Why Aren’t the EPA’s Most Wanted Fugitives Labeled “Eco-terrorists”?

it all depends on whether you value the environment or the money made from it.

These fugitives are scumbags no doubt, however they are not directly threatening anyone or their families. Not once have any of these guys been accused of violent acts that AR terrorist have done such as planting bombs (real or fake), arson, threatening or menacing whole families because one member is a researcher or furrier.

I am not defending the actions of these on the wanted list at all in fact I would love to arrest all of them. The reason they are not listed as terrorist is because they are not trying to force others to live as they do.

“however they are not directly threatening anyone or their families. Not once have any of these guys been accused of violent acts that AR terrorist have done such as planting bombs (real or fake), arson, threatening or menacing whole families”

Oh yes they are. Do you have any idea what dioxin does to an unborn fetus? Or that it’s a known carcinogen? Don’t take my word for it, look it up. Don’t you ever wonder why pregnant women are warned against eating certain types of fish or fish caught in certain areas? Pollution caused by these companies causes many, many more health consequences than just what I’ve listed. I don’t know about you, but I’d certainly rather be “threatened” than given cancer.

Perhaps they haven’t been accused of planting bombs or committing arson. But what they are doing is far, far worse.

Joe, you aren’t a very good person for your job if you think these guys were not doing harm to people and their families.

Would you feed toxic waste to your kids?

Here is a bit of a profile on Eco-Terrorist groups:
(source: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ecoterrorism.asp)

Origins: 1970s

Prominent Groups: Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)

Influential Personalities: Craig Rosebraugh, Kevin Kjonaas, Rod Coronado, Robin Webb, Leslie James Pickering, Josh Harper, David Barbarash, Dave Foreman, Ronnie Lee

Aim: To end the exploitation of animals and the destruction of the environment, typically by causing damage to the operations of companies in related industries or terrorizing executives and employees of these and associated companies.

Media: No Compromise, Earth First! Journal, Green Anarchy, Bite Back Magazine, many Web sites

Influences: Mainstream animal and environmental welfare groups, anarchists

Criminal Activity: Arson, bombing, harassment, vandalism, animal release

Look at the last section labeled “Criminal Activity.” The EPA has their most wanted listed because those corporations do not partake in terrorist activities (sourece: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm) such as bombings and arson. The corporations are also not using scare tactics to “make a point.” They are usually trying to cut corners, and that is why the EPA has them on their most wanted lists.

It is the extreme nature of the organizations listed above that classify them as eco-terrorists. Their vandalism tends to do more harm to the ecosystem than good. Burning down buildings and releasing animals into an environment that isn’t a part of their natural habitat are just two examples.

Burning a building down not just renders the corporations building useless, but it releases pollutants and toxins into the atmosphere and the local environment. The plastics, PVC, pressure-treated wood, rubber materials, and even paint all release toxins such as formaldehyde, tetrachloro-dibenzo-dioxin (TCDD), carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. Each of these chemicals can be fatal if come in contact or inhaled, not to mention the damage it can cause to the ozone.

When animals are released into the wild not of their native habitat, it throws the balance of the circle of life off. As an example, Hawaii limits certain animals to be brought into the islands, and even then must be quarantined. Snakes and ferrets are two animals not allowed on the islands because they have no natural predators to keep them in balance. The release of these animals also will preemptively put a death sentence on them as they will not be able to fend for themselves (source: http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_news&task=view&id=34&Itemid=50). Not only that, but if you take a look at this article (http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_news&task=view&id=34&Itemid=50) you’ll see the damage of what 1 beaver has done to a community. Imagine if an ecoterrorist group had released all of them that were held in captivity. The damage caused may even force some of the animals in their natural habitat out from the protection of their own forests.

These organizations need to think before they act by stepping outside the box and looking at the whole picture. And for further clarification on myself, I am vegetarian. I do not believe that cattle farms are our answer to the need for food; I do not believe in the idea of having to raise 20 chicken in a 5×5 cage for mass production; I do believe that animals should be treated fairly.

That could be the fake Joe, muddying the waters again. You can’t tell a player without a scorecard these days.

I love how mutable the definition of terrorism is. It means something different everyday. Humpty Dumpty would be proud

Right. Because no one forced me to live in an industrialized capitalist culture that destroys the planet where I am on a daily basis threatened with prison, starvation, sexual violence, or much worse. Whatever you say.

And Terrortracker; what you completely fail to recognize is that 1. by using the term ecoterrorist for those people you are clearly choosing a side and buying into the rhetoric of the people destroying the earth (that term is by no means neutral)
2. animals are released during ALF actions into environments they can survive in. Fur farmers constantly try to make themselves into victims by suggesting that mink will either destroy an ecosystem or starve to death (neither of which have any basis in science)
3. destroying a building can have negative ramifications for the environment. The continuing existence of that building can do a lot more damage. Arson is never used lightly.
4. Again, completely missing the point. For the billionth time the point of this site isn’t to discuss the tactics of radical groups, it’s to show how legal activists are being targeted by the government using standards that the government doesn’t apply to groups that do things that have harsher legal ramifications.

Here’s where I part ways with AR folks. I would love to shut down every fur farm and think people who operate them are scum. But releasing hundreds of mink into an area IS irresponsible, ignorant, and causes the death of many animals. If an ecosystem were able to support hundreds of mink without them throwing off the system and other species, they’d already be there–that’s how the natural world works.

Joe, you are a moron and it’s no wonder that organizations like Fish and Game and USFS are so fucking destructive, corrupt and inept. They contain people who think with the level of astuteness that you do.

Harry, caged mink are not eating wild animals, but some domestically raised creatures or products from a factory not an ecosystem. The fact that primarily urban AR folks don’t recognize the difference between the value/worth (and I’m not talking $) of domestic (a man-made product) and wild animals, and have little understanding of how nature works, is their biggest shortcoming. Since most released mink will die or be recaptured, and those who don’t will kill other animals, the far more appropriate action for fur farm attackers to take would be to accept the responsibility and consequences of their actions and euthanize the mink.

You guess wrong, cubestar, I’ve been a near vegan for many years. I agree about the subdivisions (and roads–one of the many reasons I’ve never owned a car) being worse, but I don’t think saying that someone else is killing more animals makes it ok for you to kill a smaller number when it suits your cause.

Will Potter: ‘Who do you think is the “eco-terrorist”: The tree sitter or Boise Cascade? The Earth Liberation Front or Monsanto? Tim DeChristopher or mining corporations? Earth First or General Motors?

We will never see the government use that term against people who pollute the environment, though. Why? Because environmental destruction doesn’t threaten political or corporate interests.’

ok so yeah this is a little late but i think the problem with the terminology is simpler than you’re making it out to be. i agree that the the term ‘terrorist’ has become something of a red herring in the last ten years and that it has been misused by some (who have political or economic agendas) to describe who are not actually terrorists. terrorism is a real thing, of course – it’s just that its meaning has become vague and its usage suspect.

the reason i think that environmental activists, animal rights activists, and so on are termed ‘eco-terrorists’ is because they supposedly commit acts of terror out of their concerns with matters pertaining to ecology. (i agree with you that they probably do not actually commit acts of terrorism, but of course one would have to first define what constitutes ‘terror’). anyway, we would likewise refer to Jihadist terrorists as ‘Islamic terrorists,’ or anarchist terrorists who plotted to kill the tsar in the late-19th century like Sergei Nechaev as ‘anarcho-terrorists.’

in each of these cases, the terrorism is committed out of an ideological system referred to in word that comes first (or before the hyphen). so to call the corporations you mention ‘eco-terrorists’ because they commit acts of terror against the ecosystem would be just as absurd as to call groups or people who commit acts of terror against Muslims ‘Islamic terrorists.’ or to call groups or people who commit acts of terror against anarchists ‘anarcho-terrorists.’ the first word does not refer to the OBJECT that’s being terrorized, but the belief system out of which the terrorism supposedly flows

i think that should clear things up a bit. hope i didn’t come off as a dick