PETA Protests Against Land Acquisition By Covance

Animal testing firm Covance Inc. recently purchased 38 acres of land in Chandler, Arizona, which prompted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Citing an undercover video it shot of Covance\’s Vienna, Virginia, laboratory and a several hundred page complaint PETA filed against Covance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, PETA wants Chandler to prevent Covance from building a facility in that city.

In a press release, PETA\’s Mary Beth Sweetland said,

Chandler should be showing Covance the door, not rolling out the red carpet. Covance has an abysmal record of animal abuse and threats to public health that shouldnÂ’t be welcomed by any city.

PETA\’s Alka Chandna told the Chandler News,

We have to petition Chandler Mayor Boyd Dunn and the Chandler City Council to pull up the carpet and prevent Covance from setting up shop. These are hardly the sort of people Chandler residents want as their neighbors.

For its part, Covance is suing PETA and the undercover activist who shot the video, and denied that it engages in animal cruelty.

The land that Covance purchased is currently zoned agricultural, so any decision by Covance to build a facility on the land would require a zoning change. A Covance spokesperson told the Chandler News that it has no immediate plans to build on the site and has not applied for any building permits yet.

City spokesman Dave Bigos, however, told the Chandler News that the city council sees attracting biosciences firms to the area as crucial,

Biosciences is a growing presence in the Valley. It\’s critical for the future of the Valley and Chandler.

Sources:

Bioscience firm irks PETA, Covance busy land in Chandler. Alex Pickett, Chandler News, August 23, 2005.

PETA calls on Chandler to reject CovanceÂ’s proposed animal-testing lab. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, August 15, 2005.

Share

Rodney Coronado On His Recent Legal Troubles

In 2004, convicted animal rights arsonist Rodney Coronado, 38, was arrested after he and fellow Earth First activist Matthew Crozier, 32, along with Esquire writer John Richardson, allegedly entered Sabino Canyon, Arizona, and destroyed a mountain lion trap. Coronado faces up to seven years in jail.

All three were charged with federal misdemeanor trespassing on national forest land, interfering with a forest officer and violation of a special closure order (the canyon had been closed by officials due to the threat from aggressive mountain lions). Coronado and Crozier were also charged with federal felony conspiracy to impede or injure an officer. The state of Arizona also charged Coronado and Crozier with misdemeanor charges related to their removal of the trap and a sensor set up near the trap.

On the federal charges, which are clearly the most serious, Coronado could spend six and a half years in prison. And Coronado does not even bother to pretend he might be not guilty — in fact, he\’s downright proud of what he did.

In an essay published in animal rights extremist magazine No Compromise, Coronado writes (emphasis added),

. . . While 2004 marked my fifth year out of prison, it was also the year that finally saw my re-arrest by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Something those bastards have been trying to do since 1999, when I walked out the gates of the Federal Correctional Institution in Tucson. My arrest wasn\’t unexpected. As with many a practitioner of nonviolent civil disobedience, my actions were taken with a full understanding of the consequences I faced should I be arrested for opposing and interfering with this occupying government\’s efforts to kill mountain lions last March.

Thank you, bastards at the FBI!

Coronado goes on to erase any doubt that he is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused (emphasis added),

When it came down to the lions versus the combined guns, snares, ground sensors, helicopters, hounds and 4×4 trucks of taxpayer-supported professional hunters, I found out who were the lionsÂ’ real friends and who really believed in animal liberation and deep ecology. Like many a direct action I have participated in, the people I patrolled that canyon with are some of the bravest and most beautiful people I know. ItÂ’s for these reasons my friends and I are now being threatened with seven years in federal prison. Because a few of us were not willing to sit back and watch as our public lands and wildlife were destroyed to once again assuage human fears of the uncontrollable wild in a never-ending invasion.

And I was, still am and always will be proud to be able to take such a stance against overwhelming odds when the people and places I love are being threatened or destroyed. It is with such honor, that I snuck into Sabino Canyon night after night, past federal officers patrolling for native wildlife whose only offense was not enough fear of humans and continuing to hunt in their occupied homelands. When we choose to be warriors of the Earth and her Animal Nations we accept that it might be our own lives and freedom that are one day threatened or taken away. That is the way for every generation of warrior and protector whose duty it is to protect home and family.

This gives us a nice insight into just how nutty Coronado was. When he referred to the \”occupying government\” above, I originally assumed he was making about related to his Native American activism. But no, as he makes clear, it is the lions themselves whose \”homeland\” is occupied by the government — although Coronado apparently is unconcerned about the sanctity \”homelands\” of the prey that the mountain lion hunts! Some \”Animal Nations\” are apparently more equal than others.

Coronado then complains that his fellow activists aren\’t emulating his illegal ways sufficiently (emphasis added),

As IÂ’ve said before, IÂ’m proud to be an enemy of the United States. The enemy of a global invader that allows terrorism to happen on a daily basis. A regime that routinely allows not only the torture of animals in its licensed and regulated laboratories, but people in its military concentration camps as well. IÂ’m not surprised by any of this behavior, its what you come to expect from people who since their arrival have always used violence and terror to achieve their objectives.

The only thing that surprises me about it all is that there are not more of the many people I have met over the last twenty years of this struggle fighting here beside me. While a couple of those dear comrades sit in prison or are under federal indictment, many more hide amongst the society responsible for the violence we oppose, enjoying the privileges won with the very kind of terror they supposedly oppose.

So this is my question to you. How bad do things have to get before you are willing to fight back? And IÂ’m not talking about anything you do in front of a computer or that involves music bands, pamphlets, puppets or patches, IÂ’m talking about fighting back as if it was your own life under attack. Its not about who else is doing it among movements, groups or friends, when will you be ready to be the first? To do what the law says is wrong, but what you know in your heart is right. That has been and always will be the way peoplesÂ’ voices are heard, not through doing what is popular and polite, but a stand that however unpopular, allows you to exist as a part of a solution to it all, a life free from the liberal first world guilt felt by the aware but apathetic within different movements for social change. A stand that says to one and all, that you as one human being will not allow injustice to go unchallenged, despite the threatened consequences by those perpetuating it.

I couldn\’t agree more. What we need are more animal rights extremists in jail and under federal indictment rather than enjoying the privileges of our society. Come on, guys and gals — step up to the plate and really stick it to the animal oppressors by going to prison. That\’ll show \’em.

With any luck, Coronado can set a shining example in a federal prison for the next several years.

Sources:

Fighting Back: Crimes of Resistance. Rodney Coronado, No Compromise, March 3, 2005.

2 mountain lion activists face new counts of theft. Patty Machelor, Arizona Daily Star, March 29, 2005.

Scared of lions? So move, activist says. Tony Davis, Arizona Daily Star, March 27, 2004.

Share

Arizona Governor Vetoes Animal Rights/Environmental Terrorism Legislation

On May 12, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed legislation that would have modified that state\’s racketeering laws to cover some acts of animal rights and environmental terrorism.

The bill would have modified Arizona\’s statutory definition of racketeering to read,

1. \”Animal activity\” means any activity that involves the use of animals or animal parts, including hunting, fishing, trapping, traveling, camping, production, preparation or processing of food or food products, clothing or garment manufacturing, medical or other research, entertainment, recreation, agriculture, biotechnology or any other service involving the use of animals.

2. \”Animal facility\” includes a vehicle, building, structure, research facility, nature preserve or other premises where an animal is lawfully kept, handled, housed, exhibited, bred or offered for sale, including a zoo, rodeo, circus, amusement park, hunting preserve and horse and dog event.

3. \”Animal or ecological terrorism\” means any felony, including any completed or preparatory offense, that involves criminal damage, the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or the intentional, knowing or reckless infliction of serious physical injury with the intent to obstruct, impede or deter any person from participating in a lawful animal activity, from mining, foresting, harvesting, gathering or processing natural resources or from being lawfully present in or on an animal facility or research facility.

In her message vetoing the bill, Napolitano said the bill was \”overbroad, unnecessary and susceptible to a host of unintended negative consequences.\”

The full text of the vetoed legislation can be read here.

Source:

Napolitano vetoes \’overbroad\’ ecoterrorism legislation. Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services, May 13, 2004.

Share

Rodney Coronado and Journalist Formally Accused of Illegally Dismantling Trap

A federal complaint was issued this month against animal rights terrorist Rodney Coronado and Esquire journalist John Richardson who were arrested on March 24 for allegedly dismantling a mountain lion trap in Sabino Canyon, Arizona.

On March 9, 2004, the U.S. Forest Service closed Sabino Canyon and began setting traps for mountain lions after reports of aggressive lions in the area that were deemed a threat to public safety.

A trial in the case is scheduled for June 3, and Coronado and Richardson could face up to 6 months in jail if convicted.

Source:

Complaint: Writer Helped Disable Trap. Associated Press, March 10, 2004.

Share

Arizona SB 1081 — Animal and Ecological Terrorism

 ------------------------
       Senate Engrossed
 ------------------------
  State of Arizona
  Senate
  Forty-sixth
  Legislature
  Second Regular Session
  2004
 ------------------------
    SENATE BILL 1081
 ------------------------
 

AN ACT

AMENDING SECTION 13-2301, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO ANIMAL AND
ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-2301, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2301. Definitions

A. For the purposes of sections 13-2302, 13-2303 and 13-2304:

1. \”Collect an extension of credit\” means to induce in any way any person to make
repayment of that extension.

2. \”Creditor\” means any person making an extension of credit or any person claiming
by, under or through any person making an extension of credit.

3. \”Debtor\” means any person to whom an extension of credit is made or any person
who guarantees the repayment of an extension of credit, or in any manner undertakes to
indemnify the creditor against loss resulting from the failure of any person to whom an
extension is made to repay the extension.

4. \”Extend credit\” means to make or renew any loan or to enter into any agreement,
tacit or express, whereby the repayment or satisfaction of any debt or claim, whether
acknowledged or disputed, valid or invalid, and however arising, may or shall be
deferred.

5. \”Extortionate extension of credit\” means any extension of credit with respect to
which it is the understanding of the creditor and the debtor at the time the extension is
made that delay in making repayment or failure to make repayment could result in the use
of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person or the reputation or
property of any person.

6. \”Extortionate means\” means the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of
violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person or the reputation or
property of any person.

7. \”Repayment of any extension of credit\” means the repayment, satisfaction or
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or claim, acknowledged or disputed, valid or
invalid, resulting from or in connection with that extension of credit.

B. For the purposes of section 13-2305, 13-2306 or 13-2307:

1. \”Dealer in property\” means a person who buys and sells property as a business.

2. \”Stolen property\” means property of another as defined in section 13-1801 that
has been the subject of any unlawful taking.

3. \”Traffic\” means to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of
stolen property to another person, or to buy, receive, possess or obtain control of
stolen property, with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise
dispose of the property to another person.

C. For the purposes of this chapter:

1. \”ANIMAL ACTIVITY\” MEANS ANY ACTIVITY THAT INVOLVES THE USE OF ANIMALS OR
ANIMAL PARTS, INCLUDING HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, TRAVELING, CAMPING, PRODUCTION,
PREPARATION OR PROCESSING OF FOOD OR FOOD PRODUCTS, CLOTHING OR GARMENT MANUFACTURING,
MEDICAL OR OTHER RESEARCH, ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATION, AGRICULTURE, BIOTECHNOLOGY OR ANY
OTHER SERVICE INVOLVING THE USE OF ANIMALS.

2. \”ANIMAL FACILITY\” INCLUDES A VEHICLE, BUILDING, STRUCTURE, RESEARCH
FACILITY, NATURE PRESERVE OR OTHER PREMISES WHERE AN ANIMAL IS LAWFULLY KEPT, HANDLED,
HOUSED, EXHIBITED, BRED OR OFFERED FOR SALE, INCLUDING A ZOO, RODEO, CIRCUS, AMUSEMENT
PARK, HUNTING PRESERVE AND HORSE AND DOG EVENT.

3. \”ANIMAL OR ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM\” MEANS ANY FELONY, INCLUDING ANY COMPLETED
OR PREPARATORY OFFENSE, THAT INVOLVES CRIMINAL DAMAGE, THE USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON OR
DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT OR THE INTENTIONAL, KNOWING OR RECKLESS INFLICTION OF SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURY WITH THE INTENT TO OBSTRUCT, IMPEDE OR DETER ANY PERSON FROM
PARTICIPATING IN A LAWFUL ANIMAL ACTIVITY, FROM MINING, FORESTING, HARVESTING, GATHERING
OR PROCESSING NATURAL RESOURCES OR FROM BEING LAWFULLY PRESENT IN OR ON AN ANIMAL
FACILITY OR RESEARCH FACILITY.

1. 4. \”Biological agent\” means any microorganism, virus, infectious
substance or biological product that may be engineered through biotechnology or any
naturally occurring or bioengineered component of any microorganism, virus, infectious
substance or biological product and that is capable of causing any of the following:

(a) Death, disease or physical injury in a human, animal, plant or other living
organism.

(b) The deterioration or contamination of air, food, water, equipment, supplies or
material of any kind.

2. 5. \”Combination\” means persons who collaborate in carrying on or
furthering the activities or purposes of a criminal syndicate even though such persons
may not know each other\’s identity, membership in the combination changes from time to
time or one or more members may stand in a wholesaler-retailer or other arm\’s length
relationship with others as to activities or dealings between or among themselves in an
illicit operation.

3. 6. \”Communication service provider\” has the same meaning prescribed
in section 13-3001.

4. 7. \”Criminal syndicate\” means any combination of persons or

enterprises engaging, or having the purpose of engaging, on a continuing basis in conduct
that violates any one or more provisions of any felony statute of this state.

5. 8. \”Explosive agent\” means an explosive as defined in section 13-3101
and flammable fuels or fire accelerants in amounts over fifty gallons but excludes:

(a) Fireworks as defined in section 36-1601.

(b) Firearms.

(c) A propellant actuated device or propellant actuated industrial tool.

(d) A device that is commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of
illumination.

(e) A rocket having a propellant charge of less than four ounces.

6. 9. \”Material support or resources\” includes money or other financial
securities, financial services, lodging, sustenance, training, safehouses, false
documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal
substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, disguises and other physical assets
but does not include medical assistance, legal assistance or religious materials.

7. 10. \”Public establishment\” means a structure that is owned, leased or
operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state or a health care
institution as defined in section 36-401.

11. \”RESEARCH FACILITY\” MEANS A PLACE, LABORATORY, INSTITUTION, MEDICAL CARE
FACILITY, GOVERNMENT FACILITY, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR NATURE
PRESERVE AT WHICH A SCIENTIFIC TEST, EXPERIMENT OR INVESTIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF
ANIMALS OR OTHER ECOLOGICAL ORGANISMS IS LAWFULLY CARRIED OUT, CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED.

8. 12. \”Terrorism\” means any felony, including any completed or
preparatory offense, that involves the use of a deadly weapon or a weapon of mass
destruction or the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury with the
intent to either:

(a) Influence the policy or affect the conduct of this state or any of the
political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of this state.

(b) Cause substantial damage to or substantial interruption of public
communications, communication service providers, public transportation, common carriers,
public utilities, public establishments or other public services.

9. 13. \”Toxin\” means the toxic material of plants, animals,
microorganisms, viruses, fungi or infectious substances or a recombinant molecule,
whatever its origin or method of reproduction, including:

(a) Any poisonous substance or biological product that may be engineered through
biotechnology and that is produced by a living organism.

(b) Any poisonous isomer or biological product, homolog or derivative of such
substance.

10. 14. \”Vector\” means a living organism or molecule, including a
recombinant molecule or biological product that may be engineered through biotechnology,
that is capable of carrying a biological agent or toxin to a host.

11. 15. \”Weapon of mass destruction\” means:

(a) Any device or object that is designed or that the person intends to use to
cause multiple deaths or serious physical injuries through the use of an explosive agent
or the release, dissemination or impact of a toxin, biological agent, poisonous chemical,
or its precursor, or any vector.

(b) Except as authorized and used in accordance with a license, registration or
exemption by the radiation regulatory agency pursuant to section 30-672, any device or
object that is designed or that the person intends to use to release radiation or
radioactivity at a level that is dangerous to human life.

D. For the purposes of sections 13-2312, 13-2313, 13-2314 and 13-2315, unless the
context otherwise requires:

1. \”Control\”, in relation to an enterprise, means the possession of sufficient
means to permit substantial direction over the affairs of an enterprise and, in relation
to property, means to acquire or possess.

2. \”Enterprise\” means any corporation, partnership, association, labor union or
other legal entity or any group of persons associated in fact although not a legal
entity.

3. \”Financial institution\” means any business under the jurisdiction of the state
banking department or a banking or securities regulatory agency of the United States, a
business coming within the definition of a bank, financial agency or financial
institution as prescribed by 31 United States Code section 5312 or 31 Code of Federal
Regulations section 103.11 or a business under the jurisdiction of the securities
division of the corporation commission, the state real estate department or the
department of insurance.

4. \”Racketeering\” means any act, including any preparatory or completed offense,
that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of the state or country in which the act
occurred and, if the act occurred in a state or country other than this state, that would
be chargeable or indictable under the laws of this state if the act had occurred in this
state, and that would be punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under the laws
of this state and, if the act occurred in a state or country other than this state, under
the laws of the state or country in which the act occurred, regardless of whether the act
is charged or indicted, and the act involves either:

(a) Terrorism, ANIMAL OR ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM that results or is intended to
result in a risk of serious physical injury or death.

(b) Any of the following acts if committed for financial gain:

(i) Homicide.

(ii) Robbery.

(iii) Kidnapping.

(iv) Forgery.

(v) Theft.

(vi) Bribery.

(vii) Gambling.

(viii) Usury.

(ix) Extortion.

(x) Extortionate extensions of credit.

(xi) Prohibited drugs, marijuana or other prohibited chemicals or substances.

(xii) Trafficking in explosives, weapons or stolen property.

(xiii) Participating in a criminal syndicate.

(xiv) Obstructing or hindering criminal investigations or prosecutions.

(xv) Asserting false claims including, but not limited to, false claims asserted
through fraud or arson.

(xvi) Intentional or reckless false statements or publications concerning land for
sale or lease or sale of subdivided lands or sale and mortgaging of unsubdivided lands.

(xvii) Resale of realty with intent to defraud.

(xviii) Intentional or reckless fraud in the purchase or sale of securities.

(xix) Intentional or reckless sale of unregistered securities or real property
securities.

(xx) A scheme or artifice to defraud.

(xxi) Obscenity.

(xxii) Sexual exploitation of a minor.

(xxiii) Prostitution.

(xxiv) Restraint of trade or commerce in violation of section 34-252.

(xxv) Terrorism.

(xxvi) Money laundering.

(xxvii) Obscene or indecent telephone communications to minors for commercial
purposes.

(xxviii) Counterfeiting marks as proscribed in section 44-1453.

(xxix) ANIMAL TERRORISM OR ECOLOGICAL TERRORISM.

5. \”Records\” means any book, paper, writing, computer program, data, image or
information that is collected, recorded, preserved or maintained in any form of storage
medium.

6. \”Remedy racketeering\” means to enter a civil judgment pursuant to this chapter
or chapter 39 of this title against property or a person who is subject to liability,
including liability for injury to the state that is caused by racketeering or by actions
in concert with racketeering.

E. For the purposes of sections 13-2316, 13-2316.01 and 13-2316.02:

1. \”Access\” means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from
or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system or network.

2. \”Access device\” means any card, token, code, account number, electronic serial
number, mobile or personal identification number, password, encryption key, biometric
identifier or other means of account access, including a canceled or revoked access
device, that can be used alone or in conjunction with another access device to obtain
money, goods, services, computer or network access or any other thing of value or that
can be used to initiate a transfer of any thing of value.

3. \”Computer\” means an electronic device that performs logic, arithmetic or memory
functions by the manipulations of electronic or magnetic impulses and includes all input,
output, processing, storage, software or communication facilities that are connected or
related to such a device in a system or network.

4. \”Computer contaminant\” means any set of computer instructions that is designed
to modify, damage, destroy, record or transmit information within a computer, computer
system or network without the intent or permission of the owner of the information,
computer system or network. Computer contaminant includes a group of computer
instructions, such as viruses or worms, that is self-replicating or self-propagating and
that is designed to contaminate other computer programs or computer data, to consume
computer resources, to modify, destroy, record or transmit data or in some other fashion
to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system or network.

5. \”Computer program\” means a series of instructions or statements, in a form
acceptable to a computer, that permits the functioning of a computer system in a manner
designed to provide appropriate products from the computer system.

6. \”Computer software\” means a set of computer programs, procedures and associated
documentation concerned with the operation of a computer system.

7. \”Computer system\” means a set of related, connected or unconnected computer
equipment, devices and software, including storage, media and peripheral devices.

8. \”Critical infrastructure resource\” means any computer or communications system
or network that is involved in providing services necessary to ensure or protect the
public health, safety or welfare, including services that are provided by any of the
following:

(a) Medical personnel and institutions.

(b) Emergency services agencies.

(c) Public and private utilities, including water, power, communications and
transportation services.

(d) Fire departments, districts or volunteer organizations.

(e) Law enforcement agencies.

(f) Financial institutions.

(g) Public educational institutions.

(h) Government agencies.

9. \”False or fraudulent pretense\” means the unauthorized use of an access device or
the use of an access device to exceed authorized access.

10. \”Financial instrument\” means any check, draft, money order, certificate of
deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card or marketable security or any
other written instrument as defined in section 13-2001 that is transferable for value.

11. \”Network\” includes a complex of interconnected computer or communication systems
of any type.

12. \”Property\” means financial instruments, information, including electronically
produced data, computer software and programs in either machine or human readable form,
and anything of value, tangible or intangible.

13. \”Proprietary or confidential computer security information\” means information
about a particular computer, computer system or network that relates to its access
devices, security practices, methods and systems, architecture, communications
facilities, encryption methods and system vulnerabilities and that is not made available
to the public by its owner or operator.

14. \”Services\” includes computer time, data processing, storage functions and all
types of communication functions.

Share

Roberta Wright Should Know Ignorance When She Sees It

KVOA 4 in Tucson ran a report on April 20 about animal rights activists protesting at the University of Arizona College of Medicine as part of World Week for Animals in Laboratories.

The TV station\’s web site summary of the story reports this exchange about the role of animals in medical research. Dr. Susan Wilson-Sanders, director of University Animal Care, told KVOA that animal research had made important contributions to treating diseases like epilepsy and Parkinson\’s disease and that,

Well, in my opinion and the opinions of the vast majority of Americans a human life would be more important.

To which animal rights activist Roberta Wright retorted that,

The only reason somebody could be that ignorant is because they don\’t know much about the unique aspects of various animals whether they be birds, mice, rats, monkeys or what have you . . . they . . . none of them belong in laboratories.

Well, Wright should certainly know about ignorance as she\’s been peddling this same argument for three decades, and since 1990 with her group Supporting and Promoting Ethics for the Animal Kingdom.

Wright is the author of a short essay, \”A Tribute to Lab Animals,\” which is written as if Wright were a laboratory animal,

Have you ever been in a laboratory where animals are warehoused before being subjected to experimentation? There\’s nothing quite like the sights, smells, and sounds of such an environment. The animals seem to gaze out from behind their metal bars, pleading to be touched, or at least talked to. My emotions have always behaved predictably when I\’ve toured a laboratory. Putting myself in the animal\’s place, I visualize myself behind those bars, uncomprehending as to why I\’m there. I, too, would look expectantly to anyone who came in and looked as though he or she were going to give me some attention. If I got none, I\’d wonder why, and my feeling of grateful anticipation would turn to despair when the door once again closed behind the visitor. Until the next time. When I\’d go through the same thing all over again. Of course I couldn\’t know that there were worse things about to happen to me than merely being ignored.

In fact, that\’s the good news. The bad news is the research protocol with my number on it eventually surfaces and I am led away to new sights and new sounds. I\’m excited about this walk I\’m now taking. After all, I seem to be the center of attention and isn\’t that what I\’ve been wanting ever since I was uprooted and brought to this cold, sterile place? . . .

. . .

I and many like me are whisked quickly from the room. I recognize cool night air when it hits me. I am going home! I am going to a place of safety! I lie quietly, not wanting to disturb what is happening for fear my rescuers will change their minds and put me back into that awful prison. There\’s talk of \”being caught.\” The people who have liberated me from this agony and gloom are breaking the law! Law? What law? What law condones and protects the people who torture and maim those who can\’t object? If human beings could change places with us for only one hour, would they be so ambivalent, so indifferent? Surely if they looked into my pleading eyes, they would be capable of seeing and feeling my pain and suffering. Then they wouldn\’t continue to ignore my plight.

Would you?

Deep in the bowels of the institution where you now stand are more than 7,000 animals that the people who work here call \”inventory.\” We are every imaginable animal, amphibian, and even cattle. They do every imaginable thing to us and call it \”science\” and \”research.\” When the researchers leave at night, they hang up their bloody lab coats and brag about their \”discoveries\” with no thought of our suffering. We are powerless to do anything about our imprisonment. We have only you to speak for us. We beg of you. Please speak loudly, persistently, and GET US OUT OF HERE. All we have to look forward to day after day are cold bars and painful procedures. Liberation is a faint dream that seems will come only with death. Our suffering and confinement are indescribable.

When you leave here tonight, think about us. We will be lying terrified in stainless steel cages, it will be cold, and we will hear only the hum of the refrigeration unit. And tomorrow will bring more anxiety, terror and pain. Think about us. Or at the very least, please do not forget that we are here!

During a protest of a new primate research laboratory at the University of Arizona, Wright claimed that the only reason animal research continues is to allow researchers to earn advanced degrees in the sciences,

This is not about human health or curing diseases, it\’s about getting Ph.D.s

And, like many activists, Wright is a supporter of animal rights violence. In April 2001, her group sponsored terrorism advocate Craig Rosebraugh to speak at the University of Arizona during World Week for Animals in Laboratories. In a press release about the event, Wright said,

Both of these men [Rosebraugh and Michael Budkie] are guaranteed to stimulate conversation and thought about why animals are used in vivisection and why they are targets of the ALF. Get used to it. Until the university opens its doors to
scrutiny, there will be an ALF to knock them down and free the animals imprisoned inside.

Sources:

Illegal Break-Ins And Animal
Experiments Focus Of Speakers On U Of A Mall Wednesday
. Supporting and Promoting Ethics for the Animal Kingdom, Press Release, April 23, 2001.

A Tribute to Lab Animals. Roberta Wright, Undated, Accessed: May 3, 2004.

Is it all in the name of science or is animal abuse?. KVOA 4, April 20, 2004.

Primate research will continue, officials say. Blake Smith, Arizona Daily Wildcat, May 3, 2000.

Share

Is 10,000 Years Enough for the University of Arizona?

When I wrote about David Cantor and his Responsible Policies for Animals a few weeks ago, that was the first I had heard of the group, but I happened across an article the other day from April 2003 when the Arizona Daily Wildcat reported on the group\’s March 2003 letter to universities demanding that they abolish animal agriculture programs.

One of the recipients of that letter was University of Arizona President Pete Likins. The University of Arizona has a campus agriculture center which includes a meat sciences center.

University of Arizona animal sciences department head Robert Collier pretty much summed up the entire animal rights movement with his comments about Cantor,

I don\’t think they really understand what they are talking about.

The University of Arizona agriculture center includes more than 360 dairy cows, 30 horses, and other animals. The university offers degrees in veterinary medicine and research.

The Arizona Daily Wildcat quoted Cantor as saying,

Teaching animal agriculture primarily serves the interests of large private corporations, whose activities are extremely harmful yet profitable and not in the public interest — they should be training their own workers and managers, not relying on university agriculture programs to do so.

Cantor also told the Arizona Daily Wildcat that he was disappointed that the president of the University of Arizona had not yet responded directly to his letter,

One of the key functions of universities in the United States is to serve as venues fro the free marketplace of ideas. For universities to fail to examine their animal-agriculture policies, discuss them openly, and reckon with the harm they are doing would be a terrible disservice to the public.

Universities have the same sort of duty to respond to complaints that their animal agriculture departments are cruel that they would have to respond to complaints that their geography departments won\’t seriously consider the possibility that the Earth is flat.

Source:

Animal rights group wants UA to cut animal sciences program. Bob Purvis, Arizona Daily Wildcat, April 22, 2003.

Share

Written Testimony of Richard Berman

Below is the full text of the written testimony that Richard Berman submitted to the U.S. House\’s hearing on ecoterrorism on Feb. 12. Berman is the executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom:

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD B. BERMAN

Before the U. S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

February 12, 2002

ECOTERRORISM, ITS CONNECTIONS TO ANIMAL-RIGHTS TERRORISM, AND THEIR COMMON ABOVE-GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard Berman. I am the Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. The Center does not accept and has never received government funds.

On behalf of American restaurant operators and food producers, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today. Eco-terrorism is indeed alive and well in the United States of America, and it shares a common heritage with violent animal-rights extremism. These radical movements have been responsible for well over 1,000 documented criminal acts in the U.S., most of which would be prosecuted as felonies if the perpetrators could be brought to justice.

I am not talking about peaceful protest, pickets, sign waving, slogan chanting, or forms of civil disobedience that are protected by the First Amendment. Rather, America\’s present environmental and animal-rights terrorists have committed arsons, assaults, vandalism on a massive scale, and a host of other property crimes that cripple food producers and resource providers, and occasionally lay waste to entire restaurants.

On September 11th of last year, on the very day America mourned the loss of thousands of lives to foreign terrorists, our own home-grown version (the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, known as \”ELF\” and \”ALF\”) took joint credit for firebombing a McDonald\’s restaurant in Tucson, Arizona.

There is no doubt now, and the FBI concurs, that the Earth Liberation Front is associated with the Animal Liberation Front. Special Agent David Szady (now the U.S. counterintelligence executive) has told CNN that \”by any sense or any definition, this is a true domestic terrorism group, that uses criminal activity to further their political agenda.\”

During the past three years alone, ELF and ALF have claimed responsibility for smashing bank windows, torching a chicken feed truck, burning a horse corral at a Bureau of Land Management facility, firebombing dealer lots full of sport utility vehicles, destroying valuable scientific laboratory equipment and many years worth of irreplaceable research documents, \”spiking\” trees in the Pacific Northwest, and even setting bombs under meat delivery trucks.

There should be no sympathy for intentionally committed felonies of this magnitude. Eco-terror and animal-rights crimes have become everyday events in America, yet they are among our most under-reported and least-punished offenses.

Members of the Subcommittee, on rare occasions the criminals responsible for these violent and unlawful acts are captured. Just two weeks ago a pair of animal-rights terrorists were sentenced to prison terms for attempting to blow up a dairy truck near San Jose, California. They were caught red-handed, with home-made bombs just as deadly as those being exploded by other terrorists in the Middle East. But the vast majority of crimes like these go unpunished. The underground ELF and ALF even have the gall to brag publicly about their felonies. ALF actually released a report in January, claiming responsibility for 137 crimes in 2001, and causing an estimated $17.3 million in damage.

ALF and ELF won\’t stop with damage to people and businesses with whom they disagree. Rather, they are aggressively recruiting new criminals to their vicious gang. Incredibly, the group\’s leaders have begun to distribute \”how-to\” manuals on the Internet, describing how to build bombs and incendiary devices, how to destroy fields of genetically-engineered food crops, and how to commit \”arson,\” \”thievery,\” and other felonies without leaving clues at the crime scene. There is even a volume on the easiest way to sink a ship.

Any 10-year-old with a computer can download much of this reading material. For a few dollars and the cost of postage, ALF \”spokesperson\” David Barbarash will mail the rest of the materials to anyone who asks. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a copy of Mr. Barbarash\’s disturbing catalog for the record.

Equally troubling is the extent to which some eco-terrorists and animal-rights criminals have managed to garner support, both philosophical and financial, from above-ground activist organizations, including those that enjoy the same tax benefits as our nation\’s churches and universities.

Between 1994 and 1995, for instance, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gave over $70,000 to an Animal Liberation Front criminal named Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of arson, a felony, in connection with the $1.7 million firebombing of a Michigan State University research facility. This amount, by the way, is more than ten times the total that the same organization (PETA) devoted to animal shelters during those two years. In addition, both PETA and its president, Ingrid Newkirk, are acknowledged financial supporters of an organization called No Compromise, which operates on behalf of, and for the \”underground\” supporters of the Animal Liberation Front.

PETA raised over $15 million last year from the general public, all of it tax-exempt. When will PETA be held accountable?

Another eco-criminal, Dave Foreman, pled guilty in 1991 to felony conspiracy in a plot to blow up the power lines of three nuclear power generating stations. Mr. Foreman was a co-founder of the radical \”Earth First!\” organization, the group from which the Earth Liberation Front split during a 1992 meeting in the United Kingdom. Among its other claims to fame, Earth First! actually published the newsletter articles (in the Earth First! Journal) from which \”Unabomber\” Ted Kaczinsky chose his last two victims.

An organization called the Ruckus Society was started by another Earth First! co-founder named Mike Roselle. This group was largely responsible for the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle, which ended in mass rioting and the destruction of Starbucks and McDonald\’s restaurants. The Ruckus Society trains young activists in the techniques of \”monkeywrenching\” which, when applied, result in property crimes of enormous financial cost.

The Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network (another outfit founded by Mr. Roselle) are tax-exempt organization that have enjoyed contributions from such mainstream sources as Ted Turner and Ben & Jerry\’s. When will this breeding ground for environmental criminals be held accountable?

Ruckus, by the way, also gets funding from a San Francisco outfit called the Tides Foundation, which distributes other foundations\’ money while shielding the identity of the actual donors. Our tax law permits this sort of money-laundering. If the public is prevented from learning where a tax-exempt organization like the Ruckus Society gets their money, then the legal loopholes that permit foundations like Tides to operate as it does should be closed.

Mr. Chairman, these are all serious charges that I am making, and I urge this Committee to fully investigate the damage that ALF, ELF, and other like-minded terrorist groups have caused to American businesses, American livelihoods, and the American psyche. I would also urge the appropriate Congressional committee to explore the tax-exempt status of groups that have helped to fund – directly or indirectly – these domestic terrorists.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

Share

Opening Statement by the FBI\’s James F. Jarboe on Ecoterrorism

Below is the opening statement give by the FBI\’s James F. Farboe as part of a Congressional subcommittee\’s Feb. 12 hearing on environmental terrorism.

Statement of James F. Jarboe
Domestic Terrorism Section Chief
Counterterrorism Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation

on
The Threat of Eco-Terrorism

Before the House Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Good morning Chairman McInnis, Vice-Chairman Peterson, Congressman Inslee and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you and discuss the threat posed by eco-terrorism, as well as the measures being taken by the FBI and our law enforcement partners to address this threat.

The FBI divides the terrorist threat facing the United States into two broad categories, international and domestic. International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. Acts of international terrorism are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government. These acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate, or the locale in which perpetrators operate.

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars.

Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements. Some special interest extremists — most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements — have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.

Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of \”eco-terrorism\” have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.

In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF\’s operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm \”any animal, human and nonhuman.\” Animal rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely organized movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in \”direct action\” against companies or individuals who utilize animals for research or economic gain. \”Direct action\” generally occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims\’ company operations. The ALF activists have engaged in a steadily growing campaign of illegal activity against fur companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories.

Estimates of damage and destruction in the United States claimed by the ALF during the past ten years, as compiled by national organizations such as the Fur Commission and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), put the fur industry and medical research losses at more than 45 million dollars. The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence.

Disaffected environmentalists, in 1980, formed a radical group called \”Earth First!\” and engaged in a series of protests and civil disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced \”tree spiking\” (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992, the ELF was founded in Brighton, England, by Earth First! members who refused to abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream Earth First!. In 1993, the ELF was listed for the first time along with the ALF in a communique declaring solidarity in actions between the two groups. This unity continues today with a crossover of leadership and membership. It is not uncommon for the ALF and the ELF to post joint declarations of responsibility for criminal actions on their web-sites. In 1994, founders of the San Francisco branch of Earth First! published in The Earth First! Journal a recommendation that Earth First! mainstream itself in the United States, leaving criminal acts other than unlawful protests to the ELF.

The ELF advocates \”monkeywrenching,\” a euphemism for acts of sabotage and property destruction against industries and other entities perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. \”Monkeywrenching\” includes tree spiking, arson, sabotage of logging or construction equipment, and other types of property destruction. Speeches given by Jonathan Paul and Craig Rosebraugh at the 1998 National Animal Rights Conference held at the University of Oregon, promoted the unity of both the ELF and the ALF movements. The ELF posted information on the ALF website until it began its own website in January 2001, and is listed in the same underground activist publications as the ALF.

The most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson. The ALF/ELF members consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting details about potential targets on the internet.

The ALF and the ELF have jointly claimed credit for several raids including a November 1997 attack of the Bureau of Land Management wild horse corrals near Burns, Oregon, where arson destroyed the entire complex resulting in damages in excess of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the June 1998 arson attack of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control Building near Olympia, Washington, in which damages exceeded two million dollars. The ELF claimed sole credit for the October 1998, arson of a Vail, Colorado, ski facility in which four ski lifts, a restaurant, a picnic facility and a utility building were destroyed. Damage exceeded $12 million. On 12/27/1998, the ELF claimed responsibility for the arson at the U.S. Forest Industries Office in Medford, Oregon, where damages exceeded five hundred thousand dollars. Other arsons in Oregon, New York, Washington, Michigan, and Indiana have been claimed by the ELF. Recently, the ELF has also claimed attacks on genetically engineered crops and trees. The ELF claims these attacks have totaled close to $40 million in damages.

The name of a group called the Coalition to Save the Preserves (CSP), surfaced in relation to a series of arsons that occurred in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. These arsons targeted several new homes under construction near the North Phoenix Mountain Preserves. No direct connection was established between the CSP and ALF/ELF. However, the stated goal of CSP to stop development of previously undeveloped lands, is similar to that of the ELF. The property damage associated with the arsons has been estimated to be in excess of $5 million.

The FBI has developed a strong response to the threats posed by domestic and international terrorism. Between fiscal years 1993 and 2003, the number of Special Agents dedicated to the FBI\’s counterterrorism programs grew by approximately 224 percent to 1,669 — nearly 16 percent of all FBI Special Agents. In recent years, the FBI has strengthened its counterterrorism program to enhance its abilities to carry out these objectives.

Cooperation among law enforcement agencies at all levels represents an important component of a comprehensive response to terrorism. This cooperation assumes its most tangible operational form in the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) that are established in 44 cities across the nation. These task forces are particularly well-suited to responding to terrorism because they combine the national and international investigative resources of the FBI with the street-level expertise of local law enforcement agencies. Given the success of the JTTF concept, the FBI has established 15 new JTTFs since the end of 1999. By the end of 2003 the FBI plans to have established JTTFs in each of its 56 field offices. By integrating the investigative abilities of the FBI and local law enforcement agencies, these task forces represent an effective response to the threats posed to U.S. communities by domestic and international terrorists.

The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of eco-terrorism. Several of these individuals have been successfully prosecuted. Following the investigation of the Phoenix, Arizona, arsons noted earlier, Mark Warren Sands was indicted and arrested on 6/14/2001. On 11/07/2001, Sands pleaded guilty to ten counts of extortion and using fire in the commission of a federal felony.

In February 2001, teenagers Jared McIntyre, Matthew Rammelkamp, and George Mashkow all pleaded guilty, as adults, to title 18 U.S.C. 844(i), Arson, and 844(n), Arson Conspiracy. These charges pertain to a series of arsons and attempted arsons of new home construction sites in Long Island, New York. An adult, Connor Cash, was also arrested on February 15, 2001, and charged under the same federal statutes. Jared McIntrye stated that these acts were committed in sympathy of the ELF movement. The New York Joint Terrorism Task Force played a significant role in the arrest and prosecution of these individuals.

On 1/23/2001, Frank Ambrose was arrested by officers of the Department of Natural Resources with assistance from the Indianapolis JTTF, on a local warrant out of Monroe County Circuit Court, Bloomington, Indiana, charging Ambrose with timber spiking. Ambrose is suspected of involvement in the spiking of approximately 150 trees in Indiana state forests. The ELF claimed responsibility for these incidents.

On September 16, 1998, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin indicted Peter Young and Justin Samuel for Hobbs Act violations as well as for animal enterprise terrorism. Samuel was apprehended in Belgium, and was subsequently extradited to the United States. On August 30, 2000, Samuel pleaded guilty to two counts of animal enterprise terrorism and was sentenced on November 3, 2000, to two years in prison, two years probation, and ordered to pay $364,106 in restitution. Samuel\’s prosecution arose out of his involvement in mink releases in Wisconsin in 1997. This incident was claimed by the ALF. The investigation and arrest of Justin Samuel were the result of a joint effort by federal, state, and local agencies.

On April 20, 1997, Douglas Joshua Ellerman turned himself in and admitted on videotape to purchasing, constructing, and transporting five pipe bombs to the scene of the March 11, 1997, arson at the Fur Breeders Agricultural co-op in Sandy, Utah. Ellerman also admitted setting fire to the facility. Ellerman was indicted on June 19, 1997 on 16 counts, and eventually pleaded guilty to three. He was sentenced to seven years in prison and restitution of approximately $750,000. Though this incident was not officially claimed by ALF, Ellerman indicated during an interview subsequent to his arrest that he was a member of ALF. This incident was investigated jointly by the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Rodney Adam Coronado was convicted for his role in the February 2, 1992, arson at an animal research laboratory on the campus of Michigan State University. Damage estimates, according to public sources, approached $200,000 and included the destruction of research records. On July 3, 1995, Coronado pled guilty for his role in the arson and was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison, three years probation, and restitution of more than $2 million. This incident was claimed by ALF. The FBI, ATF, and the Michigan State University police played a significant role in the investigation, arrest, and prosecution.

Marc Leslie Davis, Margaret Katherine Millet, Marc Andre Baker, and Ilse Washington Asplund were all members of the self-proclaimed \”Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy\” (EMETIC). EMETIC was formed to engage in eco-terrorism against nuclear power plants and ski resorts in the southwestern United States. In November 1987, the group claimed responsibility for damage to a chairlift at the Fairfield Snow Bowl Ski Resort near Flagstaff, Arizona. Davis, Millet, and Baker were arrested in May 1989 on charges relating to the Fairfield Snow Bowl incident and planned incidents at the Central Arizona Project and Palo Verde nuclear generating stations in Arizona; the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility in California; and the Rocky Flats Nuclear Facility in Colorado. All pleaded guilty and were sentenced in September 1991. Davis was sentenced to six years in federal prison, and restitution to the Fairfield Snow Bowl Ski Resort in the amount of $19,821. Millet was sentenced to three years in federal prison, and restitution to Fairfield in the amount of $19,821. Baker was sentenced to one year in federal prison, five months probation, a $5,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service. Asplund was also charged and was sentenced to one year in federal prison, five years probation, a $2,000 fine, and 100 hours of community service.

Currently, more than 26 FBI field offices have pending investigations associated with ALF/ELF activities. Despite all of our efforts (increased resources allocated, JTTFs, successful arrests and prosecutions), law enforcement has a long way to go to adequately address the problem of eco-terrorism. Groups such as the ALF and the ELF present unique challenges. There is little if any hierarchal structure to such entities. Eco-terrorists are unlike traditional criminal enterprises which are often structured and organized.

The difficulty investigating such groups is demonstrated by the fact that law enforcement has thus far been unable to effect the arrests of anyone for some recent criminal activity directed at federal land managers or their offices. However, there are several ongoing investigations regarding such acts. Current investigations include the 10/14/2001 arson at the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Corral in Litchfield, California, the 7/20/2000 destruction of trees and damage to vehicles at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and the 11/29/1997 arson at the Bureau of Land Management Corral in Burns, Oregon.

Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance rendered by the U.S. Forest Service in investigating incidents of eco-terrorism. Specifically, I would like to recognize the assistance that the Forest Service is providing with regard to the ongoing investigation of the 7/20/2000 incident of vandalism and destruction that occurred at the U.S. Forestry Science Laboratory in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.

The FBI and all of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners will continue to strive to address the difficult and unique challenges posed by eco-terrorists. Despite the recent focus on international terrorism, we remain fully cognizant of the full range of threats that confront the United States.

Chairman McInnis and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would like to express appreciation for your concentration on the issue of eco-terrorism and I look forward to responding to any questions.

Share

Environmentalist Terrorist Receives 18 Year Sentence

Mark Sands, 50, was recently sentenced to 18 years in prison for a series of arsons he carried out in Arizona. To my knowledge this is the longest prison sentence yet received by a person convicted of environmental or animal rights terrorism in the United States.

Between April 2000 and January 2001, Sands set fire to seven luxury homes in Phoenix and Scotsdale, Arizona. Sands left letters attributing the arsons to a group called the Coalition to Save the Preserve with warnings such as, \”Thou shalt not desecrate God\’s creation\” and \”You build, we burn again.\”

Sands was arrested on June 14 after police observed him writing a note at a home under construction using a red marker that had been used to write the notes left at the fires.

Sands plead guilty in November 2001 to eight counts of extortion and one count of using fire to commit a federal felony. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sentenced Sands to 18 years in jail as well as ordering him to pay $2.8 million restitution.

Hopefully other judges will follow Bolton\’s lead and start making the sentences of animal rights and environmental terrorists more commensurate with the damage and fear they inflict.

Source:

Arsonist who tried to stop construction near protected area in Phoenix area gets 18 years. Foster Klug, Associated Press, February 12, 2002.

Share