Wold stated that it was time for private interests to stop profiting off of
public lands and that he was willing and able to remain on his perch until the Cat III
expansion was halted.lxxxix As of July 6, 1999 the protest on the side of Vail Mountain
was still in progress. Both Wolf and Wold had not been moved from their individual
34


places of protest on the mountain and neither seemed willing to give up on what they
believed in.
The case of the Vail Category III expansion illustrates the different trends of
various aspects of the radical environmental movement. As was the case with the
environmental movement in the 1970s and early 1980s different activists are willing
to go to different extremes to accomplish their goals. The protest to stop Cat III has
gone full circle, from a public information campaign, to several attempts at
environmental litigation, to a violent arson attack and then back to a public
information campaign that has currently morphed into several acts of civil
disobedience. What has been made clear by these actions is that the
environmentalists, both radical and mainstream, are very passionate about their cause
and are willing to place themselves and their personal freedom in jeopardy to defend
their beliefs.
Identification and Examination of the Factors that have
Influenced the Development of the
Radical Environmental Movement
The radical environmental movement, much like other extreme political
movements, was the end result of conflict, divisions and resistance to the differing
philosophies within the environmental movement. Specifically, this study highlights
three separate developments that contributed to the evolution of the radical
environmental movement. The first, which has been previously mentioned, is the
35


level of frustration that developed within the environmental movement with regard to
lobbying and political compromise. The second development that will be examined is
the continuing conflict between social and deep ecology. These two very different
ecological viewpoints also differ in their methods and tactics for defending the earth.
Finally, in the late 1980s a concept or belief developed within the radical
environmental movement, which viewed protection of the environment as a form of
human self-defense.
The early conservation movement in the United States was the child of the
establishment. Many of the founding members of the Sierra Club and the Wilderness
Society were from the middle class and upper middle class pillars of American
society.xc These members, who were almost exclusively male, were scientists,
doctors, lawyers and in some cases politicians. The primary objective of the
conservation movement, which was highly utilitarian, was the management of natural
resources so as to produce commodities and services for the greatest good of the
greatest number for the longest time.XCI However, by the 1960s this philosophy
towards the environment would begin to change. During this time period a new
moral philosophy would be introduced to the beliefs surrounding the use of the
natural world.XCM This new moral philosophy would serve as the foundation of the
environmental movement. Environmentalists rejected the efficient use standard that
was at the core of the conservation movement. Instead, the environmental movement
36


was directly concerned with the affects human civilization was having on the natural
world.xcl" Along side the rise of the environmental movement were the protests over
the Vietnam War. Many Vietnam activists also began to take up the cause of
environmental protection and the environmental movement. This was spurred on by
men like David Brower who was executive director of the Sierra Club throughout the
1960s. Brower was seriously concerned during this time period about the direction
and goals of the American industrial society.XCIV Brower was no longer content with
the practice of conservation, instead, he felt that much more was needed.
At the 1970 Earth Day celebration activists with beards and long hair were
now standing next to the crew cuts of the traditional conservation movement. The
movement was beginning to change and for a period of time would appear to embrace
the concepts and ideals of todays radical environmental movement. However, this
militancy was short lived. Soon many environmentalists realized that compromise,
both political and social seemed to work better. In the words of Dave Foreman, a
suit and a tie gained access to regional heads of the USFS and to members of
Congress. We learned to moderate our opinions and our dress. xcv
These new environmentalists learned how to manipulate the system enough to
affect small amounts of change. They would make concessions and compromises to
industry on legislation in an attempt to get the proposals passed by Congress.
However, in the end many realized that when push came to shove, the environment
37


often lost. Concessions meant the destruction of the public lands and wilderness areas
that environmentalists so loved. For three of the future founders of EF!, it was the
USFS decision on the second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) that
convinced them to take further action. After months of lobbying and negotiations, the
compromises that the environmental movement attempted fell through. The USFS
announced that of the 80 million acres still roadless and undeveloped in the 190
million acres of National Forests, the Department of Agriculture recommended that
only 15 million receive protection from road building and tree cutting.xcvl For many
environmentalists, the compromise was too great.
Coupled with the compromise was a metamorphosis of the structure and
business style of many of the large environmental organizations. Prior to the mid-
1970s many of the staff members of the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and other
organizations were previously dedicated grassroots activists who had made their way
up the organizational ladder. This changed in the late 1970s when staff members
became more career oriented and began to earn business and marketing degrees from
universities. They viewed positions in the environmental movement in the same light
as government or industry.XCVM In the span of one decade, the activists that had joined
the environmental movement during the protests against the Vietnam War had either
adapted or been replaced by more moderate environmentalists that were concerned
38


with much more than just the protection of the environment. The moderates and their
low profile approach to effecting change had taken over.
Much has not changed in the environmental movement since the early 1980s.
In fact, to a large extent the environmental movement has continued to advocate a
more moderate approach to environmental protection. However, increasingly this
viewpoint has been challenged by a growing population in the movement. The
grassroots activists of the environmental movement have repeatedly questioned the
end goals of the large environmental organizations. In 1995 at the annual
environmental law conference in Eugene, Oregon, Ron Arnold, a long time pro-
industry and wise-use advocate stepped on stage with Jeffrey St. Clair, a prominent
grassroots environmental activist in the northwest. The purpose of these two political
enemies being on stage was to expose the corporate financing of the mainstream
environmental movement.XCV111 Over the course of the next hour the two enemies
joined sides in an attempt to educate the audience about the corporate contributions
that were buying off the mainstream environmental movement.
It is evident that for many environmentalists, the mainstream movement had
lost touch with the grassroots campaigns that have existed across the United States.
The mainstream movement reliance on professional lobbying and corporate financing
has led many activists to disassociate with the mainstream. In turn, many of these
activists became involved with local or regional fringe organizations that worked on
39


smaller localized environmental concerns. However, other activists have turned to the
more direct approach of literally fighting to save the environment. It is these activists
that have joined the ranks of groups like EF!, the Sea Shepherds, ALF and more
recently ELF.
The second development that has contributed to the evolution of the radical
environmental movement is the differing philosophies that exist within the study of
ecology. Since the conception of the field of ecology by German scientist Ernest
Haeckel in 1866, ecologists have divided into different camps based on how they
view mans role and purpose within nature.xclx Of these different camps, there exist
two primary fields of study. The first, social ecology has been termed by some as the
light green approach.0 This approach states that our environmental problems,
however severe, can be overcome without major changes in present values or
methods of production and consumption. Essentially, through technology and other
advancements, human society can fix its environmental wrongs.
Social ecology, unlike deep ecology, is not anti-industry. In fact, one of the
more complex philosophies that has developed out off the concept of social ecology
is the garden scenario of the natural world. In this scenario, the environment is
managed and enhanced by the technology of the human world. This technology
would be much more environmentally friendly than the present day mechanical
machinery that pollutes the environment. Furthermore, in the garden scenario basic
40


large-scale metropolitan areas would be dismantled. Citizens would move back to the
country and thrive off of technologically enhanced land.01 To the deep ecologist this
approach marks the continued decline of wide-open wilderness.
The philosophy of deep ecology has been built on three primary pillars. First,
there is a belief that the natural world has an intrinsic value of its own, that an owl or
a tree has just as much right to exist as a human. Second, is the desire to end
industrial societys domination of the biosphere and lastly a need or desire to
radically alter human society along ecological lines.011 In essence, deep ecology
argues that care for the environment assumes that radical changes must occur in how
humans view their relationship with the environment.0111 Social ecologists fear and are
most critical of the third pillar. They believe that this pillar is not only anti-industrial
but also anti-human.0iv
The radical environmental movement has readily embraced the philosophy of
deep ecology. Deep ecologys pillars represent the very extreme beliefs held by many
radical environmentalists. At the same time, social ecology has also found a following
in the environmental movement. Also describing itself as a leftist political branch of
the environmental movement, social ecology has been successful in organizing and
directing its followers. Organizations like the Left Green Network and the Earth
Action Network have helped to provide a means for social ecologists to organize and
communicate.
41


The continued success of the social ecology movement has proven to be a
thorn in the side of the radical environmental movement. Although social ecology
represents a leftist approach to environmentalism, which is, normally shunned upon
by the American political world, social ecologists have found allies in both
government and industry. This is due to the more moderate approach social ecology
takes towards American industrial society. By not being completely anti-industry,
social ecology seems relatively moderate in the environmental world. This provides
social ecology with good standing in state and federal political circles. Thus, making
its rival, deep ecology, look very extreme and easily dismissable.
The final development that has contributed to the evolution of the radical
environmental movement is the concept or belief that environmental protection is a
form of human self-defense. To many critics, experts and even environmentalists this
is one of the more extreme concepts to develop from the movement. Proponents of
this concept argue that by identifying and attempting to protect the wilderness, one
becomes the wilderness. The thought I am protecting the mountain side evolves
into I am part of the mountain side and protecting myself.cv In the forward of Dave
Foremans book Ecodefense, Edward Abbey, a writer and environmentalist, develops
this argument:
If a stranger batters down your door with an axe, threatens your family and yourself
with deadly weapons, and proceeds to loot your home of whatever he wants, he is
committing what is universally recognized as a crime. In such a situation the
42


householder has both the right and the obligation to defend himself, his family and
his property by whatever means are necessary. This right and this obligation is
universally recognized, justified and even praised by all civilized human
communities. Self-defense against such attack is one of the basic laws not only of
human society but of life itself, not only of human life but of all life. The American
wilderness, what remains, is now undergoing exactly such an assault....
For many of us, perhaps most of us, the wilderness is as much our home, or
a lot more so than the wretched little stucco boxes, plywood apartments and
wallboard condominiums in which we are mostly confined.CVI
Although this defense would most likely not withstand the test of the American
justice system, it has become a rallying point for the radical environmental
movement. Foreman considers this type of self-defense not only as an individual right
but also as a fundamental right. He states that (T)he ecodefender is not a superior
being protecting something less than herself, but is an antibody of the wildland acting
in self-defense, and drawing on the forest or desert or sea for wisdom, strength and
strategy.1
In conclusion, these three developments of the mainstream environmental
movement, social vs. deep ecology and self-defense are not the only factors that have
lead to the evolvement of the radical environmental movement. However, they do
seem to be the major catalysts that have helped to make the movement what it is
today. Furthermore, when evaluated with the history and the past and current trends
of the radical environmentalism, the next two sections of this study, one can easily
see how important these developments were in forging the current state of the
movement.
43


Early History of the Radical Environmental Movement
Undoubtedly, the founding of EF! in the early 1980s marked the beginning of
the radical environmental movement as we know it exists today. But radical
environmentalism as a concept or a belief existed prior to the beginning of EF! In the
summer of 1971 a small band of high school age boys began to take action in the
small mountain town of Tucson, Arizona. Tucson, which at the time was just a sleepy
little town in the basin of the Santa Cruz River, was just beginning to grow and
expand. To most of the citizens of Tucson the growth was appreciated. It marked the
beginning of an era of prosperity and economic development for both employees and
employers in the town. On the other hand, to this small band of high school students,
who would name themselves the Eco-Raiders, it marked a period of time where the
members watched urban sprawl rapidly take over the desert landscape that they
considered their backyard.
Based on the early writings of Edward Abbey and the Chicago folklore that
surrounded the anti-pollution activist named The Fox, John Walker decided it was
time to take action.cvul Walker was a seventeen-year-old student at Canyon Del Oro
High School. Considered intelligent, moody and alienated, Walker most likely was
introduced to ecology by a high school science teacher named Michael Rowe.
Awakened by the writings of Abbey and others, Walker felt that he had to do
44


something to protect the desert that he so much admired. Knowing of the pitfalls that
The Fox experienced while attempting to target industry as just one man, Walker
recruited his best friend Gary Blake to help him. Probably more mystified by the
folklore surrounding The Fox than the ideals of ecology, Blake was willing and the
two would soon develop and execute the plan for their first action.CIX
On a late June evening Walker took a hacksaw from his fathers tool shed and
together Blake and Walker cut down a billboard advertising a new housing
subdivision. The boys found it both easy and exhilarating and over the next few
weeks proceeded to cut down several more billboards. The two Eco-Raiders took
minimal precautions and relied mostly on their feet and bicycles for transportation
with many of the acts conducted close to home. This allowed the Eco-Raiders to
accomplish their actions in less than an hour and slip back into their neighborhood
where they seemed less suspect.cx
By December of 1971 Walker systematically recruited three other friends, Pat
Salmon, Chris Morrison and Mark Quinnan. For the next couple of months the band
of five would continue to cut down billboards. The police were beginning to take
notice but to them it just seemed like random acts of vandalism. In March of 1972,
Walker found a newly published book entitled Ecotage. Walker now knew exactly
what type of actions the Eco-Raiders were conducting and based on the reading of
Ecotage he now had other ideas for future actions. In a backyard meeting of the Eco-
45


Raiders the group decided that it was time to expand their actions. They would begin
to target the actual housing developments and from now on they would leave
something of a clue as to who committed the aets.cxl
By the end of 1972 the Eco-Raiders were known by nearly everyone in the
Tucson area. They had conducted numerous actions in and around the community and
had severely frightened the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA).
In a SAHBA report published in early 1973, the association estimated that the Eco-
Raiders had damaged four thousand of five thousand new homes. The estimated total
damage of these actions was over one million dollars.cx" Over the course of the next
year the Eco-Raiders continued to damage unfinished houses, they also began to turn
their attention to heavy machinery and to other organizations that they felt were
damaging the environment. In all, the group had done nearly two million dollars
worth of damage by mid-1973, but the actions of the Eco-Raiders were soon to come
to a halt.cxiii
In October of 1973, tipped off by an informant, the Eco-Raiders were arrested
and charged with 32 acts of malicious destruction of property. The Raiders plead
guilty and received sentences ranging from 60 days to six months in jail. In the end
the Eco-Raiders failed to stop the development of Tucson. Their two year campaign
amounted to influencing some contractors to develop housing concepts that were
more compatible with the desert environment The Eco-Raiders would never surface
46


again, although the police did suspect Walker of committing some acts several years
later in Northern Arizona. In the end, the chief detective for the Tucson police
department would comment that he considered Walker to be a military genius based
on the tactics and leadership that Walker provided the Eeo-Raiders.cx,v
In the early 1970s, small bands of men and women in North America and
Western Europe began forming organizations that promoted and executed direct
actions against government entities and industry. Although not as well documented as
the Eco-Raiders and in many cases working on a smaller scale, Floridas Eco-
commandos, Michigans Billboard Bandits and Washington D.C.s Environmental
Action were beginning to make names for themselves and their respective causes.cxv
However, the most significant group of the time formed in 1972 in the small town of
Luton, England. That year Ronnie Lee and Cliff Goodman founded the Band of
Mercy. Traditional English animal rights activists were focusing on disrupting and
dismantling the institution of the foxhunt. In fact, the Hunt Saboteur Association, was
the inventor of one of the most prominent trends in the radical environmental
movement, the use of an above ground organization to publicize the actions of an
underground organization. This trend used the status and acceptance of a mainstream
or more mainstream environmental organization to promote and publicize the direct
actions of a radical environmental organization. Lee and Goodman had decided that it
was time for an organization to go above targeting the upper class participants of
47


foxhunts. Instead, the Band of Mercy would target any part of industrial civilization,
that in their view, abused animals.cxvl
The Band of Mercy was widely successful and was credited with several arson
fires that destroyed various animal enterprises. However, in 1975 after returning to
the scene of an attack Lee and Goodman were apprehended. During the trial
supporters advanced a belief that would become the philosophical foundation of the
radical environmental movement: These criminal actions were justified because they
stopped actions that were more criminal. Lee and Goodman were both sentenced to a
year in jail.cxv" It would be Lees time in jail that would later be recognized as critical
to radical environmentalism.
While serving his sentence Lee conceived of an animal rights organization
that used hit and run tactics and more importantly, adopted the middle-eastern
terrorist tactic of a diffused cell structure. The cell structure consisted of a few loosely
associated activists, in which the activists have an understanding of complete secrecy
and loyalty. One of the advantages of the cell structure was that members of one cell
did not have knowledge of the members of any other cell, thus, protecting individual
cells from being associated with the actions of another. Lee envisioned each raid
being publicized using the aboveground and underground organizational tactics that
were so widely perfected by the Hunt Saboteur Association. The purpose of publicity
would be to draw support from a broader and more diversified society.cxvl"
48


Ultimately, Lee hoped that the individual raids performed by each cell would raise the
cost of production to the point that animal enterprises would be unprofitable. When
Lee was released from prison in 1976, he used his status as a martyr for the animal
rights cause to found the Animal Liberation Front, one of the most active and
destructive environmental groups ever to be organized.
In the spring and early summer of 1980, two groups with very different
approaches to radical environmentalism were founded. The first, People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), was founded by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid
Newkirk in Delaware. Prior to meeting Newkirk at a dog pound in Delaware in early
1980, Alex Pacheco had served as a spokesperson for the Sea Shepherds. The
Shepherds were an organization run by Captain Paul Watson. They operated on the
coasts of European countries that still condoned whaling operations. The Sea
Shepherds traditional method of attack was to either ram whaling ships while they
were at sea or to sink the ships while in port. However, Pachecos primary concern
was the treatment of animals that were in captivity. PETA soon amassed a solid core
of eighteen animal activists and began a string of civil disobedience acts. Although
not as destructive as ALF or the Eco-Raiders, PETA would become widely
recognized. The organization used shock tactics to harass and intimidate both the
general public and the scientists that the organization felt mistreated animals. PETA
eventually gained the reputation as being ruthless and extremely malicious.cxlx The
49


fact that PETA would became the richest and most powerful animal rights
organization made it a leader in the radical environmental movement.
Earth First! and the Beginning of the Modem Radical
Environmental Movement
In 1975, Edward Abbey published his most influential work, The
Monkey-wrench Gang. The novel was the fictional account of the non-fiction events
and actions of the Eco-Raiders. The names of the Eco-Raiders had been changed and
to a large extent, much of the radical environmental movement failed to realize that
the book chronicled the first authentic radical environmental group in the United
States.cxx The Monkeywrench Gang became almost a sacred book to radical
environmentalists. In April of 1980, the novel would serve as a discussion point and
as a guide for Dave Foremen, Howie Wolke, Mike Roselle, Bart Koehler and Ron
Kezar, who were all mainstream environmental activists that were becoming
increasingly disgruntled with the movement. Following the lead of The
Monkeywrench Gang and Abbeys admiration for Mexicos Pinacate Desert, these
five men traveled for one week through the Mexican outback in a VW bus, camping,
hiking, drinking and talking about the environment.cxxl It is this journey that Earth
First! identifies as the founding of their movement and to a certain extent the journey
marked the revival of the radical branch of the environmental movement.CXXM
50


The group of five that traveled to Mexico along with several other disgruntled
mainstream activists became the core of EF! On the Fourth of July weekend of 1980
EF! held its first general meeting in Dubois, Wyoming. The meeting, which was later
entitled the Round River Rendezvous, attracted nearly 60 environmental activists and
primarily consisted of discussions as to the organization of EF!. To a large extent the
discussion focused on how to make EF! effective without adopting the traditional
grassroots structure. Instead, EF! was a movement and not an organization, there was
no membership. To become an Earth First !ers an individual simply had to conduct
EF! actions.cxxiii
Over the course of the next ten years the radical environmental movement
continued to flourish. Environmental and animal rights organizations came and went
during this time but to a large extent EF!, PETA and ALF were the most effective and
outspoken of these groups. ALF continued to use the tactics of arson, animal release
and laboratory destruction to disrupt and destroy the animal research industry. PETA
grew to be the most powerful of the animal rights groups, relying heavily on shock
tactics and harassment to intimidate its opponents. Finally EF!, instituted the use of
large scale protest campaigns coupled with small well-planned direct actions that
included tree spiking, desurveying, road destruction and heavy machinery sabotage.
However, in the late 1980s a split began to develop in the structure and ideology of
EF!
51


Within EF! a growing band of activists were beginning to question the
destructive practices of the group. By 1987 two distinct groups were emerged in EF!
The first group, which was lead by Dave Foreman, upheld the principles of
biocentrism and the preservation of biodiversity. For this group, the wilderness and
not the human species were of the utmost importance. Increasingly, this group had
become more apocalyptic.cxx,v The second group, which contained Mike Roselle,
maintained the belief in biocentrism but also widened the scope of EF! to contain
social justice. The goal was to create an environmentally responsible society.cxxv
The debate continued for several years with both of the factions conducting
actions that were inline with their ideological goals. With regard to Foremans group,
direct actions still involved the practice of destroying public and private property in a
manner that held true to the original no compromise position of EF! The second
group, in an effort to become more legitimate, lessened the severity of its direct
actions. Civil disobedience and the tactics of the civil rights movement became the
focus of the second more social justice orientated group. Finally, by mid-1989 after
Dave Foreman had been under intense pressure from the FBI, the social justice
faction of EF! had all but silenced the apocalyptic faction.cxxvl
In September of 1990, Foreman officially split from EF! To many this marked
the end of the no compromise approach to environmentalism that Foreman had
promoted. EF! was a new organization that would continue to walk a fine line
52


between the use of Foremans monkey wrenching tactics and the civil disobedience
tactics of so many marginalized political movements. However, this period of time
also marks the beginning of a new more destructive segment of the history of the
radical environmental movement.
The 1990s and the Continued Evolution
of Radical Environmentalism
In 1992, a small band of EFIers split from the movement in England.
Attracted and interested in the tactics used by ALF, the Earth Liberation Front
declared its existence and began to execute direct actions in England. ELF had grown
weary of the civil disobedience tactics that were now being supported by the core of
the Earth First! movement. In an attempt to reclaim the no compromise in the defense
of Mother Earth approach advocated by the early leadership of EF!, ELF adopted the
tactics and structure of ALF. Operating in small cells, and using both the press office
of the ALF and the press office of the Oregon based Liberation Collective, ELF
began to make their practices and actions publicly known. Although only supported
by circumstantial evidence, it is believed by many critics that some ELF members are
also members of ALF and are also still active with EF!.cxxvn At the same time a
splinter group developed from ALF. The Justice Department, as the group was called,
emerged in England in 1993 with a wave of parcel bombs and razor blade filled
53


letters. The Justice Department had abandoned the traditional non-violence towards
humans guideline that had been traditionally followed by ALF activists. Over the next
five years the ALF, ELF and the Justice Department would be very active in Western
Europe. At about the same time the Unabomber became prominent in the United
States. The Unabombers ties to the radical environmental movement would not be
fully realized until his manifesto was released years later by the FBI. The above
mentioned radical environmentalists claimed responsibility for over a hundred actions
that included arson, bombings, tree spiking, animal release, heavy equipment
sabotage, attempted murder and assassination. In all, these actions have cost several
lives and millions of dollars worth of private and public property damage.
In conclusion, what is obvious from the history of the movement is that
radical environmentalism has evolved. As organizations or factions of the movement
became more disenchanted with society, other more violent actions and measures
were taken. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that these no-compromise
tactics of the Justice Department, ALF and ELF will cease to continue. Politicians
and industry can push law enforcement to arrest and convict the perpetrators of these
crimes, but until the underlying questions of environmental protection are addressed,
there will always be individuals that will put their beliefs above their personal safety
and freedom.
54


Past and Present Trends Influencing the
Radical Environmental Movement
The trends associated with the radical environmental movement clearly
explain why there has been an increase in the number and destructiveness of the
individual actions of the movement. Many individuals that are associated with the
radical environmental movement are frustrated both with the conventional methods of
the mainstream movement and with the less radical elements of their own movement.
Unfortunately, this is a circular process, as individuals increasingly become
frustrated, more extreme methods of protest will become incorporated into the
movement. This level of frustration, coupled with the easy access of information on
security and tactics, present a frightening image of the radical environmental
movement of the future.
There are several trends that become apparent after examining the history of
the radical environmental movement. First, it is obvious from the history of the
movement that direct actions have increased in both number and in destructiveness.
However, several other underlying trends can be developed from analyzing this first
trend. For instance, what has contributed to the increase in the number of attacks? It
can be correctly assumed that with an increase in the number of attacks, we have also
seen an increase in law enforcement investigation. Thus, why has law enforcement
55


been ineffective in addressing radical environmentalism? Next, have the actions taken
by radical environmental factions increased in destructiveness? Finally, analysis also
uncovers a trend in the way that individual activists, both radical and mainstream,
view environmentalism. To many activists, environmentalism has become more than
just a movement, it has almost become a loosely defined religion.
As the number of radical environmental actions has increased, so has the
degree of sophistication that is incorporated into each action. This has been the result
of activists not wanting to become political martyrs for their cause. An activist that is
in jail, is an activist that cannot plan and conduct further actions. Unlike many right
or left wing political activists that use law enforcement and prosecution to draw
attention to their cause, radical environmentalists have developed complex security
measures to avoid being caught. In the early 1970s the Eco-Raiders conducted actions
taking very few precautions. The only safety precautions that the Eco-Raiders took
were to operate in familiar surroundings. Furthermore, what eventually lead to the
Eco-Raiders being caught was the fact that they attempted to recruit too many
potential allies. Eventually, a possible recruit was questioned by the police and
became a state witness.CXXVMI What primarily kept radical environmentalists out of jail
towards the beginning of the movement was a degree of luck. Natural human instinct
made the environmentalists cautious. Eventually though, activists were caught and as
a result of these arrests, security precautions became more important.
56


One of the most important security precautions was the adoption of the cell
structure by Ronnie Lee in 1975. Individual cells could autonomously conduct actions
and then publicize the actions through an aboveground organization. The
underground organization had no membership list and no leadership positions.
Instead, an activist simply became a member of a group by conducting an action and
claiming responsibility in the name of group. The cell structure with its emphasis on
small secretive groups that were highly loyal to the Cause has proven to be an almost
unbeatable defense for avoiding law enforcement.
In conjunction, with the cell structure, the flow of security information has
also contributed to the increase in actions of the radical environmentalists. Beginning
in the early 1970s, a wealth of literature published on how to conduct or operate in a
covert setting became available. Books such as Ecotage, Ecodefense, Animal
Liberation and non-environmental publications like the, Anarchists Handbook
contributed to the increase in and sophistication of security precautions. These
new precautions included surveillance, both electronic and human, the use of police
scanners and the use of two-way radios or other devices to communicate during an
action. Furthermore, activists now use the Internet and other advanced
communication techniques to trade information and secrets on how to protect
themselves from law enforcement agencies. For example, one common tactic that has
been passed along via a web page was the use of rental cars during out of state
57


actions. It has always been the practice of radical environmentalists to conduct
actions outside of their home territories. By doing so, law enforcement focuses their
investigations on local activists, thus, allowing the out of town activists to quietly slip
out of state. As the police began to anticipate this tactic, activists were stopped and
arrested before they could escape. It was concluded that the police were targeting
vehicles that they considered to be owned by environmental activists. In many cases
these were older cars or the stereotypical Volkswagen Bus.cxxx To avoid being
targeted based on the type of vehicle used, activists have begun to use new rental
cars.
The increase in the sophistication and use of security measures has
significantly contributed to the increase in the number of actions taken by the radical
environmental movement. As activists have developed more elaborate plans, based on
extensive security measures, the success rate of individual actions has seemed to
increase. This trend, coupled with a growing public knowledge of radical
environmentalism, has contributed to the overall increase in actions.
Early radical environmental tactics primarily focused on the destruction or
sabotage of public and private property. Beginning with the Sea Shepherds and ALF,
the radical environmental movement began to take a more destructive and potentially
violent approach to environmentalism. This was most likely the result of continued
frustration with the environmental movements inability to affect change in the
58


political system. As early as 1979 the Sea Shepherds, who were led by the flamboyant
Captain Paul Watson, were intentionally ramming other vessels that the Sea
Shepherds felt were involved in the whaling industry. Furthermore, the Sea
Shepherds have also claimed responsibility for the sinking of whaling ships that were
in port by opening up the sea valves and letting water flood the hulls of the ship.cxxxl
All evidence suggests that ALF was the first organization to use arson and incendiary
devises to destroy property in the name of the environment. Although the goal of
ALF was essentially the same as the organizations that proceeded them, ALF felt a
greater sense of urgency. Ronnie Lee, the founder of ALF had spent several months
in jail for being convicted of lesser non-violent tactics. During this time, he came to
the conclusion that to stop the animal enterprise movement, an organization would
have to undermine the financial security of the industry. Essentially, Lee felt that you
could not only release animals from captivity but that it was also necessary to destroy
the facility that contained the animals.cxxx"
The Sea Shepherds and ALF, like many radical environmental organizations,
claim to take every precaution possible to ensure that no harm came to humans or
animals during their actions. For that reason, both ALF and the Sea Shepherds claim
that their actions are non-violent, however, it is impossible to ignore the fact that
because of the destructiveness of these actions, inherent risks are involved. EF!, an
organization that claims a non-violent approach to radical environmentalism and
59


states that one of its guidelines is to not harm humans or animals during its actions,
has found itself at times not being able to uphold its own guidelines. Tactics such as
sabotage, road destruction, desurveying and tree spiking have been used by EF! since
its conception in the early 1980s. Furthermore, these types of actions have been
promoted because of their effectiveness and the seemingly low threat the actions
present towards humans and animals. However critics, both inside and outside the
environmental movement, at times have been critical of EF! because of injuries that
have resulted from their actions. The risk to human life is greatest when tree spiking
is conducted. During the tree spiking process, a large metal spike is driven into the
tree at an angle that will damage any saw that is used to cut the tree. Although it may
seem that the goal of tree spiking is to damage the saw or the person operating the
saw, in fact, the goal is just the opposite. The logging company is informed that the
forest area has been spiked and that no attempt to cut the trees should be made. Thus,
the activists reach their goal of saving the trees and not harming either the loggers or
any wildlife. In essence the threat of force or harm is used to deter logging companies
from putting their employees in danger. Nevertheless, at times this strategy has failed
and for unknown reasons spiked trees have been cut down. On several occasions
spikes have caused a situation for potential injury and even loss of life.CXXXMI
Although tree spiking and other tactics such as heavy machinery sabotage, are
meant to be non-violent attempts to destroy property, at times there is a risk of
60


unintentional harm to both humans and animals. Intentional harm has also been used
by individuals claiming to be part of the radical environmental movement. For years
the FBI had tracked and attempted to apprehend a suspect that was only known to the
general public as the Unabomber. The Unabomber was suspected of being
responsible for the bombing of several organizations and the murder of persons that
were associated with industry and higher education. The methods, motives and even
the individual had remained elusive to the FBI for several years. Finally, with the
publishing of a manifesto in 1995, the Unabomber became less of a question mark.
The Unabomber, who would latter be identified as Ted Kaczynski, was inherently
anti-industry and anti-technology. He was a reader of radical environmental literature
and although claimed not to be a member of any group, he did follow the actions and
demonstrations of EF!CXXXIV The Unabomber represents an extreme move away from
the traditional practices of the environmental movement, in fact, there is very little
evidence of a continuing trend in the radical environmental movement that leads
towards intentional harm of humans. Only in the case of the Justice Department do
we see a further expansion of the use of intentional harm. The Justice Department,
which believes in and respects the non-violent practices of the ALF, also feels that it
is time for a more violent approach to radical environmentalism.cxxxv In 1994, the
Justice Department sent six letter bombs to companies that participated in the
transportation of exported animals. The intent was to stop the exportation of animals
61


from England either by intimidation or by actual murder.CXXXVI The Justice
Department, to date has conducted operations in England, mainland Europe and
North America and to a large extent their actions have been successful. By targeting
companies and organizations that the Justice Department believes participates in but
are not directly responsible for the abuse of animals, they have shown success in
disrupting the animal enterprise process.cxxxv
The Unabomber and the Justice Department represent outliers in the radical
environmental movement. Their tactics and actions do not represent the majority of
the actions taken in the name of radical environmentalism. Instead, the current trend
in the movement involves an increase in the destructive actions of arson and the use
of incendiary devices.
The 1990s have seen both the ALF and the ELF increase the effectiveness of
their arson and property destruction methods. In general, the use of arson by both
groups has become the premier method of accomplishing their environmental
objectives. This is not to say that both the ALF and ELF do not participate in other
forms of non-violent radical environmentalism, however, their method of choice
when wanting to make a public statement is arson. Using a combination of diesel and
unleaded fuels plus other incendiary devices outlined on the ALF web page, the two
groups have claimed responsibility for over 30 arson fires alone totaling more than
$20 million dollars in the 1990s. The last action to date, was conducted on May 27,
62


1999 by ALF. Using over 20 gallons of fuel and four separate kitchen timer delay
mechanisms, ALF burned to the ground the administration building of the Childers
Meat Company in Eugene, Oregon.
63


CHAPTER4
FUTURE TRENDS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The last section of this study will evaluate the future of the radical
environmental movement and make recommendations as to how public policy makers
should address the movement. In the first part of this section, the researcher will
analyze what the future might hold for radical environmentalism as a political
movement. Specifically, can policy makers, the general public and industry expect to
see a continuation of the current trends of the movement or has radical
environmentalism reached a plateau? Following an evaluation of the future of the
radical environmental movement will be an analysis of possible solutions to the
policy problem presented by the movement. Finally, a recommendation will be made
as to how policy makers should respond to radical environmentalism.
Future Trends
The environmental movement and its splinter movement, radical
environmentalism, are clearly evolving through a natural political cycle. What began
as a small elitist movement in the 19th century has blossomed into a movement that
crosses socio-economic, racial and even territorial boundaries. The environmental
movement has truly evolved into a movement as large as the anti-slavery movement
of the early and mid 1800s and the radical labor movement of the early 1900s.
64


However, moving into the twenty-first century, what will be the future of the
environmental movement and more specifically the younger, radical environmental
movement?
After analyzing the history of the radical environmental movement, several
trends have become apparent that have directed the movement during its political
lifecycle. Since the conception of the movement in the early 1970s there has been an
increase in the amount of and destructiveness of radical environmental actions. These
trends are the result of several different causes. First, as radical environmentalists
have become increasingly frustrated with traditional approaches to protest, they have
developed direct actions that many activists feel are more productive in
accomplishing their goal of protecting the environment. This is evident in the no
compromise stance that many radical environmentalists take towards protecting the
environment. Second, as actions have increased in number and destructiveness, it has
become a necessity for the radical environmentalist to improve both the security
measures they employ and tactics that they use to successfully complete their goals.
Finally, although many radical environmentalists are very anti-industry, technology
has served to advance the radical environmental movement. From the use of
advanced surveillance and monitoring equipment to the exchange of information and
tactics through cheaply printed books or the Internet, the radical environmental
movement has progressed because of new technology. So then what does the future
65


hold for both the trends of an increase in number and destructiveness of the radical
environmental actions?
When evaluating any aspect of the radical environmental movement, it is
important to remember that the participants of the movement are very passionate
about their beliefs. Many of the activists believe that the earth and the environment
are in great immediate danger and for that reason the activists feel an almost
overwhelming sense of urgency. Disgruntled and not having the patience to protest on
behalf of the environment in more traditional ways, radical environmentalists do what
they feel is necessary at the time. There has been no evidence uncovered in this study
that suggests that radical environmentalists are prepared now or will be in the future
to set their passions and beliefs aside. For that reason, this study concludes that the
future of the radical environmental movement will continue to see an increase in the
number and destructiveness of the actions taken by the movements participants.
This is a foreseeable conclusion for the future trends of radical
environmentalism as long as government and industry continue to dismiss radical
environmentalists and their goals as fringe participants in the mainstream
environmental movement. Where as, the mainstream movement is willing and quite
often does compromise, the radical branch of environmentalism will not. Thus,
forcing those policy makers, who wish to address the issue of radical
environmentalism with very few options.
66


Invention of Possible Policy Solutions
Over the past decade several policy solutions have been proposed both at the
state and federal levels of government. To a large extent these solutions have focused
on a legislative response that would provide law enforcement authorities with greater
police powers. Essentially, four different solutions have been proposed, the first two
have never been introduced into the policy process, the second two are currently at
some stage of the policy process at either the state or federal level. The first proposed
solution suggests a widening of the scope of the Racketeer Influences and Corrupt
Organizations Statute (RICO). In 1998, Rep. Frank Riggs testified in front of the
House Subcommittee on Crime. During the testimony, Rep Riggs from Californias
First Congressional District suggested that RICO could be expanded to include acts of
what he termed environmental terrorism. The representatives justification for the use
of RICO was the fact that he considered radical environmental actions to be part of a
deliberate, orchestrated, systematic criminal conspiracy.CXXXVI" Organizations such
as ELF and ALF do not dismiss or hide the fact that they engage in illegal activities.
Furthermore, ELF, ALF and other radical environmental organizations openly
promote and help to organize direct actions against companies and organizations that
radical environmentalists feel harm the environment. Thus, the statement by
Representative Riggs that calls the actions of radical environmentalists deliberate
67


and orchestrated does seem inaccurate. Although it seems possible to legally expand
this statute to cover radical environmentalism there is no written evidence that this
approach was ever mentioned again after Rep. Riggs testimony.
The second approach, which also involved amending a federal statute was
proposed by Ron Arnold, who has been one of the most outspoken critics of radical
environmentalism. Mr. Arnold, who also testified in front of the House Subcommittee
on Crime, suggested that the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1993 (AEPA) could
be amended to include protection for employees of the extractive resource
industry.cxxxlx The AEPA increased penalties for those that intern pted or sabotaged
industry that worked directly with animals. These industries included the animal
research industry, the meat packaging industry and the fur trade industry. Much like
the idea to widen the scope of RICO, this suggestion also failed to be discussed
outside of the subcommittee.
Although there is no written record of why the idea of amending either RICO
or AEPA failed to be further evaluated, it is known that the House Subcommittee that
was instructed to discuss ecological terrorism did not reconvene after its first meeting.
The congressional record is unclear as to why the subcommittee did not meet again
but it can be supposed by evaluating the discussions that occurred during the first
meeting, that the subcommittee members did not view ecological terrorism as a real
threat.cxl
68


The third policy response to radical environmentalism, at the time that this
study was written, had been scheduled to be heard by the United States House of
Representatives. This response was an amendment to Senate Bill 254, the 1999
Juvenile Crime Bill. Specifically, the amendment to the bill that concerning radical
environmentalism does three things. First, the amendment creates a national database
of radical environmentalists and their crimes. The database would be overseen and
administrated by the FBI. Second, the amendment provides for an increase in
sentences for criminals convicted of performing an illegal action in the name of the
environment. Finally, the amendment would target web sites and other forms of
publication that promote the building and use of bombs and/or incendiary
devices.cxIlThis amendment addresses radical environmentalism on several different
levels. Furthermore, although the amendment is questionable based on constitutional
concerns, it is likely to pass in the wake of the Columbine High School tragedy in
Littleton, Colorado. There are very few members of Congress who are willing to
lessen any of the provisions of the Juvenile Crime Bill after the shootings. Thus, the
constitutionality of the provisions will most likely be challenged in federal court.
The fourth policy solution, has been initiated at the state level in response to a
recent ALF action at the University of Minnesota. The Minnesota State Legislature
recently passed a measure that would increase civil penalties for liberating animals
and make third parties liable for damages. Essentially, if signed by Governor Jesse
69


Ventura this law would increase the dollar amount that an animal enterprise could sue
for against a convicted animal activists. Furthermore, the provision also makes it
possible for animal enterprises to sue third parties for the damages caused by their
associates.cxl" For example, to use the case developed in this study, Vail could sue the
Liberation Collective for the damages caused by ELF.
Advantages and Disadvantages of
the Policy Solutions
The four legislative responses provide methods of increasing the penalties that
can be inflicted on a convicted radical environmentalists. One advantage of this is that
if the increased penalties serve as a deterrent, then public safety is increased.
Communities that rely on the natural resource extraction industry or an animal
enterprise could possibly see a drop in the amount of environmental or animal related
crime. If the actions of radical environmentalists truly terrorize communities as critics
state, then an increase in police powers could serve as an adequate deterrent.
On the other hand the possibility for several general disadvantages to the four
responses also come to the foreground. First, if the radical environmentalists are
actually correct in their fears for the longevity and vitality of the earth, then the
general public must be immediately concerned with the protection of the
environment. Second, in remembering the level of passion that many radical
70


environmentalists have for their cause, it seems that an increase in police powers
would have little impact as a deterrent. It must be remembered that these activists are
already willing to risk their personal safety and freedom for their beliefs, it is unlikely
that an increased prison sentence would deter them. Finally, for any solution that
increases police power to work, the perpetrators of the crime must be caught and
prosecuted. To date there is no evidence of any members of ELF being caught and
prosecuted for any of the over twenty direct actions for which the group has claimed
responsibility. Quite frankly, law enforcement has proven to be unable to apprehend
and arrest many of the individuals that conduct serious acts of radical
environmentalism.
Each of these legislative responses has both advantages and disadvantages.
The amending of the RICO statute as proposed by Representative Riggs would
provide law enforcement and primarily the FBI with increased powers to investigate
and prosecute radical environmentalists. Although, law enforcement agencies already
have the power to apprehend radical environmentalists based on the criminal acts they
commit, RICO would allow law enforcement to more actively investigate radical
environmentalists before they commit an act. The traditional purpose of RICO has
been to crack down on organized crime by arresting perpetrators based on the crime
of conspiring to commit an illegal act. RICO when applied to radical
environmentalism would be used in much the same way. Organizations that promote
71


or support the direct actions of the radical environmental movement would
experience increased scrutiny from state and federal officials.
The disadvantages to RICO are quite simple. First, RICO has traditionally
been used to prosecute and investigate organized crime elements like the mob or
Mafia. Thus, law enforcement officials that are experienced in applying RICO to
criminal investigations are more than likely inexperienced with the radical
environmental movement. Law enforcement agencies already have proven an
inability to apprehend radical environmentalists and it seems unlikely that RICO
would help to alleviate this problem.
There is little advantage in amending the AEPA statute to include protection
for citizens that work in the natural resource industry. The AEPA was originally
designed to provide protection for citizens that work for or operate animal enterprises.
The statute was a response to the increase in animal rights activity in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. It was believed in 1993 that by providing increased penalties for
committing a criminal act against an animal enterprise, that a crime deterrent would
be created.0*1"1 However, to a large extend this has not been the case. The history of
the radical environmentalism outlines a continued increase in the activity of
organizations like ALF. In fact, ALF claimed responsibility for 239 direct actions
from 1977 to 1989. In the first six years of the 1990s, ALF claimed responsibility for
over 350 separate actions with many of these actions taking place after the
72


establishment of the AEPA.cxllv The AEPA has not served as a deterrent for members
of the radical environmental movement that focus their attention on animal rights,
thus, it seems unlikely that the expansion of the statute would effect activists that
commit acts against the extractive resource industry.
In Minnesota, the state general assembly has taken a very different approach
to addressing the radical environmental movement. Initially, the Minnesota
legislation increased the criminal penalties for committing a crime in the name of the
environment. In a Minnesota Senate Committee hearing this provision was amended
to increase the civil penalties that could be applied to convicted radical
environmentalists.cxlv The Minnesota General Assembly also added a provision to the
legislation that allowed law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute individuals
that publicize the actions of radical environmentalists.cx,vl In doing so, the general
assembly directly targeted the radical environmental movements use of an above
ground organization to promote the direct actions of an underground organization.
However, attempting to prosecute the above ground organization actually might
prove to be more of a disadvantage than an advantage.
Although law enforcement agencies are probably frustrated with their inability
to respond to above ground organizations that have connections with the radical
environmental movement, these above ground organizations do serve a vital function.
By publicizing the direct actions of underground groups, law enforcement agencies
73


are able to track the activities of radical environmental organizations. If the actions
were not made public, it would be difficult for law enforcement agents to distinguish
between actions by different groups. For example, although ELF primarily focuses its
attention on the extractive resource industry, they have on occasion released wild
horses from Bureau of Land Management facilities. This type of direct action is
usually conducted by ALF but because of the release of information from an above
ground source, law enforcement agencies know who committed the action. If the
legislation is signed by Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, law enforcement
agencies it Minnesota might find it more difficult to determine which if any radical
environmental groups are responsible for a direct action.
The final legislative response addressed in this study was a provision added to
the 1999 Congressional Juvenile Crime Bill. There are several advantages to this
piece of legislation. First, a provision to the bill would establish and provide funding
for a database to track the radical environmental movement. The database, which
would be administered by the FBI, could provide an information clearinghouse on
known radical environmentalists, their history, tactics, trends and any other
information that might be relevant.
An advantage would also be gained from the provision of the legislation that
targets web sites and other publications that distribute information on how to make a
bomb or incendiary device. For years how to manuals have existed that provide
74


step by step instructions on how to build devices for use during radical environmental
direct actions. Furthermore, members of the movement have admitted to using these
tools to gain information on how to perform more advanced or technical direct
actions.cxlv" This practice has more than likely increased now that much of the
information is being published on-line. The ALF web site by itself provides detailed
instructions on how to make ten different incendiary devicescxlvm
Selection and Justification of a Particular Strategy
It seems unclear what the long-term advantages are of adopting any strategy
that increases police powers. As long as radical environmentalists feel as passionate
about their beliefs as they presently do, civil and criminal penalties will not serve as
an effective deterrent. However, if the only plausible response available to policy
makers involves an increase in police power then this study supports the adoption of
the provisions attached to the 1999 Juvenile Justice Bill.
One of the primary conclusions of this study is the fact that law enforcement
has proven to be ineffective to date in combating the direct actions of the radical
environmental movement. To a large extent it seems evident to the researcher that this
is the outcome of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the radical environmental
movement. Simply put, organizations like ELF, ALF and the Justice Department have
five basic characteristics. First, these groups operate in a cell structure that resembles
75


Middle Eastern or Northern Ireland terrorist organizations. Second, the members of
these groups are highly passionate and ideologically committed. Third, direct actions
are normally performed outside the radical environmentalists home state. Fourth, to a
large extent the same tactics and devices are employed into actions. Finally, direct
actions are well planned and executed leaving very little evidence. It seems evident
that law enforcement agencies fail to recognize these five characteristics, thus,
making the task of apprehending the correct suspects very difficult. For example, in
the case of the Vail arson fires, state and federal investigators focused their attention
on local activists during the first few days after the fires. Even after ELF claimed
responsibility the investigators still continued to question and bring before a grand
jury local activists.
If law enforcement agencies want to become more efficient at apprehending
radical environmentalists that commit direct actions, then the agencies must
understand their opponents. Members of the radical environmental movement are
serious about defending the environment. These activists are very cautious and take
steps to increase security of their operations. Furthermore, radical environmentalists
are ideologically committed to their cause. They are unlikely to divulge information
or be coerced with money into providing information. Law enforcement agents must
be able to track both radical environmentalists and their actions. There must be a
method of communication between agencies that allows for the transfer of knowledge
76


and information. The FBI clearinghouse would be a first step in accomplishing this
concept.
There is also an advantage in prohibiting the distribution of bomb making
instruction guides. As a society, we will never be able to ban the simple materials that
can be combined to make a bomb. Many of these materials can be bought from the
local grocery store or hardware store. However, it may be possible to restrict the
distribution of bomb making instructions. To many critics, this type of ban represents
a violation of free speech and this could be very true. However, in the wake of events
like the tragedy at Columbine High School, it also might serve as a public good. It is
true that serious radical environmentalists will gain access to this information if they
really have a desire to perform a direct action. Nevertheless, a ban on such materials
might keep information out of the hands of radical environmentalists that are not as
cautious or do not respect the no harm to humans or animals provision that so many
radical environmentalists uphold.
Finally, if law enforcement agencies can appropriately adapt their techniques
and learn from the information provided by the FBI database, then there maybe an
increase in the number of radical environmentalists apprehended. In this case an
expansion of criminal penalties that could be applied to a convicted radical
environmentalist might be effective. It is true that no penalty will likely change the
77


mind of ideologically committed activist. However, an activist that is in jail is an
activist that can not commit further direct actions.
78


CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Public policy makers and the general public can no longer afford to ignore and
marginalize the radical environmental movement. Although policy makers might be
correct in stating that radical environmentalism exists on the fringe of the mainstream
movement, this fringe movement is now demanding recognition. Furthermore, there
is no evidence that has been uncovered that leads one to believe that the future holds
anything less than a continued increase in the number and destructiveness of radical
environmental direct actions.
The Vail Category 111 expansion case study illustrates many of the points of
the above mentioned paragraph. To a large extent the battle to halt the expansion has
portrayed the varying aspects and trends of the radical environmental movement. Cat
III has gone full circle from a public information campaign to a violent arson attack
and then to a civil disobedience campaign. It is obvious that the passions of protestors
run deep and they are unwilling to give up the fight to stop the expansion.
Unfortunately, Vail Associates and the USFS have disregarded the wishes of not just
the protestors but also of a majority of the surrounding community.
This study has presented several possible public policy solutions to the radical
environmental movement. None of these solutions represent an easy or quick answer
79


to the policy problem created by the movement. However, a policy response is
needed to address the increase in number and destructiveness of the direct actions
taken by radical environmentalists. Law enforcement officials have proven to be
widely ineffective in apprehending and prosecuting radical environmentalists. For
that reason, this study promotes a policy response that provides a method of tracking
and analyzing the radical environmental movement. It seems evident that only
through an increase in knowledge and understanding will law enforcement agencies
be able to adapt to the modes of operation employed by radical environmentalists.
Whether it is through Senate Bill 254 or another piece of legislation, this study
recommends the establishment of a national information clearinghouse with the sole
purpose of tracking and evaluating the radical environmental movement. This
clearinghouse, in association with a ban on the publication of bomb and incendiary
device instruction manuals and an appropriate future increase in police powers
provide a policy response that could help to effectively control the continued growth
of the radical environmental movement.
80


NOTES
I Christopher Manes, Green Rage (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990), 231 -
232.
II Paul Routledge, Eggar hits out at Greenpeace terrorism, The Independent
(London), 3 September 1995, p.2; Tough Tactics, Hard Opinions, Macleans, 24
August 1992, 39.
III New Eco-Terrorism? Vail fires may signal bolder acts. The Associated Press, 23
October 1998, [database on-line] (Electronic Library, accessed 19 February 1999);
available from http://www.elibrarv.com: Internet.
IV Tim W. Rhodes, American Eco-Terrorism: Another Threat? [article on-line]
(Boise, Idaho: ERRI Risk Assessment Services, 1998, accessed 16 February 1999);
available from http://
xll.dejan.../getdoc.xp?an=432798606&context=919196257.2077884524.; Internet.
v Marginalized was a term that was frequently used by many of the mainstream
environmentalists interviewed for the Vail Category III Case Study. The term was
used when responding to a question about why activists would resort to an action like
arson.
Vl Brent L. Smith, Terrorism in America (New York: State University of New York
Press, 1994X 125.
vii Ibid., 125.
Vl Manes, Green Rage, 69.
ix Ibid., 70.
x Smith, Terrorism in America, 127.
Xl Earth Liberation Front Profile [web page on-line]; available from
http://www.eskimo.com/~ramold/earth.htm: Internet; accessed on 21 May 1999.
xh Ibid.
Xl" It became apparent after the publishing of the Unabomber's manifesto in 1996, that
the Unabomber had shared the philosophical goals of the radical environmental
movement. Furthermore, several of the Unabombers victims were chosen based on a
hit list in an EF! funded publication entitled Live Wild or Die. Ron Arnold, Ecoterror
(Washington: Free Enterprise Press, 1997) 77.
XIV Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism. 105th
Cong., 9 June 1998.
81


xv Rik Scarce, Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement,
(Chicago: The Noble Press, 1990), 4-13.
XVI Ron Arnold, Ecoterror,\ 19-122.
xv" Industry says tree spiking widespread, [article on-line] available from
http://web.lexis-nexis.com: Internet: accessed on 14 December 1998.
xvm Jasper Carlton, Bio-Diversity Legal Foundation, interview by author, recorded
telephone interview, Denver, Co., 4 June 1999.
X1X Earth Liberation Front Profile [web page on-line]; available from
http://www.eskimo.com/~rarnold/earth.htm: Internet; accessed on 21 May 1999.
xx A.L.F Press Office MN Update, [press release on-line] (Minnianapolis, MN.:
North American A.L.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available from
frontline@,rocketmail.com: Internet; 21 May 1999.
XX1 Anti-ALF Bill passes Minnesota Legislature, [press release on-line]
(Minnianapolis, MN.: North American A.L.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available
from frontline@,rocketmail.com; Internet; 21 May 1999.
xx" Graham, Carolyn and Jennifer B. Grills. Environmental Justice: a Survey of
Federal and State Responses. Villanova Environmental Law Journal 8 (1997): 237-
259. [law review on-line] available at www.lexis-nexis.com/universe: accessed on
3/2/99.
xxHi Lee, Earth First!, 26.
XXIV Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism.
Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony by Julie Rodgers, 105th Cong., 9 June 1998.
xxv Ron Arnold, Ecoterror: Bookchin and Foreman, Defending the Earth: Manes,
Green Rage: Lee, Earth First!.
XXVI Paul Witt, Vail Associates, interview by author, recorded telephone interview,
Denver, Co., 14 June 1999.
xxvii Ibid.
XM Ibid.
XXIX Allen Best, Vail and the Road to a Recreational Empire, High Country News, 1
December 1999.
xxx Witt, Vail Associates, Interview, 14 Jun 1999.
XXXI Best, Vail and the Road to a Recreational Empire, 7 December 1999.
xxxii Ibid.
xxxiii Ibid.
xxxiv Ibid.
xxxv The Not So Missing Lynx, Coalition to Stop Vail Expansion Newsletter, spring
1999.
xxxvi Ibid.
82


xxxv" Kathy Human, Canada Lynx Called Threatened, Boulder Daily Camera, 14
March 19999.
xxxvm Witt, Vail Associates, interview, 14 Jun 1999.
xxxix Ibid.
xl Jonathan Staufer, Colorado Wild and a lifelong resident of Eagle County, interview
by author, recorded telephone interview, Denver, Co., 8 June 1999.
xll-Witt, Vail Associates,-interview, M Jun 1999.
x,n Gretchen Biggs, Arson isnt the Only Crime on Vail Mountain, High Country
News, 9 November 1999: Witt, Vail Associates, interview, 14 Jun 1999.
xliii
xliv
Witt, Vail Associates, interview, 14. Jun 1999.
Ibid.
x,v Human, Canada Lynx Called Threatened, 14 March 19999.
xlvi
xlvii
xlviii
xlix
Biggs, Arson isnt the Only Crime on Vail Mountain, 9 November 1999.
Human, Canada Lynx Called Threatened, 14 March 19999.
Ibid.
Ibid.
I Best, Vail and the Road to a Recreational Empire, 7 December 1999.
II The Not So Missing Lynx, Coalition to Stop Vail Expansion Newsletter, spring
1999.
1,1 Best, Vail and the Road to a Recreational Empire, 7 December 1999.
1,11 Ted Zukoski, Attorney, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, interview by author,
recorded telephone interview, Denver, Co., 9 June 1999: Witt, Vail Associates,
interview, 14 Jun 1999.
Iiv Biggs, Arson isnt the Only Crime on Vail Mountain, 9 November 1999.
Iv Gretchen Biggs, Boulder Environmental Attorney, interview by author, recorded
telephone interview, Denver, Co., 8 June 1999.
|VI Witt, Vail Associates, interview, 14 Jun 1999.
Iv" Biggs, interview, 8 June 1999.
|VMI Biggs, interview, 8 June 1999
llx Zukoski, Attorney, interview, 9 June 1999: Biggs, interview, 8 June 1999.
Ix Kevin Vaghan and Deborah Frazier, Romer Calls Vail Fires an Act of Terrorism,
Rocky Mountain News, 7a, 21 October 1998: Witt, Vail Associates, interview, 14 Jun
1999.
1x1 Vaghan and Frazier, Romer Calls Vail Fires an Act of Terrorism, 21 October
1998.
1x11 Vaghan and Frazier, Romer Calls Vail Fires an Act of Terrorism, 21 October
1998.
1x111 Biggs, interview, 8 June 1999
83


|X1V Staufer, Colorado Wild, interview, 8 June 1999.
Ixv Diane Gansauer, Colorado Wildlife Federation, interview by author, recorded
telephone interview, Denver, Co., 7 June 1999: Dan Luecke, Environmental Defense
Fund, interview by author, recorded telephone interview, Denver, Co., 17 June 1999:
Environmental Defense Fund Condemns Vail, Co Arson Claim, Environmental
Defense Fund Press Release, 22 October, 1999: Richard Estrada, Reasonable Debate
Goes Up in Vaif Smoke, Dallas Morning News, 30 October, 1999.
lxv' Biggs, interview, 8 June 1999
lxvl1 Vaghan and Frazier, Romer Calls Vail Fires an Act of Terrorism, 21 October
1998.
lxvm Auntie ALF and Uncle ELF, Arson Around wit Auntie ALF, [web page on-
line] available at www.animal-liberation.net/library/auntie-alf.html; Internet; accessed
on 20 May 1999.
lxix gLp Press Release, Liberation Collective, 21 October, 1999.
Ixx Enviro Group says it set Vail Fire, Greenwire, 22 October 1999, [on-line
journal] available at web.lexus-nexus.com/universe; Internet; accessed on 19
February 1999: New Eco-Terrorism?, Associated Press, [online article] (Electronic
Library, 23 November 1999) available at www.eliberary.com/s/edumark; Internet;
accessed on 19 February 1999.
lxxl David Johnston, Vail Fires were Frobably Arson, New York Times, A18, 23
October 1999.
Ixx" Kevin Vaughan, Blazes atop Vai Mountain Center on Mysterious Activists,
Rocky Mountain News, 23 October 1999.
Ixxm What is the Earth Liberation Front?, Frontline Factsheets, [online web page]
available at www.animal-liberation.nft/library/facts/elf.html; Internet; accessed on 5
June 1999.
,XX1V Mother Earth Fights Back AOL Newsgroup: uhenvironment, [on line message
from mongoose@gn.apc.org]; Internet; accessed on 16 February 1999.
,xxv Grand Jury to Probe Vail Fires, Rocky Mountain News, 25 January 1999. [on
line article] available at www.animal-liberation.net; Internet; accessed on 6 June
1999.
lxxvl CU Student Subpoenaed in Vail Fire Probe, Associated Press, 26 January 1999,
[on line article] available at www.animal-liberation.net; Internet; accessed on 6 June
1999.
,xxvn Fed Jury Probing Vail Arson, Denver Post, 26 January 1999,, [on line article]
available at www.animal-liberation.net; Internet; accessed on 6 June 1999.
84


lxxviii
Vail ATF Offers Reward in Arson Case, Denver Post, [on line article]
(Newsreal, 12 May 1999) available at http://pbl-l.newsreal.com; Internet; accessed
on 17 June 1999.
lxxlx Diane Gansauer, interview, 7 June 1999.
,xxx Allen Best, Vail Fires Outrage Community, High Country News, 9 November .
1998.
Ixxx' Witt, Vail Associates,interview, 14 Jun 1999.
lxxx" Bill Scanlon, Construction Workers take Back Road to Site, Rocky Mountain
News, 2 July 1999.
ixxxiii Another Win for Vail Associates, Denver Post, I July 1999.
ixxxiv j^a^y Human, Protestors Overwhelm Vail, Boulder Daily Camera, 2 July
1999.
lxxxy grjan Hanson, Activists say Their Actions are Last Defense to Corporate
Greed, Colorado Daily, 2 July 1999.
Ixxxvi Ibid.
lxxxv;;ibid.
lxxxvm p)urjng day 0f july 351999 the researcher spent the day as a participant
observer of the protest on the side of Vail Mountain.
lxxxlx Mark Wold, personal interview by the author, 3 July 1999.
xc Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, 11.
xcl Richard L. Knight and Sarah F. Bates, A New Century for Natural Resources
Management (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1995) 12.
xcii Ibid, 54.
xcHi Ibid, 55.
xclvForeman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, 12.
xcv Ibid., 12.
xcvi Ibid., 13.
xcv;! Ibid., 15.
XCVUI Ron Arnold, Ecoterror, 169.
XC1X Bookchin and Foreman, Defending the Earth, 7.
c Donald Worster, Natures Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1977) xi.
CI Bookchin and Foreman, Defending the Earth, 12.
Ibid., 8.
C'M Andrew Dobson, Green Political Thought (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990), 13.
CIV Bookchin and Foreman, Defending the Earth, 11, 60.
cv Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, 140.
85


CV1 Dave Foreman and Bill Haywood, Ecodefense: A Field Guide to
Monkeywrenching (California: Abbzug Press, 1993).
cv" Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, 140.
cvm Ron Arnold, Ecoterror, 194.
cix Ibid,. 196.
cx Ibid,. 196.
cxi Ibid,. 197. -------
cxii Ibid,. 199.
cxiii Ibid,. 200.
cxiv Ibid,. 205.
cxv Ibid., 197.
cxvi Ibid., 208.
cxvii Ibid., 208.
cxviii Ibid., 208.
cxix Ibid., 211
cxxItid., 206.
cxxj Ibid., 212.
CXXM Lee, Earth First!, 31.
cxxiii Ibid., 37-38.
cxxiv :bid., 96.
cxxv Ibid., 99.
cxxv:bid., 127.
cxxv" Ron Arnold, Ecoterror, 240-275.
cxxviii Ibid., 202-203.
CXX1X Sam Love and David Obst, Ecotage! (New York: Pocket Books, 1972): Dave
Foreman and Bill Haywood, Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching
(California: Abbzug Press, 1993): Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for
Our Treatment of Animals (New York: Random House, 1975)
cxxx anonymous telephone interview by author, 22 June 1999.
CXXXI Ron Arnold, Ecoterror, 238.
Ibid., 208-209.
cxxxm Manes, Green Rage, 169,177.
cxxxiv j^on Arnold, Ecoterror, 6-7.
cxxxy jusjjce Department Fact Sheet (web page on-line) available at www.animal-
liberation.net/librarv/facts/id.html: Internet; accessed on June 21, 1999.
cxxxvi Ibid.
cxxxvii Ibid.
86


cxxxvm (3ongress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism.
Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony by Representative Frank Riggs, 105th Cong., 9 June
1998.
cxxxix Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism.
Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony by Ron Arnold, 105th Cong., 9 June 1998.
cxl Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism. 105th
Cong., 9 Junei998. _
cxh Juvenile Justice Bill Used to Target Activists [press release on-line]
(Minnianapolis, MN.: North American A.L.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available
from frontline@rocketmail.com; Internet; 25 May 1999.
cxln Anti-ALF Bill Passes Minnesota Legislature, [press release on-line]
(Minnianapolis, MN.: North American A.L.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available
from frontline@rocketmail.com; Internet; 21 May 1999.
cxl" Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism.
Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony by Ron Arnold, 105th Cong., 9 June 1998.
cxl,v Ron Arnold, Ecoterror, 118.
cxlv A.L.F Press Office MN Update, [press release on-line] (Minnianapolis, MN.:
North American A.L.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available from
frontline@rocketmail.com: Internet; 21 May 1999.
cxivi Anti-ALF Bill passes Minnesota Legislature, [press release on-line]
(Minnianapolis, MN.: North American A.L.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available
from frontline@rocketmail.com; Internet; 21 May 1999.
cxIv" Ron Arnold, Ecoterror, 196.
cxlvi" Auntie ALF and Uncle ELF, Arson Around with Auntie ALF, [web page on-
line] available at www.animal-liberation.net/library/auntie-alf.html; Internet; accessed
on 20 May 1999.
87


WORKS CITED
A.L.F Press Office MN Update, [press release on-line] (Minneapolis, MN.: North -
American AL.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available from
frontline@rocketmail. com: Internet; 21 May 1999.
Anti-ALF Bill passes Minnesota Legislature, [press release on-line] (Minneapolis,
MN.: North American AL.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available from
fr ontline@rocketmail. com: Internet; 21 May 1999.
Arnold, Ron. Ecoterror. Washington: Free Enterprise Press, 1997.
Auntie ALF and Uncle ELF, Arson Around wit Auntie ALF, [web page on-line]
available at www.animal-liberation.net/library/auntie-alf.html; Internet; accessed on 20
May 1999.
Best, Allen. Vail and the Road to a Recreational Empire, High Country News, 7
December 1999.
Biggs, Gretchen. Boulder Environmental Attorney, interview by author, recorded
telephone interview, Denver, Co., 8 June 1999.
Biggs, Gretchen. Arson isnt the Only Crime on Vail Mountain, High Country
News, 9 November 1999.
Carlton, Jasper. Bio-Diversity Legal Foundation, interview by author, recorded
telephone interview, Denver, Co., 4 June 1999.
Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism. 105th
Cong., 9 June 1998.
Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism. Capitol
Hill Hearing Testimony by Ron Arnold, 105th Cong., 9 June 1998.
88


Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-Terrorism. Capitol
Hill Hearing Testimony by Representative Frank Riggs, 105th Cong., 9 June 1998.
Congress, House, Subcommittee on Crime in the Matter of Eco-T errorism. Capitol
Hill Hearing Testimony by Julie Rodgers, 105th Cong., 9 June 1998.
CU Student Subpoenaed in Vail Fire Probe, Associated Press, 26 January 1999, [on
line article] available at www.animal-liberation.net; Internet; accessed on 6 June 1999.
Dobson, Andrew. Green Political Thought, London: Unwin Hyman, 1990.
ELF Press Release, Liberation Collective, 21 October, 1999.
Earth Liberation Front Profile [web page on-line]; available from
http://www.eskimo.com/~ramold/earth.htm: Internet; accessed on 21 May 1999.
Enviro Group says it set Vail Fire, Greenwire, 22 October 1999, [on-line journal]
available at web.lexus-nexus.com/universe; Internet; accessed on 19 February 1999.
Environmental Defense Fund Condemns Vail, Co Arson Claim, Environmental
Defense Fund Press Release, 22 October, 1999.
Estrada, Richard. Reasonable Debate Goes Up in Vail Smoke, Dallas Morning
News, 30 October, 1999.
Eed Jury Probing Vail Arson, Denver Post, 26 January 1999, [on line article]
available at www.animal-liberation.net; Internet; accessed on 6 June 1999.
Foreman, Dave. Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.
________and Bill Haywood, Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching.
California: Abbzug Press, 1993.
________and Murray Bookchin, Defending the Earth. Boston: South End Press, 1991.
Gansauer, Diane. Colorado Wildlife Federation, interview by author, recorded
telephone interview, Denver, Co., 7 June 1999.
89


Graham, Carolyn and Jennifer B. Grills. Environmental Justice: a Survey of Federal
and State Responses. Villanova Environmental Law Journal 8 (1997): 237-259. [law
review on-line] available at www. lexis-nexis. com/universe: accessed on 3/2/99.
Grand Jury to Probe Vail Fires, Rocky Mountain News, 25 January 1999. [on line
article] available at www.animal-liberation.net; Internet; accessed on 6 June 1999.
Hanson, Brian. Activists say Their Actions are Last Defense to Corporate Greed,
Colorado Daily, 2 July 1999.
H unan, Kathy. Canada Lynx Called Threatened, Boulder Daily Camera, 14
IV arch 19999.
H unan, Kathy. Protestors Overwhelm Vail, Boulder Daily Camera, 2 July 1999.
Industry says tree spiking widespread, [article on-line] available from
http://web.lexis-nexis.com: Internet: accessed on 14 December 1998.
Johnston, David. Vail Fires were Probably Arson, New York Times, A18,23
October 1999.
Justice Department Fact Sheet (web page on-line) available at www.animal-
lib eration.nct/Tibrarv/facts/jd.html: Internet; accessed on June 21, 1999.
Juvenile Justice Bill Used to Target Activists [press release on-line] (Minneapolis,
MN.: North American A.L.F. Press Office, 21 May 1999); Available from
frontline@rocketmail, com: Internet; accessed on 25 May 1999.
Knight, AL Another Win for Vail Associates, Denver Post, I July 1999.
Knight, Richard L. and Sarah F. Bates, A New Century for Natural Resources
Management. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1995.
Lee, Martha. Earth First! Environmental Apocalypse. New York: Syracuse University
Press, 1995.
Love ,Sam and David Obst. Ecotage! New York: Pocket Books, 1972.
90


Luecke, Dan. Environmental Defense Fund, interview by author, recorded telephone
interview, Denver, Co., 17 June 1999.
Manes, Christopher. Green Rage Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990.
New Eco-Terrorism? Associated Press, [online article] (Electronic Library, 23
_November_1999) available at_www.eliberary.eom/s/edumark; Internet; accessed on 19
February 1999.
Mother Earth Fights Back,MOL Newsgroup: ukenvironment, [on line message from
mongoose@gn.apc.org]; Internet; accessed on 16 February 1999.
New Eco-Terrorism? Vail fires may signal bolder acts. The Associated Press, 23
October 1998, [database on-line] (Electronic Library, accessed 19 February 1999);
available from http://www. elibrarv. com: Internet.
The Not So Missing Lynx, Coalition to Stop Vail Expansion Newsletter, spring
1999.
Rhodes, Tim W. American Eco-Terrorism: Another Threat? [article on-line] (Boise,
Idaho: ERRI Risk Assessment Services, 1998, accessed 16 February 1999); available
from http:// xll.dejan.../getdoc.xp?an=432798606&context=919196257.2077884524.;
Internet, accessed on 12 April 1999.
Rick, anonymous telephone interview by author, 22 June 1999.
Routledge, Paul Eggar hits out at Greenpeace terrorism, The Independent
(London), 3 September 1995, p.2.
Scanlon, Bill. Construction Workers take Back Road to Site, Rocky Mountain
News, 2 July 1999.
Scarce, Rik. Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement,
Chicago: The Noble Press, 1990.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, New
York: Random House, 1975.
91


Smith, Brent L. Terrorism in America, New York: State University of New York
Press, 1994.
Staufer, Jonathan. Colorado Wild and a lifelong resident of Eagle County, interview by
author, recorded telephone interview, Denver, Co., 8 June 1999.
Tough Tactics, Hard Opinions, Macleans, 24 August 1992, 39.
Vail ATF Offers Reward in Arson Case, Denver Post, [on line article] (Newsreal, 12
May 1999) available at http://phl-l.newsreal.com; Internet; accessed on 17 June 1999.
Vaughan, Kevin. Blazes atop Vail Mountain Center on Mysterious Activists, Rocky
Mountain News, 23 October 1999.
Vaughan, Kevin and Deborah Frazier. Romer Calls Vail Fires an Act of Terrorism,
Rocky Mountain News, 7a, 21 October 1998.
What is the Earth Liberation Front?, Frontline Factsheets, [online web page]
available at www.animal-liberation.net/libraiy/facts/elf html; Internet; accessed on 5
June 1999.
Witt, Paul. Vail Associates, interview by author, recorded telephone interview,
Denver, Co., 14 June 1999.
Wold, Mark, personal interview by the author, 3 July 1999.
Worster, Donald. Natures Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Zukoski, Ted. Attorney, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, interview by author,
recorded telephone interview, Denver, Co., 9 June 1999: Witt, Vail Associates,
interview, 14 Jim 1999.
92