THE THIN GREEN LINE: GEOGRAPHIES OF ECOTERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES By

Jennifer Jean Webb

Bachelor of Arts Bloomsburg University, 2003 Master of Arts Binghamton University, 2006 ______________________________________ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2010 Accepted by: Dr. Susan L. Cutter, Major Professor Dr. Michael E. Hodgson, Committee Member Dr. William Graf, Committee Member Dr. Mathieu Deflem, Committee Member James Buggy, PhD, Dean of the Graduate School

 Copyright by Jennifer Jean Webb, 2010 All Rights Reserved

ii

Acknowledgements
I have many people to thank for their support during this dissertation process. First, I express my sincere appreciation to Susan Cutter. By forcing me to get out of my comfort zone on many occasions, she has allowed me to grow to become a better teacher and researcher throughout my time at South Carolina. Despite her often hectic schedule, she has always found a way to be there with advice and suggestions. From the financial support to the mentoring, Susan has truly been a wonderful advisor. I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Michael Hodgson, Dr. Will Graf, and Dr. Mathieu Deflem for their invaluable feedback and suggestions on how to improve this document. I am thankful for my friends and colleagues in the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute (HVRI) and Department of Geography. The many conversations and experiences weve shared over the years have enriched my time spent at South Carolina. Natalie, you were always there with ice cream, motivating emails, and phone calls when the road got bumpy. Thanks for everything! My friends elsewhere have provided tremendous support throughout this long process. Charles, I owe you many thanks for the motivation and pushes along the way, as well as comments on earlier drafts. Kurt, you have been a great friend and colleague over the years. From valuable suggestions and feedback on this dissertation, to excellent music to keep my sanity during the writing process, to commiserating over beers at conferences and on writing days, I am extremely grateful. iii

Without the endless words of support and encouragement from my parents, I would not have been able to complete my degree. You have always been behind me every step of the way and pushed me to make my dreams a reality. You have both sacrificed so much along the way, and I will be forever grateful. My grandfather, the

late Donald Starr, is always in my thoughts, and gave me the strength to realize that I can accomplish anything. You are and always will be greatly missed! Last but certainly not least, a big thank you goes to J.R. Thanks for your patience during my late night writing sessions, my constant freak outs, and my inability to accompany you to countless functions. I am grateful for the chocolate, ice cream, trivia nights, game nights, and conversations about anything but my dissertation. Most

importantly, thank you for listening and for your constant words of encouragement along the way.

iv

Abstract

While many Americans tend to believe that the biggest threat we face as a nation is international terrorism carried out by religious fundamentalists or radicals, the truth is that in recent years we face a burgeoning threat of domestic or homegrown terrorism. Today terrorism has taken on a new form in the United States with an increase in both the frequency and intensity of attacks perpetrated by radical environmental and animal rights groups. This dissertation documents the changing geographies, strategies, and methods of attack among radical environmental and animal rights groups in the United States. The specific questions asked are: (1) To what extent does ecoterrorism vary in geography, strategies and methods of attack in the United States? ;(2) What prompted this change in strategy and targets of ecoterrorist groups in the United States and how has this change influenced the method of attack employed by these groups?; and (3) Is there a distinct spatiotemporal clustering of ecoterrorist incidents in the United States throughout the time period of interest (1970-2008)? To answer these questions, a Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) was constructed and the incidents were mapped in a Geographic Information System (GIS). A retrospective space-time permutation scan statistic was employed in SaTScan to determine where terrorism is clustered in both time and space. The majority of ecoterrorist incidents perpetrated in the United States showed a relatively stable, slowly increasing trend over time, with peaks in the 1990s and 2000s v

when the most actions took place. In terms of the spatial distribution of ecoterrorism, while larger numbers of events were perpetrated in urban centers like New York, it by no means implies that all ecoterrorist activity is focused in those areas. In fact, we see an array of ecoterrorism with very complex, unique geographies, with pockets of activity in the Southwest, Northeast, and Midwest. Furthermore, actions seem to indicate a trend towards targeting everyday places of business like banks, restaurants, and department stores. Using the space-time permutation model three separate analyses were carried out for the designated time period (1970-2008) to assess the sensitivity of parameters related to the spatial window. Overall, spatiotemporal clusters of ecoterrorist incidents were detected in places like Central California, South Florida, Central Arizona, Northwestern Oregon, the Mid-Atlantic, and Midwestern United States. In some cases, incidents

contained within these clusters were carried out exclusively by a single group, employed a single attack type, and corresponding weapon type against a single target type It was not surprising that a complex pattern of ecoterrorist activity emerged both temporally and spatially. Patterns of pervasive, sporadic, and isolated activity are discernible. This research furthers geographic analyses of terrorism and hazards research to date, by serving as a first step to understanding the behavior and motivations of terrorist groups, who these groups are targeting, and where in geographic space.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF MAPS ................................................................................................................. xi INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1 1.1 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 4 1.2 Contribution ......................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Outline .................................................................................................................. 7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 9 2.1 Theoretical Foundations ....................................................................................... 9 2.2 Geographies of Terrorism .................................................................................. 11 2.3 The Environmental Terrorism vs. Ecoterrorism Debate .................................... 16 2.4 The Radical Environmental Movement ............................................................. 19 2.5 The Radical Animal Rights Movement .............................................................. 29 2.6 Tracing Domestic Terrorism Policy ................................................................... 37 2.7 Spatial Point Patterns ......................................................................................... 44 2.8 Summary ............................................................................................................ 44 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 46 3.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 46 3.2 Database Design and Construction .................................................................... 48 3.2.1 Data Sources and Collection......................................................................... 48 3.2.2 Variable Selection and Categorization ......................................................... 50 3.3 Cluster Detection ................................................................................................ 54 3.4 The Space-Time Scan Statistic........................................................................... 55 3.5 SaTScan .............................................................................................................. 60 3.5.1 Space-Time Permutation Model ................................................................... 60 3.5.2 Sensitivity of Parameters .............................................................................. 61 3.6 Spatial Autocorrelation ...................................................................................... 63 3.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence ..................................................................... 64 3.8 Summary ............................................................................................................ 66 4 RESULTS: SPATIOTEMPORAL TRENDS AND CHI-SQUARE ........................ 67 4.1 Temporal Trends ................................................................................................ 67 4.2 Questions One and Two: Geographies of Ecoterrorist Incidents ....................... 69 4.3 Target Type ........................................................................................................ 73 4.4 Attack Type ........................................................................................................ 83 4.5 Weapon Type ..................................................................................................... 91 4.6 Group or Perpetrator Type ................................................................................. 95 vii

4.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Results ........................................................ 98 4.7.1 Decade and Ecoterrorist Incident Attributes ............................................... 98 4.7.2 Region and Ecoterrorist Incident Attributes ............................................. 104 4.7.3 Other Variable Associations ..................................................................... 110 4.8 Summary .......................................................................................................... 116 5 SPATIOTEMPORAL CLUSTERS OF ECOTERRORISM .................................. 118 5.1 Question Three: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism .............................. 118 5.1.1 Clusters Obtained With a 5% Maximum Spatial Window ....................... 118 5.1.2 Clusters Obtained With a 25% and 50% Maximum Spatial Window ...... 136 5.2 Summary .......................................................................................................... 139 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 141 6.1 Overview of Key Findings ............................................................................... 141 6.1.1 Questions One and Two: Spatiotemporal Ecoterrorism Trends ............... 141 6.1.2 Question Two: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism ......................... 147 6.2 Limitations of the Research Methods............................................................... 148 6.3 Implications for Theoretical and Conceptual Developments ........................... 152 6.4 When Opportunity Knocks............................................................................... 152 6.5 Concluding Thoughts ....................................................................................... 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 161 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 179

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Geographic Studies on Terrorism .................................................................. 141 Table 2.2 Select Definitions of Environmental Terrorism and Ecoterrorism ................ 141 Table 3.1 List of Variables Used in Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) ....... 50 Table 4.1 Decadal Trends in Target Type ....................................................................... 74 Table 4.2 Decadal Trends in Attack Type ....................................................................... 84 Table 4.3 Decadal Trends in Weapon Type ..................................................................... 92 Table 4.4 Frequency of Incidents by Group or Perpetrator Type .................................... 96 Table 4.5 Cross-Tabulation of Decade and Attack Type ............................................... 100 Table 4.6 Cross-Tabulation of Decade and Ecoterrorist Group Type ........................... 101 Table 4.7 Cross-Tabulation of Decade and Weapon Type ............................................ 102 Table 4.8 Cross-Tabulation of Decade and Target Type ............................................... 103 Table 4.9 Cross-Tabulation of Decade and Region ....................................................... 104 Table 4.10 Cross-Tabulation of Region and Attack Type ............................................. 105 Table 4.11 Cross-Tabulation of Region and Ecoterrorist Group Type .......................... 107 Table 4.12 Cross-Tabulation of Region and Weapon Type .......................................... 108 Table 4.13 Cross-Tabulation of Region and Target Type ............................................. 112 Table 4.14 Cross-Tabulation of Attack Type and Target Type ..................................... 114 Table 4.15 Cross-Tabulation of Attack Type and Group Type ..................................... 104 Table 4.16 Cross-Tabulation of Target Type and Group Type ..................................... 116 Table 5.1 Space-Time Permutation Cluster Detection with a 5% Maximum Spatial Window .......................................................................................................................... 119 Table 5.2 Clusters Spanning Multiple Years .................................................................. 122 Table 5.3 Clusters Spanning Multiple Months ............................................................... 128 Table 5.4 Clusters Spanning One Month or Less ........................................................... 133 Table 5.5 Space-Time Permutation Cluster Detection with 25% and 50% Maximum Spatial Windows ............................................................................................................ 138 Table 6.1 Ecoterrorism Profiles by Decade ................................................................... 143 Table 6.2 Ecoterrorism Profiles by Geographic Region ................................................. 147

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Evolution of Radical Environmental and Animal Rights Movements ........... 27 Figure 3.1 SaTScan Input Data Requirements ................................................................. 61 Figure 4.1 Frequency of Ecoterrorism in the U.S., 1977-2008 ........................................ 68 Figure 4.2 Spatial Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents by Location, 1977-2008 ......... 70 Figure 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in California by Target Type, 1977-2008 .............................................................................................................. 79 Figure 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the Northeast by Target Type, 1977-2008 .............................................................................................................. 81 Figure 4.5 Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the Midwest by Attack Type, 1977-2008 .............................................................................................................. 88 Figure 5.1 Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism with a 5% Maximum Spatial Window ........................................................................................................................... 121 Figure 5.2 Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism Spanning Multiple Years ............ 123 Figure 5.3 Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism Spanning Multiple Months ......... 129 Figure 5.4 Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism Spanning One Month or Less ..... 135 Figure 5.5 Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism with 25% and 50% Maximum Spatial Windows ......................................................................................................................... 139

LIST OF MAPS Map 1.1 Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Private Individuals and Property, 1977 - 2008 ............................................................... 141 Map 1.2 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Education and Research, 1977-2008 ................................................................................................ 141 Map 1.3 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Farms, 1977-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 182 Map 1.4 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Fur and Leather Industries, 1977-2008 ........................................................................................ 183 Map 1.5 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Meat Industries, 1977-2008 ..................................................................................................... 184 Map 1.6 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Restaurant and Food Industries, 1977-2008 ..................................................................................... 185 Map 1.7 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Vandalism, 1977-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 186 Map 1.8 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Arson, 1977-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 187 Map 1.9 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Animal Liberations, 1977-2008 ................................................................................................... 188 Map 1.10 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Threats, 1977-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 189 Map 1.11 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Bombings, 1977-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 190 Map 1.12 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Sabotage, 1977-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 191 Map 1.13 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Paint, 1977-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 192 Map 1.14 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Unknown Weapons, 1977-2008 ...................................................................................................... 193 Map 1.15 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Fire or Firebombs, 1977-2008 .................................................................................................... 194 Map 1.16 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Other Weapons, 1977-2008 ...................................................................................................... 195 Map 1.17 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Knives and Sharp Objects, 1977-2008 ............................................................................................... 196 Map 1.18 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Perpetrated by Animal Rights Groups, 1977-2008 ................................................................................. 197 Map 1.19 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Perpetrated by Unknown Groups, 1977-2008......................................................................................... 198 Map 1.20 Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Perpetrated by Animal Rights Groups, 1977-2008 ................................................................................. 199 xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Events like the Oklahoma City bombing and September 11 attacks on the United States have illustrated the increasing vulnerability of our homeland to terrorist threats. While many Americans tend to believe that the biggest threat we face as a nation is international terrorism carried out by religious fundamentalists or radicals, the truth is that in recent years we face a burgeoning threat of domestic or homegrown terrorism. Domestic terrorism, as defined by the FBI (Jarboe 2002, 1) is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely in 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. In the past few decades, terrorist attacks from left-wing groups such as the Weather Underground have largely been replaced by right-wing attacks (e.g. Timothy McVeigh). Today, however, terrorism has taken on a new form in the United States with an increase in both the frequency and intensity of attacks perpetrated by radical environmental groups and animal rights extremists. The threat of ecoterrorism (the popular naming of such acts) is very real and ranks among the FBIs top priorities in terms of serious domestic terrorist threats (Barcott 2002; Frieden 2005). 1

Radical environmental groups such as Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have undergone quite an evolution since they first emerged in the United States over two decades ago. These groups have resorted to increasingly more violent tactics

over the past several years to get their message across to the general public and to draw attention to their cause: reducing the human footprint on the environment. Similarly, animal rights groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Justice Department, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) have undergone a transformation in not only the tactics that are used but also the target selection. Both radical environmentalists and animal rights activists have marketed themselves on acting on behalf of the environment and animal welfare, respectively, and targeting entities that exploit them. Particularly, both groups have publicly stated that they are not out to harm humans in this process. However, in recent years a drastic change has occurred in which these groups are now personalizing threats by targeting specific persons (e.g. researchers and doctors) and even their family members at their homes. Animal rights extremists frequently target researchers at several colleges and universities in California. In June 2006, Lynn Fairbanks, professor in the Department of Psychiatric and Biobehavioral Sciences at UCLA whose research involves looking at the behavior of primates, was targeted by members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). However, ALF members made the mistake of placing an explosive device on the doorstep of Fairbanks elderly neighbor and luckily, it failed to detonate (Jaschik 2006). Had the device gone off, it would have been a very serious case of misidentification and a new level of ecoterrorism. In February 2008, Edythe London, another professor of Psychiatry at UCLA who also does research on primates was targeted for the second time

in a four month period by animal rights extremists, when her home was firebombed (Monastersky 2008). This time the device did ignite, however, no one was home. In addition to faculty at UCLA, biomedical researchers at the University of California-Santa Cruz were targeted. In early August 2008, molecular biologist, David Feldheim awoke at approximately 5:30 a.m. to find his home on fire. After Feldheim and his family escaped and the fire was extinguished, Santa Cruz police linked the firebombing to animal rights extremists who had left pamphlets in a nearby coffee shop warning of future attacks on animal researchers along with names and addresses of specific individuals (McKinley 2008). On the same street and night that Feldheim was targeted, a car owned by another unidentified UC-Santa Cruz researcher was firebombed. These are just a few of the reasons why we are beginning to see an increase in the number of researchers and faculty members who are abandoning important areas of research, fearing that their lives as well as those of their families are placed at risk by groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) (Conn and Parker 2008). These groups while aiming to instill fear in specific individuals and entities that oppose their philosophies, continue getting closer to crossing a threshold and harming humans every day. In addition, by perpetrating acts of ecoterrorism, environmental and animal rights activists gain significant amounts of media attention which only reinforces their goals and assists in attracting new members. This in turn serves to breathe new life into these movements further ensuring that ecoterrorism will continue well into the future, likely becoming more and more violent in the process. The United States is an area that has witnessed an increasing number of attacks by ecoterrorist groups in the past decade, a trend that is likely to continue well into the

future. While it has been documented that the majority of radical environmental groups and animal rights groups have ties to the UK, the literature points to an increase in activity in the United States over time. Moreover, there has been a shift in the nature of targets these groups are perpetrating acts against. The United States serves as an appropriate case study because federal law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies have placed more emphasis on domestic threats of homegrown terrorism following defining events like the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. While terrorist activity globally is a major concern, and will remain as such for years to come, the need has been demonstrated for more assessments to be undertaken on threats of a domestic nature (Adelman, Al-Huda, Asal et al. 2010). This dissertation will serve as a step in that direction. 1.1 Research Questions The purpose of this dissertation is to better understand the changing geographies of ecoterrorism in the United States from the 1970s to 2008. In addition, this research will assist in determining if a relationship exists between radical environmental groups and animal rights groups in terms of the activity spaces or locations where terrorist incidents occur over time. After identifying where ecoterrorist incidents occur in the United States, further studies can be conducted on the evolution of targets and strategies among radical environmental and animal rights activists. The specific questions guiding this research are: 1. To what extent does ecoterrorism vary in geography, strategies and methods of attack in the United States? 4

2.

What prompted this change in strategy and targets of ecoterrorist groups in the United States and how has this change influenced the method of attack employed by these groups?

3.

Is there a distinct spatiotemporal clustering of ecoterrorist incidents in the United States throughout the time period of interest (1970-2008)?

1.2

Contribution One of the main contributions of this dissertation is that this particular topic is

something that has yet to be examined either in general academic literature or in geography. To my knowledge, there have been only two attempts to examine the phenomenon of ecoterrorism in the United States. Young (2004) conducted his

dissertation research on a time-series analysis of eco-terrorism in the United States, yet the methodology was questionable and he did not contribute anything new to the literature. A total of 1,460 ecoterrorist incidents were recorded for the United States from 1993 to 2003, however while these incidents were claimed to have been committed by groups, they were not in fact verified which may negate the results. He illustrated that ALF and ELF were the main culprits of ecoterrorism incidents to date. However, this is nothing new; the FBI came to that conclusion several years ago (Federal Bureau of Investigation 1999). Beck (2007) examined incidents of ecoterrorism in the United States from 1998 to 2005. First, this temporal scale of eight years is not appropriate for assessing any trends in ecoterrorism. Second, its primary concern is not that of

geographies of this phenomenon but rather has to do with the radicalization in militant movements.

There has been a call for research on ecoterrorism, specifically the motivations, tactics, and psychologies of individuals perpetrating these acts (Eagan 1996, 2). News media and related sources have also recognized a shift in the targets of radical environmental and animal rights activists over the past decade and it remains a largely unexplored area for scholars. In addition, most research on ecoterrorism is focused in the United Kingdom, due to the origin of many existing groups (e.g. SHAC), rather than the United States. Geography, more specifically the subfield of hazards, is a prime candidate for exploring this topic further (Mustafa 2005). This dissertation provides a more

complete understanding of the changing geographies of ecoterrorism in the United States, and documents the impetus for the shift in targets and modes of attack for these groups. In terms of the methods, no analyses to date have employed a space-time permutation approach to explore both spatial and temporal clustering of ecoterrorist incidents in the United States. This kind of analysis has been reserved for medical and public health officials, as there have been applications of the space-time scan statistic to human induced accidents and biologic terrorism (Kleinman, Lazarus, and Platt 2004; Kleinman, Abrams, Mandl et al. 2005; Kleinman, Abrams, Kulldorff et al. 2005). Others have used the space-time scan statistic to examine pesticide exposure in humans (Sudakin, Horowitz, and Giffin 2002) but the majority of work employing this approach has applications in the areas of disease clustering and surveillance (Kulldorff 1997; Kulldorff et al. 1998; Kulldorff et al. 2005). This dissertation serves as the first case study with applications to ecoterrorism. This dissertation will further geographic analyses of terrorism and hazards research to date, by serving as a first step to understanding the behavior and motivations

of terrorist groups, who these groups are targeting, and where in geographic space they occur. Measures cannot be undertaken to reduce societal vulnerability to ecoterrorist threats without first understanding the causes of why these groups turn to violence. Additionally, this analysis on ecoterrorism in the United States will serve as the basis for comparative analyses in other areas ripe with ecoterrorist activity such as the United Kingdom and Canada. 1.3 Outline This dissertation begins with a comprehensive overview of the geographic studies of terrorism (in the United States), studies of environmental terrorism vs. ecoterrorism, brief social histories of the radical environmental and animal rights movements, respectively, and history and implementation of policy related to ecoterrorism domestically (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 provides a description of the study area chosen for the analysis: the United States. It also offers a discussion on the

methodological approaches beginning with the initial data collection and processing and ending with the spatiotemporal clustering of ecoterrorist incidents using the SaTScan program. The results of the analysis are presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 provides a discussion on the spatiotemporal trends in ecoterrorism in the United States using a combination of frequency tables, visual analysis, and the Chi-Square Test for Independence. The discussion of the significant clusters detected with SaTScan is

presented in Chapter 5. The concluding chapter presents an overview of the historical and current trends in ecoterrorism in the United States, as well as the methodological limitations associated with the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) and using SaTScan for cluster detection. It ends with offering a brief discussion on the utility of 7

this dissertation and the implications for future research on domestic terrorism and other related phenomena in time and space.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues~Dr. Seuss 2.1 Theoretical Foundations Within geography, the subfield of hazards research lends itself well to the study of terrorism as a hazard. Despite early research strictly focused on natural events like flooding, it has informed more current research on man-made and technological hazards (Mustafa 2005). This dissertation is theoretically based on the intersection between human ecology and political ecology. The human ecology approach led by Burton, Kates, and White highlighted the need for a better understanding of both perceptions and behavior in the face of extreme natural events, and allowing for a range of choices for human adjustment to hazards (Kates and Burton 1986; Burton, Kates, and White 1993). Similarly, the political ecology tradition with hazards research is concerned with the vulnerability of populations to extreme events, and the role of social, economic, and political arrangements in reinforcing the marginalization of certain groups (OKeefe, Westgate, and Wisner 1976; Mustafa 2005). It is clear that terrorism is place-specific; it does not occur just anywhere. Simply stated, place is constituted at the intersection of socio-economic processes and human experience of those processes (Mustafa 2005, 79). There are certain social, economic, and political structures at work that serve to create conditions that are ripe for terrorism. 9

Ecoterrorism is no exception. Through an examination of the varying spatial and temporal patterns of ecoterrorism in the United States, this dissertation gets at these social and geographic contexts, and the linkage between the two. As mentioned previously, terrorism does not fall within the traditional boundaries of hazards research but the connection is evident. Research on risk perception was very popular in the late 1980s with the introduction of Slovics (1987) psychometric paradigm. This was a cognitive risk map showing peoples perceptions and attitudes of various kinds of risks, which indicated that individuals tend to view hazards like nuclear power generation and radioactive waste as high dread, unknown risks. This means that they have no control over the risk, impacts may be unobservable, and consequences fatal. Terrorism would likely be classified as an unknown risk with a high dread factor. Social violence and similar hazards can be traced back to Kasperson et al.s (1988) Social Amplification of Risk framework. This conceptual model argues that risk interacts with a number of processes (e.g. cultural, psychological, and social) that in turn may serve to intensify or attenuate the public perception of the risk and risk response behaviors. It aims to provide an explanation of why some minor risks result in widespread economic, cultural, and social impacts and increased amounts of public attention and reactions. Hazards research is an interdisciplinary field, with each discipline utilizing a different approach or perspective. However, the common thread that unites everyone studying hazards is the narrow focus on incidents that arise from a combination of natural, technological, and man-made origins (Cutter, Richardson, and Wilbanks 2003). Hazards geographers have studied everything from the human occupance of hazardous zones (Hewitt and Burton 1971) and how individuals adjust to hazards and their

10

associated consequences (Kates 1971) to contributing conceptual models and frameworks for examining vulnerability like the Pressure and Release (PAR) model (Wisner et al. 2004), Hazard of Place model (Cutter 1996, Cutter et al. 2000) and the vulnerability and sustainability framework (Turner et al 2003). Recent advancements have been made in the areas of social vulnerability to hazards, hazards measurement, and resilience with the creation of the Social Vulnerability Index (Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley 2003) and the Disaster Resilience of Place (DROP) model (Cutter et al. 2008), respectively. In short, Mustafa (2005, 73) provides a good explanation of what terrorism research rooted within hazards theory (human/political ecology) can offer: The subject matter of hazards research is events and phenomena, both natural and technological, which threaten the life and well-being of human societies. The study of terrorism can therefore benefit from the accumulated experience, skills, and insights of hazards research so as to contribute towards a more just, humane and therefore safer world. This dissertation draws upon three main areas of literature in which to situate the research questions: Geographic studies of terrorism (in the United States); studies of environmental terrorism vs. ecoterrorism; and brief social histories of the radical environmental and animal rights movements, respectively. It ends with a brief overview of existing legislation targeting ecoterrorism, and its implications. Upon further

examination of the scholarly work done to date, the literature review identifies the existing gaps in domestic studies of terrorism as well as limited work in geographic analyses of terrorism. 2.2 Geographies of Terrorism Although terrorism studies precede September 11, 2001 (Crenshaw 1981; Rapoport 1984; Laqueur 1987), the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 11

have invigorated terrorism research. The study of terrorism is now approached from a multitude of disciplines, from more traditional criminology and political science perspectives to economic and engineering angles. Typically, works on terrorism link this phenomenon to the historical context, and are primarily European focused (Laqueur 1987; Crenshaw 1995). Crenshaw (1981, 1) approaches terrorism more analytically, and asks the following questions: Why does terrorism occur? How does the process of terrorism work? What are the political and social effects of terrorism? There has been heated debate over whether or not terrorism is in fact a rational, strategic choice or if it is the result of psychological forces, which drive individuals to commit acts of violence (Crenshaw 1990; Post 1990). Although traditional terrorism studies have been qualitative in nature, more empirically based research has emerged from statistics to game theory, to examine the economic and political context of terrorism (Enders and Sandler 2006a, 2006b; LaFree and Dugan 2007). Both the behavioral and social sciences have paved the way in enabling us to have a better understanding of the root causes of terrorism, motivations for membership in terrorist groups, and social responses to terrorist threats (Hoffman 2006). However, in order to move forward and aid in the development of predictive tools that can identify where terrorist incidents may occur in the future, it is crucial to examine both the geographical and historical patterns of terrorism (Cutter, Richardson, and Wilbanks 2003). Places where terrorism has occurred vary not only in terms of their political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, but also in time and space (Guo, Liao, and Morgan 2007).

12

Although some empirical work has examined the historic trends in terrorism, very few have undertaken analyses with a strict U.S. focus. Several studies have explored the temporal nature of terrorism in the United States, all at varying time periods (Monroe 1982; Hewitt 2000, 2003; Nunn 2007), but geography tends to take a backseat and is therefore often overlooked (Flint 2003b). OLear (2003,128) addressed this issue head on: Geographic contributions on scholarly work on terrorism are few, yet as a discipline, geography can contribute both applied methodologies as well as critical perspectives to the complex subject of terrorism and interconnected scales of activity embedded within it. More recent research has recognized and corrected this with work specifically on the geography of terrorism in the United States over a 34-year period, emphasizing the changing dynamics of perpetrators, target types, methods of attack, and weapon types (Webb and Cutter 2009). It is also worth noting that much of the work on terrorism trends of a purely temporal nature has their limitations. For example, Hewitts (2003) work on U.S. terrorist incidents excluded all incidents labeled as ecoterrorism (Badolato 1991; Eagan 1996; Leader and Probst 2003). Currently, only case studies of incidents classified as ecoterrorism in the United States have been conducted (Beck 2007). Unlike the geography of terrorism, the vulnerability of U.S. cities to terrorism has garnered more attention in the hazards literature as a result of the September 11 attacks on the United States (Cutter, Richardson, and Wilbanks 2003; Mitchell 2003). Recognizing the need for an established baseline of vulnerability in U.S. urban areas, Borden et al. (2007) conducted a vulnerability assessment of U.S. cities utilizing a set of social and built environment indicators. The next logical step in the process employed benchmarking analyses to further examine the relationship between terrorist events and 13

vulnerability (Piegorsch, Cutter, and Hardisty 2007) which concluded that primarily cities in the Northeast, situated along shorelines, and parts of the South (e.g. New York, Charleston, Norfolk, New Orleans) with the exception of Boise, were ranked as highly vulnerable to the urban terrorist threat. Various geographic studies of terrorism have been conducted within a variety of sub-fields and at multiple scales, however they are fairly recent developments (mid-1990s to present). Table 2.1 provides an overview of some of these works. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather to give insight into the kinds of terrorism research geographers concern themselves with. Terrorism has proven to be a hot topic among political geographers, especially with regard to geopolitics. Flints (Flint 2003a, 2003b) work has been instrumental in setting a research agenda for what geographers, particularly political geographers, can offer to contemporary studies of terrorism. Much of the geographic studies of terrorism have been qualitative in nature, choosing instead to engage in more critical geography approaches (Ettlinger and Bosco 2004; Graham 2006). The research on terrorism within urban geography focuses on the impacts of terrorism on cities and the relationship between homeland security and urban areas (Graham 2006; Blomberg and Shepphard 2007). The application of geotechniques to terrorism

visualization and response is also popular within geography, the majority of which favor quantitative approaches (Kwan and Lee 2005; Guo, Liao, and Morgan 2007). India, Colombia, Israel, Peru, and Canada have all served as case studies for terrorism research within geography (Sidaway 1994; Adams 2004; Kliot and Charney 2006; Oslender 2007; Oza 2007). Overall, it is clear that most geographic studies of terrorism are limited to qualitative case studies undertaken by political geographers.

14

The examination of the geographies of terrorism not only in the United States, but on a global scale is very important. First, it allows us to assess the changing dynamics and characteristics of terrorist incidents over time and space which is a first step in the development of tools that can aid in the prediction of future incidents. Second, it reveals the spatial patterns of terrorist activity and highlights uneven exposure to the hazard (urban vs. rural, etc.). Visualizing the exposure to the terrorist threat can help identify where the most vulnerable populations reside before terrorist incidents occur, enhance both preparedness and response, and ensure that measures are put into place to lessen impacts from terrorist incidents (Webb and Cutter 2009).

Table 2.1: Geographic studies on terrorism Geographical Studies of Terrorism Adams 2004 Subfield Method Scale Observational Unit City

Blomberg and Shepphard 2007

Enders and Sandler 2006a Ettlinger and Bosco 2004 Flint 2003b, 2003a, 2005 Graham 2006

Guo, Liao, and Morgan 2007 Hannah 2006

Political geography; geopolitics Urban geography and planning; economic geography Political and economic geography Political, human, and social geography Political geography Urban geography; Imagined geographies GIS and Visualization Political geography;

Qualitative

Regional

Quantitative

Global

City

Quantitative

Global

Country

Qualitative

N/A

N/A

Qualitative Qualitative

N/A Regional

N/A City

Quantitative Qualitative

Global N/A

Country N/A

15

Hobbs 2005 Kent 1993 Kliot and Charney 2006 Kwan and Lee 2005 Mitchell 2003 Mustafa 2005 Oslender 2007 Oza 2007 Savitch 2005 Savitch and Ardashev 2001 Sidaway 1994

geopolitics Political ecology Political geography Political geography GIS Human ecology; hazards Human ecology; hazards Political geography Political geography Urban geography Urban geography Political geography; geopolitics Political ecology; cultural ecology

Qualitative Qualitative Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative

Regional Case Study Case Study Case study Case study N/A Case Study Case Study Regional Global Case study Global

Country Country Country City Metropolitan areas N/A Country Country City City Region

Steinberg and Mathewson 2005

Qualitative

Country

2.3

The Environmental Terrorism vs. Ecoterrorism Debate Typically, studies examining acts of violence perpetrated by radical

environmentalists and animal liberationists lump them into one of two categories: ecoterrorism or environmental terrorism. In order to avoid confusion, it is important to define these two terms. Researchers often make the mistake of using the two terms interchangeably and in reality, each has very different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. Environmental terrorism is a relatively new term that has emerged in the social sciences and law literature in recent years. Depending on the definition and scope of the

16

research, varying definitions of environmental terrorism are often employed (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Select Definitions of Environmental Terrorism and Ecoterrorism Environmental Terrorism Schwartz (1998, 484): incidents in which the environment itself is disrupted or threatened by the perpetrator as a symbol that elicits trepidation in the larger population over the ecological consequences of the act. Ecoterrorism Beck (2007, 163): the clandestine use of force or threat of force outside the normal routines of political action intended to influence targets for an environmental cause.

Chalecki (2002, 48): the unlawful use of force against in situ environmental resources so as to deprive populations of their benefit(s) and/or destroy other property.

Chalecki (2002, 48): the violent destruction of property perpetrated by the radical fringes of environmental groups in the name of saving the environment from further encroachment and destruction.

OLear (2003, 136): a form of terrorism which selects environmental or natural resource targets either for their symbolic impact, as a means to inflict collateral damage, or to provoke fear and disruption in an intended audience.

FBI (Jarboe 2002, 1): the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally oriented subnational group for environmentalpolitical reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.

The above definitions of environmental terrorism demonstrate the significant challenge posed by the changing nature of terrorism in todays world. Each individual employs a slightly different definition. For example, according to Chaleckis (2002) definition, the threat of action is not considered environmental terrorism; an act must be successful before it can be dubbed environmental terrorism. Most definitions of environmental terrorism in the literature remain ambiguous, as they include subjective 17

terms within their definitions that serve to invoke more questions as to what would be classified as such. ecoterrorism. While in recent years, ecoterrorism has successfully attracted media attention for the countless acts attributed to well known groups like the ELF and newer, emerging groups like the Revolutionary Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade, ecoterrorism is not usually defined but remains a vague and unclear concept. Books and articles alike have skated around the notion of ecoterrorism, and are quick to lump incidents as such, but very few actually provide a working definition. For example, Liddicks (2006) book which describes, in detail, both the transformation of the radical environmental and animal rights movements and how they have turned to violence, does not attempt to define ecoterrorism despite the book bearing the same name and using the term excessively throughout. There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism; researchers tend to agree on a few core elements of a definition but tend to quibble over the minor details (Schmid and Jongman 1983). Recognizing this broader definitional issue makes it even more difficult to adopt more narrow definitions of what constitutes violence undertaken by radical environmental and animal rights groups. Many researchers eschew this problem and tend to classify incidents as ecotage, direct action, civil disobedience, and monkey wrenching (Taylor 1998; Vanderheiden 2005). Some scholars however, have faced the challenging task of defining ecoterrorism in their work, and formed their own definitions (Table 2.2). The same challenge remains for those attempting to define

18

The problem with both Chaleckis and Becks definitions are that incidents included in their analyses that were perpetrated by animal rights groups such as ALF are not consistent and as a result, technically are not considered acts of ecoterrorism. The same is true for the definition set forth by the FBI. For the purposes of my research, I employ a slightly different definition of ecoterrorism that is an extension of the FBI definition. I define ecoterrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally or animal rights oriented subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature. This definition lends itself to include acts not only committed by radical environmental groups but also animal rights activists and eliminates any questions regarding the inclusion of incidents in this analysis. This notion is supported by Ron Arnold, author of Ecoterror (1997), in his address to the House Subcommittee on Crime focusing on acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by radical environmental groups (U.S. House 1998, 70), in which Arnold clearly states that: Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front signed a joint communiqu stating their solidarity and blending. I have been able to determine that certain criminal Earth Firsters, Earth Liberation Front members, and Animal Liberation Front members are the same people. Examples are David Barbarash and Darren Thurston, convicted felons now under indictment in Canada for attempted murder by pipe bombs, were at one time Earth Firsters. I am stating that there is no difference between ecoterrorism and animal rights terrorism. The perpetrators are in large part the same, and the solidarity of action is openly declared.

2.4

The Radical Environmental Movement There are a wide variety of groups housed under the umbrella of the radical

environmental movement, ranging from Greenpeace to Earth First! to the Earth 19

Liberation Front (ELF). Some of these groups are more extreme than others, however they all share some common elements. First, they maintain that an uncompromising position on behalf of the environment is necessary and call for the preservation of ecological diversity while reducing the human footprint ( Lee 1995; Eagan 1996; Scarce 2006). Second, these groups believe that the most effective way to convey this position to the public is through direct action, rather than through government and industrial lobbying and letter writing campaigns. These tactics may include civil disobedience, monkey wrenching, ecodefense, and ecotage or sabotage done in the name of the environment (List 1993, 4). This is what primarily distinguishes radical

environmentalists from mainstream environmentalists (Best and Nocella 2006; Scarce 2006). Mainstreamers tend to view radical groups as hurting the movement, and undoing progress that has been made by more publicly accepted means (Walton and Widday 2006). Third, the majority of these groups have non-hierarchical structures, sometimes referred to as leaderless resistance where actions are typically carried out by autonomous cells of two to three individuals (Eagan 1996; Leader and Probst 2003; Rosebraugh 2004; Scarce 2006; Pickering 2007). Fourth, most radical environmental groups share a dislike for the prevalence of technology in our daily routines which is indicative of the human domination or need to exercise control over nature (Scarce 2006). Lastly, all radical environmental groups that do take part in acts of civil disobedience to further their causes take strong precautions to avoid causing harm or injury to individuals (Rosebraugh 2004; Pickering 2007; Smith 2008). However, this has been called in to question by scholars and federal officials alike in recent years as acts are becoming increasingly more violent and deadly.

20

The tactics chosen by radical environmental groups may often times be influenced by the theoretical philosophy or ideology in which the groups are based. The three ecophilosophies upon which radical environmental groups are founded on include the following: deep ecology, ecofeminism, and social ecology. Deep ecology is the most common philosophy of the radical environmental groups, and for that reason, will be discussed in detail here. Deep ecology, developed by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess (1972), is a philosophy based on self-realization and biocentric equality or biocentrism (Sessions and Duvall 1985). As opposed to anthropocentrism, deep ecology emphasizes biocentrism, stating that humans are not the center of the world, but rather are just one part. Furthermore, all things in the environment (both inanimate and animate objects) have an intrinsic, equal value. In short, the life of an insect is just as valuable as human life. Naess (1985, 70) set forth some basic principles of deep ecology that serve as the core theoretical foundation for many radical environmental groups such as Earth First!: 1. The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes. 2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves. 3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

21

4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease. 5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. 6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present. These principles essentially outline a humans role in the environment: to protect and preserve biodiversity. A moral meaning is placed on other species in the environment, emphasizing this idea of biocentrism. As a philosophy, deep ecology has its critics,

particularly philosophers who argue that it fails to link itself to larger social issues like population reduction and resource consumption (Switzer 2003); however most radical environmental groups existing today are founded on these core principles. While deep ecology has greatly influenced both mainstream and revolutionary environmental groups, the footprint of ecofeminism is often more subtle. Ecofeminism as a movement dates back to the early 1970s when it sought to put a stop to all types of oppression, and cause a fundamental shift in environmental consciousness, namely at a time when environmental crises began to be viewed as androcentric or rooted in maledomination (Diamond and Orenstein 1990; Scarce 2006). Although ecofeminists

recognize the extent of the environmental crisis, they are strong advocates of nonviolent methods to advance their ideas (Diamond and Orenstein 1990). The various types of ecofeminism including liberal, social, cultural, and socialist ecofeminism, regardless of

22

how they differ in their analysis of environmental problems, all put forth ideas for improving the relationship between humans and nature (Merchant 1996). Among the most common themes of ecofeminism is that both women and young children suffer disproportionately in terms of environmental risks and hazards associated with toxic chemicals, location of toxic waste facilities, pollution, and nuclear power and weapons testing (Diamond and Orenstein 1990). Ecofeminists draw upon the idea of a strong spiritual connection between females and Mother Earth, and have likened actions involving the misuse and abuse of our environment and its resources, to domestic abuse of women by men (Switzer 2003). Merchant (1996) argues that symbolic female figures of nature like Gaia, Eve, and Isis, all provide slightly different suggestions for how both the Earth and women should be treated. Further, she emphasizes the need to adopt a partnership between humans and nature, a dynamic relationship where both have power over each other, as opposed to human domination over nature. While deep ecology and ecofeminism are in agreement on some levels, especially in that both are in favor of a spiritual nature or connection with the environment, they are divided in the sense that our current state of environmental crises can be traced to anthropocentrism (humancenteredness) versus androcentrism (male-centeredness), respectively (Fox 1993; Scarce 2006). Social ecology is yet another philosophy that serves as the ideological underpinnings for groups housed under the umbrella of the radical environmental movement. Social ecology argues that human domination of the environment is a direct result of the hierarchical nature of groups and classes within society, thus it is rooted historically in power and hierarchy (Barry 2007). Social ecologists reject biocentrism

23

and deep ecology, as well as a central nation represented by capitalism. Instead Murray Bookchin, the main figure behind the development of social ecology, puts forth the idea of libertarian municipalism which argues for power to be distributed to lower levels of government in a bottom-to-top approach as opposed to the top-down traditional system of rule. While this particular philosophy is not as well publicized as deep ecology and ecofeminism, it is still worthy of mention here. Bron Taylor (2010), a scholar who has spent decades examining the relationship between religion and environmentalism, coined a new term that is used to describe the mindset of radical environmentalists: dark green religion. Dark green religion, drawing upon the biocentric and deep ecological ways of thinking goes a step further in suggesting that nature is much more sacred and requires respectful care. Taylor argues that the works of Aldo Leopold, Henry David Thoreau, and John Muir share a common theme that is the heart of dark green religion. All suggest that there is a deeper sense of spirituality that one can and must gain by being in direct contact with Mother Nature. In their writings of their experiences with nature, they emphasize how wild nature should be viewed as sacred, loyal, and that everything is interconnected. Dark green religion views life in a positive, grateful way including the idea that after death, we are regenerated and united with Mother Earth. While radical environmentalism is just one of many forms of dark green religion, it is its apocalyptic vision that sets it apart from others. Groups such as the ELF have adopted a catastrophic mindset that focuses on the deadly implications of the population explosion, carrying capacity, pollution, toxic waste, etc. for the environment, and this is where we begin to see diversity in the strategies and tactics employed in the name of the Earth (Taylor 2010).

24

The beginnings of the radical environmental movement in the U.S. can be traced back to 1958, when a lone individual, Edward Abbey, began taking action in defense of the environment by tearing down billboards in the Southwest and removing stakes from the ground to halt road-building by the Park Service (Liddick 2006). The late 1960s and early 1970s marked an era for lone radical environmentalists with the appearance of the Arizona Phantom in Black Mesa who disrupted coal mining projects, and James F. Phillips, better known as the Fox who was notorious for targeting polluting industries in Chicago (Martin 2001; Scarce 2006). This was a time when individuals began forming small groups in defense of environment. Across Michigan, a group calling themselves the Billboard Bandits sawed down billboards bearing outdoor advertisements. A group of farmers dubbed the Bolt Weevils acted out against the construction of 400-foot power lines in Minnesota by toppling the steel structures (Scarce 2006). The Eco-Commando Force 70 monitored the releases of sewage into the waterways around Miami. But perhaps the most famous of the groups were the Eco-Raiders, based in Tucson who engaged in direct action ranging from removing survey stakes to destroying newly built homes (Liddick 2006). The Eco-Raiders reportedly served as the inspiration for Edward Abbeys book The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975) which detailed the story of a group of individuals taking part in acts of civil disobedience on behalf of the environment across the American Southwest. This piece of literature changed the environmental movement as we knew it, and the majority of revolutionary environmental groups today employ it as their bible and require members to read it before carrying out any actions. Formed in 1971, Greenpeace is arguably the most well known and successful radical environmental group of that time period. To date, Greenpeace boasts over 2.5

25

million members worldwide, 250,000 in the U.S. alone, and offices in over 30 countries (Greenpeace 2008). Scarce (2006, 51) puts it well when referring to Greenpeace: More than anything, it is a tactical and philosophical bridge between straightlaced environmentalism and the no-holds-barred radicals. In the early 1970s, Greenpeace activists began to engage in direct action techniques to draw public attention to issues like nuclear testing and the killing of whales and seals (Manes 1990). However, Greenpeace drew the line at any form of violence, and publicly denounced acts that could cause property destruction or harm to humans (List 1993; Eagan 1996). This posed a problem for individuals like Paul Watson, who preferred more radical forms of direct action that were not consistent with the non-violent Greenpeace philosophy. This division within Greenpeace on exactly what constituted environmental activism was a turning point in the radical environmental movement. Watson was later expelled from Greenpeace and went on to establish the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 1977 (List 1993; Eagan 1996; Scarce 2006). Figure 1 provides an overview of the evolution of groups within the radical environmental and animals rights movements, respectively. In 1978 and 1979, the U.S. Forest Services Roadless Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II) was conducted in eighty-million acres of wilderness areas within national forests (Lee 1995a; Lee 1995b; Eagan 1996; Scarce 2006). In the end, only fifteen million acres were protected from private interests. This created a huge backlash by the radical environmental movement, as people felt betrayed by their government. In 1980 as a response to this decision to open up our wilderness areas to exploitation, a group of individuals led by Dave Foreman formed Earth First!

26

Greenpeace Est. 1971 in US

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Est. 1977 in US

Earth First! Est. 1980 in US

Earth Liberation Front (ELF) Est. 1992 in UK Est. 1996 in US

Hunt Saboteurs Group Est. 1963 in UK

Band of Mercy Est. 1972 in UK

Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Est. 1976 in UK Est. 1979 in US

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Est. 1980 in US

Animal Rights Militia (ARM) Est. 1982 in UK Est. 1987 in US

Justice Department Est. 1993 in UK Est. 1996 in US

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) Est. 1998 in UK Est. 1999 in US

Figure 2.1: Evolution of Radical Environmental and Animals Rights Movements

27

Earth First! activists advocated for the preservation and restoration of all existing wilderness areas and believed that industrial civilization was an evil in and of itself, claiming that it would cause a biological meltdown marked by an apocalyptic mass extinction that would eradicate all forms of biodiversity (Lee 1995a). Influenced by Abbeys Desert Solitaire (1968), The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975), Environmental Actions the Earth Tool Kit (1971) and follow up, Ecotage (1972), and Foremans own Ecodefense: A Guide to Monkeywrenching (1987), Earth First! adopted the direct action tactic of monkey wrenching, which included things like arson and tree spiking and soon became the most publicized radical environmental group of the 1980s (List 1993; Lee 1995a; Lee 1995b). In the early 1990s, we witnessed another division with the radical environmental movement, similar to that of Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherds. In 1992, a group called the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) was established in Brighton, England by the more radical members of Earth First! who claimed that they needed to engage in more violent activity to accomplish their objectives. Essentially, their goals were the same but they differed in the form of action. But it wasnt until October 1996 when ELF announced its formation in the United States when members glued locks on a Chevron station in Eugene, Oregon and branded its walls with their trademark logo (Molland 2006). Two weeks later, the ELF claimed responsibility for the arson of a U.S. Forest Service vehicle in Willamette National Forest, and the rest is history (Leader and Probst 2003). To date, their most publicized attack occurred in 1998. ELF set fire to a ski resort in Vail, Colorado incurring between $12 and $24 million in damages (Mobley 2002; Leader and Probst 2003; Molland 2006). Their motivations for this act stemmed from an

28

announcement that the resort would undergo an 885 acre expansion that summer, thus encroaching on the habitat of the endangered Canada lynx (Glick 2001). However, it was not until 2005 that the individuals responsible for the act, Chelsea Gerlach and William Rodgers, were discovered and arrested only with the help of an FBI informant (Williams 2008). Throughout the late nineties carrying on to the present, the FBI estimates

damages caused by the ELF in the range of millions of dollars and they predict that it will only get worse. Although it is nearly impossible to estimate the number of members in radical environmental groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) who carry out actions on behalf of the environment in various geographical areas, it is safe to assume that due to both the increasing number of attacks and lethality of acts in recent years, that it is within hundreds of individuals (North American Earth Liberation Press Office 2010). It is also difficult to determine if the small, autonomous cells carrying out terrorist actions in one area are the same individuals carrying out actions in other areas. Having said that, activity in the United States in the past few decades suggests that membership in radical groups is growing. 2.5 The Radical Animal Rights Movement The notion of animal rights came to the forefront in the 1970s, with the publication of Peter Singers (1975) influential book Animal Liberation. Often referred to as the bible for the animal rights movement, Singers utilitarian philosophy emphasizes morality in the sense that all animals should be allowed equal consideration of their interests (Monaghan 1997; Liddick 2006). He argued that the cost strongly outweighs any benefits derived from the pain and suffering of animals for human gains. In the 29

second edition of his classic work, Singer (1990) discusses how researchers are guilty of speciesism, which permits them to treat animals not as living, breathing beings, but as mere instruments or tools to get their jobs done. The underlying argument of speciesism is that we not only tolerate animal cruelty, abuse, and suffering, but most of the time we condone it; something we would never allow if the roles were reversed and humans were considered for animal experimentation. Tom Regans (1983) The Case for Animal Rights went even further to argue that animals have an intrinsic value and are therefore deserving of equal rights. In this sense, animals should not be used for any purpose. He calls for the total elimination of hunting, trapping, whaling, and testing of animals in any setting. This work more fully developed the notion of rights for animals and laid the ideological groundwork for liberating animals from human oppression (Liddick 2006, 37). These influential works served as the ideological underpinnings for animal rights groups everywhere such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The origins of the ALF can be traced back to England in 1963 with the establishment of the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA), which set out to put a stop to hunting efforts in the Brixham area and still exists today. Efforts to thwart hunting involved physically blocking roads, distracting the dogs from the hunt, and detonating smoke bombs (Best and Nocella 2004). Two years later, HSA members began to feel

that more effective actions needed to be taken to disrupt hunting. At this point, there was a shift to more covert actions targeting the destruction of property. However, it was not until 1972 when two HSA members, Ronnie Lee and Cliff Goodman, formed the Band of Mercy outside London. This name was revived from the Bands of Mercy dating back to

30

the nineteenth century Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) youth group which was noted for its direct action approach (Best and Nocella 2004; Molland 2004). The initial actions carried out by the Band of Mercy typically involved the sabotage of the hunt vehicles, which would disrupt and sometimes halt the hunt activities. However in November 1973, members expanded their targets in to include the vivisection industry after they learned more about animal testing (Molland 2004). The first incident against this sector was directed at a building under construction in Milton Keynes which would become the new site of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals vivisection lab, and was significant for Band of Mercy because it marked the first time that arson was employed as a tactic. It was not until June 1974 that the Band of Mercy perpetrated their next most important action: the annual seal cull off the Norfolk coast (Molland 2004). During this event, hunters went out by boat to slaughter seals thus eliminating any chance of a seals survival. Because the arson of the vivisection laboratory proved to be a huge success, the Band of Mercy decided to set fire to the two boats designated for the seal cull. This action resulted in the boat owners business going under, and the final seal cull to take place off the coast. Following the arson in June 1974, the Band of Mercy carried out eight more actions against the vivisection industry focused on economic destruction of structures and vehicles. It was at this time that the group also performed its first animal rescue at a guinea pig farm in Wiltshire, which was so successful that it resulted in the owner shutting down her business (Molland 2004). However, the Band of Mercy made a mistake when it carried out another successful action in August 1974 targeting the

31

Oxford Laboratory Animal Colonies. Lee and Goodman returned to the site two days later to be greeted by security and were arrested. While the two founding activists were imprisoned, very few actions were carried out by the Band of Mercy. But after serving only a year in prison, both Goodman and Lee were released on parole. Goodman chose to give up the revolutionary lifestyle while Lees time in prison served to reinvigorate his perspective on animal liberation. Lee, along with the remaining members of the Band of Mercy and new recruits who were in support of illegal direct actions in the name of animal liberation formed a more radical group: the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). In the late 1970s, ALF began operating in the United States (U.S. Senate 2004). However, the first action in the name of animal rights was carried out by a group calling themselves the Undersea Railroad, when they released a dolphin from a research laboratory in Hawaii (Stallwood 2004). In order to put a stop to animal abuse, ALF members carry out direct action typically in the form of liberating animals from laboratories and damaging property to intimidate businesses to withdraw from destructive practices (Monaghan 2000; Johnson 2007). In the eyes of the ALF, economic destruction is not wrong because it pulls money away from animal research to increase security around the properties targeted. ALF actions are usually well planned and executed by undercover members placed in low paying jobs to exploit the practices of animal testing laboratories and treatment of animals (Leader and Probst 2003; U.S. Senate 2004). Like the ELF, one becomes a member of ALF by committing an action in line with the mission stated above, and as long as no injuries occurred it is recorded on the ALF website as direct action in the name of animal rights and the media is contacted (Mobley 2002). The Internet serves as the groups only form of communication; ALF members are

32

never in contact with another as actions are carried by small cells of two to three people which makes it nearly impossible for law enforcement agencies to track them (Monaghan 1997; 2000; U.S. Senate 2004). Similar to radical environmental groups, it is next to impossible to estimate group membership, but the majority of actions in recent years suggest that the animal rights extremists and liberationist movements are growing in size to include hundreds of individuals (North American Animal Liberation Press Office 2010). Since its formation in the United States, ALF has adhered to not harming any individual in any of their direct actions. However, ALF has become more radical and violent as they began targeting scientists, researchers, and individuals affiliated with businesses that exploit animals in the late 1990s (U.S. Senate 2004; Miller 2007; Conn and Parker 2008). In 2007, three researchers at UCLA were targeted by ALF and another group calling themselves, the Animal Liberation Brigade (Miller 2007). Their tactics ranged from flooding homes to planting incendiary devices under cars. Due to the escalation of violence by animal rights groups in recent years, UCLA was required to engage in an agreement with University and local police to protect individual faculty members at their homes. The University of Utah, where similar activities have occurred in recent years, has used UCLAs plan as a model for developing their own. While ALF is currently listed as the second most serious domestic terrorist threat by the FBI (U.S. Senate 2004), it is not the only group in the United States that perpetrates acts motivated by animal rights. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), a British group which began operating in the United States in 1999, carries out acts of terrorism against the Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) corporation. Huntingdon Life

33

Sciences conducts tests on over 70,000 animals annually, including dogs and monkeys (Southern Poverty Law Center 2002). Members of SHAC typically resort to increasingly violent methods of harassment and intimidation of employees of HLS and employees of businesses that are affiliated with them, like Marsh USA Inc. in Chicago. SHAC

members believe that by resorting to these tactics, businesses associated with HLS will be forced to end existing contracts with them, thus causing economic damage to HLS (U.S. Senate 2004). SHAC has expanded their targets more so than existing animal rights group, to include banks and insurance companies along with researchers who perform animal testing. In short, anyone who has ties to HLS is on their list (Jonas 2004). Violence hit home in 2003, when Chiron Life Sciences Center in Emeryville, CA and Shaklee Headquarters in Pleasanton, CA, respectively, were bombed within weeks of each other. A group called the Animal Liberation Brigade claimed responsibility for the Shaklee attack, but the other remained anonymous. Communiqus that were issued for each incident made it clear that these businesses were targeted as a result of their associations with HLS (U.S. Senate 2004). The Animal Rights Militia (ARM) and the Justice Department, both British-born animal rights oriented groups have carried out actions in the United States in recent years, leaving law enforcement officers to question if they pose a threat to national security (Monaghan 1997; 2000). A splinter group of the ALF, ARM carried out attacks in the 1980s against meat companies in California resulting in over $100,000 in damages. It has been suggested that ARM is not a real group, but has been made up to account for all acts that are carried out and deemed too violent to be classified as the work of ALF (Henshaw 1984). However, there appears to be much more activity by this group in

34

Great Britain and Canada in recent years. The Justice Department formed in 1993, began operating in North America in January 1996 when they sent over 80 envelopes of rat poison laced razor blades to scientists and hunting guides in the U.S. and Canada (Southern Poverty Law Center 2002). Federal officials are nervous about these groups becoming more active in the United States with the resurgence of animal rights motivated violence by ALF (U.S. Senate 2004). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) formed in 1980 by Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco with about 20 members, boasts over 2 million members worldwide and prides itself as being the largest animal rights organization (Liddick 2006; PETA 2008). While PETA members may not engage in activities deemed as radical as other groups, they do serve as the public relations firm for the ALF and actively support criminal actions in the name of animal rights. In fact, PETA posts daily action alerts on their website publicizing particular businesses and corporations and frequently, they are targeted by the ALF. PETA also educates individuals about animal rights and abuse in seminars across the country, provides funding for ALF members charged with crimes, and assists in advertising and lobbying efforts (Liddick 2006). ALF in turn, often

documents their attacks with video footage that is then posted on PETAs website. The symbiotic relationship between ALF and PETA is a unique one, in which both groups tend to benefit and draw attention to their causes. In the past decade, there has been much speculation and debate over the relationship between the ALF and ELF. Some scholars argue that there is an overlap in membership of both groups because they share similar philosophies and agree with the means to employ them (Leader and Probst 2003). In 1993, a communiqu issued by ELF

35

announced unity with ALF, and since then there has been a similar escalation of attacks on both ends. In fact, PETA has also indirectly supported criminal activity by ELF members and provided them with funding (Liddick 2006). To date, no one has been killed as a result of criminal activities undertaken by members of groups like ALF and ELF in the United States; however in the past, if these groups were not successful in achieving their goals, they resorted to deadlier means until changes occurred (Mobley 2002). A case in point: In May 2002, an animal rights activist shot and killed Pim Fortuyn, then candidate for Prime Minister of the Netherlands (Southern Poverty Law Center 2002). This escalation in radical and violent tactics carried out by groups in the United States, now targeting individuals rather than corporations, suggests that only more serious threats posed by animal rights and radical environmental groups loom on the horizon. Both Singer (1990) and Regan (2004) have expressed that the actions and means in which they are carried out by members of the ALF and similar groups are not representative of the animal liberation movement, as they are only detracting from the progress that has been made. Furthermore they emphasize that with the increasing intensity of attacks made by these radicals, it will likely result in the death of an individual. Regan (2004) argued that in some cases violence may be justified, however it is only after all non-violent alternatives have been exhausted and when it will serve to rescue animals from a life of cruelty and suffering. Singer (1990, xii-xiii) sums up his view on groups like the ALF: It would be a tragic mistake if even a small section of the Animal Liberation movement were to attempt to achieve its objectives by hurting people. Some believe that people who make animals suffer deserve to have suffering inflicted upon them. I dont believe in vengeance; but even if I did it would be a damaging distraction from our task 36

of stopping the suffering. To do that, we must change the minds of reasonable people in our society. We may be convinced that a person who is abusing animals is entirely callous and insensitive; but we lower ourselves to that level if we physically harm or threaten physical harm to that person. Violence can only breed more violence a clich, but one that can be seen as tragically true in half a dozen conflicts around the world. The strength of the case for Animal Liberation is its ethical commitment; we occupy the high moral ground and to abandon it is to play into the hands of those who oppose us. 2.6 Tracing Domestic Terrorism Policy After the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, there was an increased amount of attention focused on the drafting of laws and related counterterrorism policy initiatives used to strengthen domestic critical infrastructure, improve interagency cooperation and sharing of information related to homeland security, and apprehend individuals engaging in terrorist activities and aid in conviction. This legislative emphasis began with the controversial Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of October 2001. The PATRIOT Act marked the beginning of an era where the definition of terrorism has been broadened, namely as it related to the law. According to the PATRIOT Act (2001, 106) acts of domestic terrorism include those which: (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and 37

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States (USA PATRIOT Act 2001). Five years later, amidst a time of escalated actions carried out by members of radical environmental and animal rights groups against research entities, businesses, and specific individuals in the United States, came the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) which was signed into law in November 2006. When the AETA arrived, it was estimated that between 1995 and 2005 over 1,100 actions constituting over $110 million in damages were perpetrated by just the ALF and ELF on American soil (U.S. Senate 2005). The AETA adopts a more narrow definition of terrorism compared to the

PATRIOT Act, instead focusing efforts on actions related to animal enterprises, or entities, both academic and commercial, who are involved in the use of or sale of animals (or animal products). This includes but is not limited to the following: pet stores, zoos, aquariums, fairs, circuses, and other activities directly related to animal testing, education, research, and agriculture. To be in violation of the AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act 2006, 2) applies to anyone who: (A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise; (B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct

38

involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or (C) conspires or attempts to do so (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act 2006). Animal enterprise terrorism was initially addressed in the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) of 1992, which set out to protect animal enterprises from physical disruption loosely inferred to mean destruction caused by property damage in excess of $10,000 (Animal Enterprise Protection Act 1992). If convicted of an offense under this law, an individual may face a fine or imprisonment for up to one year. However, under section (b) aggravated offense in the AEPA, those who carry out actions that result in death or serious bodily injury are held to much harsher penalties of fines and imprisonment for ten years to life, and confinement for up to ten years, respectively. Under the AETA, penalties for those found guilty of an offense are much stiffer than that of the AEPA. One exception is if an individual commits an act or shows evidence to commit an act that does not result in death, serious injury, economic damage, or economic damage that does not exceed $10,000, where the fine is the same as that of an offense under the AEPA. However, if an individual carries out an act that results in economic damages totaling between $10,000 and $100,000 and no bodily injury is incurred, a fine or punishment of up to five years in prison is possible. Actions resulting in serious bodily injury (likely death) or economic damages exceeding $1 million, offenders may face up to twenty years in prison. Lastly, if under any circumstances an individual loses his/her life as a result of an action, a life sentence may be invoked.

39

Although the AETA was passed into law at a time when we had begun experiencing increased activity of radical environmental and animal rights extremists in the United States, (and despite that some may argue that the situation is now getting worse) many scholars felt that the terrorism label was misapplied to these individuals who engage in acts of ecotage (Vanderheiden 2005; 2008; Johnson 2007; Miller et al. 2008; Smith 2008; Hadley 2009; Sorenson 2009). The majority of academics who argue that individuals wrongly convicted of being ecoterrorists under the AETA justify themselves in doing so because there have not yet been any fatalities as a result of incidents committed by these radical extremists in the United States. Further, there is confusion over the choice of language and lack of terminology included in the AETA. For example, Johnson (2007) notes that the AETA fails to define what it means to interfere with and damage animal enterprises. Others go on to suggest that although property damage or the destruction of inanimate objects is, without a doubt, criminal in nature, it is not terrorism (Vanderheiden 2005; 2008; Sorenson 2009). Some scholars argue that while radical environmental and animal rights extremists do not target civilians in their actions, their motive lacks the inspiration of fear among the public that is present in any true act of terrorism (Miller et al. 2008, 112). Arthur Rosenbaum, Edythe London, Dario Ringach, and David Feldham are just a few individuals who are likely to disagree with this statement, as they were all specifically targeted by animal rights extremists as a result of research that is being conducted at the University of California campuses. Dario Ringach, a neurobiology

professor at UCLA, has since stopped his research on primates as a result of actions taken by animal rights extremists to harass and intimidate Ringach and his family (Epstein

40

2006). As more and more researchers choose to hang up their lab coats for fear of being harmed by animal extremists, the animal rights movement is gaining momentum and some argue that with these victories they may consider resorting to even more extreme tactics to draw attention to their cause. The University of California system has witnessed an increase in both the frequency and intensity of activities carried out by animal rights extremists in the past decade. This was cause for the passing of a new act, the Researcher Protection Act or Assembly Bill 2296 that was signed by the Governor in September 2008 and signaled that the UC community would no longer tolerate these actions (University of California 2008). Because it is not covered under the First Amendment, this act sets out to provide protection of individual researchers and their family members at their personal residences by putting forth a misdemeanor trespass law. It also endorses a misdemeanor for the publishing of any information regarding an academic researcher and his/her family members and the physical location of these individuals, as this may be used by animal rights extremists to threaten, harass, and/or carry out violent acts at personal residences. Lastly, the term academic researcher is not limited to professors at the University of California campuses, but also includes students and other employees that are engaged in research in these areas. In a similar vein, Utah recently passed Senate Bill 113 which keeps the names, addresses, and phone numbers of animal researchers at state colleges and universities hidden from the public. Incidents targeting researchers and professors at the University of Utah and Brigham Young University, have escalated in recent years and have prompted the passing of legislation protecting researchers at their personal residences.

41

The bill however, was met with opposition from members of groups like Utah Primate Freedom, which has been known for their tactics employed to harass researchers and vandalize their personal property (McConkie 2008). With the enacting of legislation that addresses the risks associated with taking positions where research is being conducted on animals, it is not long before other areas begin to follow in the footsteps of trailblazers like California and Utah to ensure the protection of employees. 2.7 Spatial Point Patterns Inherently, geographers are concerned with spatial patterns of phenomena, whether they be points, lines, or areas and attempt to make sense of those distributions. To do this, hypotheses are often developed about those map patterns from existing theories to determine the extent of spatial changes shaped by political, social, and economic forces. Getis and Boots (1978) refer to these spatial features of change as spatial processes which can be viewed as tendencies to group together (cluster) in space or spread (diffusion) in space. Spatial point patterns can be defined as a set of locations within a study area where distinguishing events or attributes have been identified (Gatrell et al. 1996). Spatial point pattern analysis can be classified into two main types: distance-based techniques and area-based techniques (Haggett et al. 1977). Distance-based techniques characterized the pattern by utilizing information on spacing between points, whereas area-based methods depend on characteristics of the number of points in delineated subregions of the study area. Ripley (1977) also refers to this as quadrat counts. Spatial processes can also be described in terms of first-order and second-order properties (Gatrell et al. 1996). While first-order properties refer to the spatial variation

42

of the expected value of interest, second-order properties express the correlation between expected values at different locations in geographic space. First-order properties are

often expressed in terms of intensity and second-order properties can be thought of as spatial dependence (Diggle 1983). Bartlett (1963; 1964) is credited with being the first to analyze spatial point patterns, and proposed a method for studying patterns based on two-dimensional spectra. The advantage of using a spectrum lies in the ability to develop a number of tests at multiple scales (Getis 1983; Getis and Franklin 1987). The development of second-order theory can be attributed to the fact that there is no single comprehensive measurement from one point to another to adequately summarize a spatial point pattern dataset (Ripley 1976; 1977; 1979; Getis 1983).The ultimate goal is to determine a cumulative distribution function based on all distances between pairs of objects which represents the total covariation in set of spatial points (Getis 1983, 74). The applications of second-order theory and associated methods are numerous. Getis (1983) used second-order methods to examine the population distribution in Chicago Census tracts. In an extension of existing work on second-order analysis of spatial point patterns (Ripley 1977; Diggle 1983; Getis 1984), Getis and Franklin (1987) proposed a technique known as second-order neighborhood analysis to calculate clusters of ponderosa pine trees in Northern Californias Klamath National Forest. In the late 1980s and early1990s, there was much interest in the development of methodologies to investigate the increased incidences of disease cases within close proximity to environmental pollution sources (Cook-Mozaffari et al. 1989; Diggle 1990; Diggle and Rowlingson 1994). Diggle (1990) proposed an inhomogeneous Poisson point

43

process model to examine the spatial variation in larynx cancer in Lancashire, England and a formerly used incinerator. In an extension of that work, Diggle and Rowlingson (1994, 433) developed a conditional approach to inference which converts the point process model to a non-linear regression model for the spatial variation in risk. The application was then launched to examine the spatial distribution of asthma and three industrial plant locations in North Derbyshire, UK. Cluster detection methods emerged as early as the 1960s and are still very prominent in the literature today (Knox 1963; Mantel 1967; Knox 1984; Openshaw 1987; Diggle et al. 1995; Jacquez 1996; Kulldorff et al. 2005). This is not meant to be an exhaustive account of all cluster detection methods, but simply a brief description of the more influential works. For a more detailed discussion of the different types of cluster detection methods, please see Chapter 3. Openshaw et al.s (1987) Geographical

Analysis Machine (GAM) for descriptive cluster detection became the basis for the spatial scan statistic, however it is not capable of hypotheses testing. Knox (1963; 1984) was the first to put forth quantitative research on space-time clustering, proposing a significance test, and applying it to a case study of childhood leukemia cases in northeastern England. Diggle et al. (1995) builds off that of Knox (1963; 1984) with the use of second-order analysis to estimate space-time interaction in spatial process data. Space-time interaction in their work (or space-time clustering) is estimated as a function of both spatial and temporal separation. 2.8 Summary It is clear that gaps exist in studies of domestic terrorism and geographic analyses of terrorism. The majority of work is limited to that of political geographers at smaller 44

scales and GIS analyses of terrorist incidents internationally (Sidaway 1994; Ettlinger and Bosco 2004; Kliot and Charney 2006; Guo, Liao, and Morgan 2007). This

dissertation will examine the history of domestic ecoterrorism to isolate potential causes for this shift to more intense actions at specific points in time and space. Although

various underlying ideologies and philosophies have served to found, motivate, and recruit ecoterrorist groups, it is evident that there has been a trend toward more extreme tactics over the past two decades and there has not been any intention to temper actions. The passing of new legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) targeting these groups only reinforces this trend.

45

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this dissertation was completed in four main phases. The first phase involved the collection of data from a variety of sources to enable the construction of the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) for cities in the United States. Second, the incidents were mapped in a Geographic Information System (GIS) and the variables were examined through spatial analysis. In the third stage, a ChiSquare analysis was undertaken to determine if any relationships exist between the different variables within the CED (e.g. geography and attack type, geography and weapon type, time and group type, etc.). Finally, the incidents were input into the SaTScan program where a retrospective space-time permutation scan statistic was employed to determine where terrorism is clustered in both time and space. 3.1 Study Area The study area chosen for this analysis is the United States. While the majority of ecoterrorist groups e.g. Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) were born in parts of Western Europe, namely the United Kingdom, and still remain quite active in their homelands (Leader and Probst 1996; Eagan 2003; Flukiger 2009), qualitative research has suggested that these groups have not only established themselves in the United States but are also committing acts at an 46

overwhelmingly alarming rate (Joose 2007). Not only are these attacks more frequent domestically, but there has been a shift in the nature of targets these groups are perpetrating acts against. Yet there are still very limited works on ecoterrorism in the United States. Although some of the same radical groups have claimed responsibility for actions in Canada, they were excluded from this analysis because the underlying ideologies may be different for groups committing acts there as opposed to the United States. The United States also serves as an appropriate study area because federal law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies alike have placed more emphasis on domestic threats of homegrown terrorism following defining events like the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. While terrorist activity globally is a major concern, and will remain as such for years to come, the need has been demonstrated for more assessments to be undertaken on threats of a domestic nature. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report on April 7, 2009 on rightwing extremism, just three days after three police officers were gunned down by a right-wing motivated individual outside Pittsburgh, PA (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2009). This report identified potential precursors for increased levels of right-wing violence in the U.S. which include but are not limited to the following: push for same-sex marriage, economic recession, the election of our first African American president, bans on firearms, and proposed mandatory registration of firearms in some areas.

47

3.2 3.2.1

Database Design and Construction Data Sources and Collection A variety of data sources were combined and utilized to form a single,

comprehensive database of ecoterrorism incidents for this analysis. The enumeration unit for the database is the city. The first source is the Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorisms (START) Global Terrorism Databases 1 and 2 (GTD1 and GTD2) (LaFree and Dugan 2007; LaFree et al. 2006), an open source database. The

GTD is currently the only open source database of its kind that includes incidents of a domestic nature. There are currently 1,425 terrorist incidents recorded for the United States from 1970 to 2004. One limitation associated with the GTD is the spotty coverage of ecoterrorism incidents in the United States. To resolve this issue, a number of ancillary data sources were used to enhance the spatial and temporal coverage of ecoterrorist events within the CED. The FBIs Terrorism in the United States reports served as an additional source to compliment the GTD. The North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO) provided direct action reports detailing any criminal actions taken by animal rights groups and/or activists in the United States from 2004 to 2008. These reports contain the following information: target institution, date, group responsible, and more information (communiqus, photos, and press releases). The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), and the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) were used extensively. The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) provided a

comprehensive chronology containing acts perpetrated by groups from 1983 to the present. The National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) and the Foundation 48

for Biomedical Research (FBR), respectively provided illegal incident reports detailing actions taken by animal rights groups in the United States. The NABR report contains more recent incidents while the FBR report dates back to 1981. The North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office (NAELFPO) provided a diary of actions committed by radical environmentalists. Similarly, direct action reports from Bite Back Magazine, a publication that documents current activities in the ALF and related groups was also used. Finally, historic print media were utilized via online news databases such as Lexis-Nexis and New York Times where various keyword combinations (e.g. ELF, ALF, terrorism, radical environmental) were used to yield the most meaningful search results. The variety of selected sources of ecoterrorism information ensured

temporal consistency within the database and allowed for the verification of information between sources. After drawing from the sources listed above, the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED), was produced and records the following information for each ecoterrorist event: the location of each incident, target type, name of the perpetrator or terrorist group, attack type, date of incident, specific target, and weapon type (see table 3.1). The incidents were then geocoded to the city level for mapping purposes, spatial, and descriptive analyses.

49

Table 3.1 List of Variables Used in Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) General Category Geographic Location

Specific Variable

City (Name), State (Abbreviation), Latitude and Longitude Animal Exploitation, Auto Industry, Banking, Construction Site, Education and Research, Farm, Government, Hospital, Housing, Leather and Fur Industries, Meat Industry, Mining and Drilling Industry, Other, Outdoor Recreation, Private Individuals & Property, Restaurant and Food Services, Retail, Timber, Utilities Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth First! Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Paint Panthers, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), Vegan Revolution, Washington Tree Improvement Association Animal Liberation, Arson, Assault, Bombing, Chemical Attack, Harassment, Sabotage, Theft, Threat, Tree Spiking, Vandalism Year, Month, Day McDonalds, Pacific Nissan Dealership, Strathmore Furs Inc. University of California Lab, Wachovia Bank, etc. Chemical agent, Explosives, Fire or Firebomb, Firearm, Knives & Sharp Objects, Other, Paint, Tree Spikes, Unknown, Wire Cutters

Target Type

Group or Perpetrator Name Attack Type Incident Date Specific Target Weapon Type 3.2.2

Variable Selection and Categorization After all of the data were collected, it was necessary to assign categories for each

variable. A target type was assigned after careful analysis of the specific event and its impact. The target type was the most challenging, as it was difficult to strike a balance between over generalizing and becoming too specific to warrant the categories useless in assessing trends. However, in some cases where too few records were classified as one category (e.g. Mining & Drilling Industry), they were combined to the Other category to meet the assumptions of the Chi-Square Test for Independence. 50

Within the Target Type variable (see Table 3.1), there were twenty different categories. Animal Exploitation refers to any enterprise where animals are used for the purposes of entertainment, or sold to individuals at which time they become their personal property. Circuses, zoos, and pet shops fall within this category. Auto Industry refers to car dealerships, and thus does not include the personal vehicles of private individuals. Construction sites include any area regardless of its purpose, where the equipment and actual site was the objective of the act. Education and Research includes academic institutions and associated properties, as well as scholarly researchers that are targeted on their affiliated campuses. Farms are those areas where animals are housed and raised for a particular human benefit (fur, meat, eggs). Government refers to any federal, state, or county-owned facility or property, which includes but is not limited to animal shelters, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) offices, and the Mexican Consulate. Hospitals are those businesses which primarily aim to treat the sick and/or injured. Housing refers to structures that are selected for attacks because of materials used, size, and location. The majority of these homes are mansions located in newly built subdivisions in sprawling environments. Leather and Fur Industry targets are businesses that are selected for buying and/or selling fur and leather products, or have direct ties to this industry. The Meat Industry includes butcher shops, slaughter houses, and any entities that are directly involved with the manufacturing, distribution, transport, and sale of meat products. The Mining and Drilling Industry encompasses both companies that engage in this kind of work, as well as equipment to perform mining and drilling of oil and other products. Outdoor Recreation includes businesses and entities (e.g. golf courses, ski

51

resorts) whose sole purpose is to provide individuals with an opportunity for relaxation and entertainment. Private Individuals and Property refers to individuals that are targeted at their personal property, away from their business or professional affiliation. It also encompasses private companies. This category includes academic researchers that are attacked at their homes. Restaurant and Food Industry contains businesses (e.g. Hickory House BBQ, McDonalds) that specialize in serving food to the general public, as well as companies that transport and vend food products. Retail includes those businesses (Saks Fifth Avenue, Wal-Mart), that sell a variety of goods and services. Timber encompasses logging companies and equipment, in addition to trees that are the target of a timber sale on forested lands. Utilities refer to power generating stations, plants, towers, and power lines. Finally, all remaining targets that cannot be applied to any of the above related categories are classified as Other. Group name and perpetrator information were also collected for the CED. This records the name of the individual or group who claimed responsibility for the action. While it has been suggested that some groups like the Animal Rights Militia (ARM), are actually members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) organization, and that they carry out actions under the ARM label because they are deemed too violent for the ALF philosophy; for the purposes of this database, I will not differentiate between these groups. If the action was claimed under the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) banner, however the individuals were found, charged, and convicted, the individuals responsible are listed in the database.

52

The Attack Type variable is limited to the following categorizations: Animal Liberation, Arson, Assault, Bombing, Chemical Attack, Harassment, Sabotage, Theft, Threat, Tree Spiking, Vandalism. Animal Liberation refers to any act where the sole purpose is to release or free animals from a facility. Arson attacks are those which aim to destroy to damage a structure or entity by setting fire to it. Assault involves acts where the primary purpose is to injure or cause harm to an individual. Bombings are acts designed to cause damage or harm by detonating an explosive device. Chemical attacks involve use of a chemical agent, such as acid to damage property. Harassment refers to persistent acts aimed to irritate or anger an individual. It is also implied that these acts are repetitive, often targeting the same individuals a number of times in order to get them to stop performing research on animals or cutting ties with companies that perform tests on animals (SHAC). Sabotage includes actions that result in the intentional damage and disruption of something to where it will be unable to function properly. Theft includes acts where the primary aim is to steal ones personal property. Threats are any declaration of ones intent to harm an individual, whether it is in verbal or written form. Tree spiking, like the name indicates, are actions designed to prevent the sale of timber in forested areas by plunging spikes into the trees. These do not harm the trees, but can harm loggers that hit these spikes with their chainsaws. Finally, vandalism refers to acts that result in

intentional damage and destruction of property. The majority of the Weapon Type variable categories are self explanatory, with the exception of Other weapons. Other weapons include anything that was used to carry out an act that does not warrant their own category. These may encompass things like

53

bricks, nails, glue, gum, sand, tar, sugar, and concrete. Most of the time these kinds of weapons are used in acts of vandalism. 3.3 Cluster Detection Maps are unique tools that provide us with the means for geographic visualization, and allow one to quickly identify spatial patterns of phenomena. Typically, these patterns in the data show variation, which can be referred to as expressing regularity, randomness, or clustering (Pfeiffer et al. 2008). Spatial cluster detection, not to be confused with cluster analysis, is defined as locating areas in space where some measured quantity is higher than expected (Neill and Moore 2006). In addition, cluster detection identifies local hot spots without any predetermined assumptions about the

locations of where they may occur (Besag and Newell 1991). Used for many years by epidemiologists and public health professionals interested in disease surveillance, spatial cluster detection aims to accomplish two objectives: (1) identifying where in space possible emerging disease clusters are as well as their shape and size; and (2) determining if a cluster is due to a true epidemic or random chance in the cases. The term cluster detection is reserved for local analyses which serve to identify areas that warrant further investigation, where the term clustering refers to global analyses. Besag and Newell (1991) grouped the different approaches for testing clusters into one of two categories: specific (local) and non-specific (global). While non-specific (global) tests aim to assess if clustering of a phenomena exists throughout a geographic area of interest, it does not pinpoint where in space those clusters are (Lawson 2001; Pfeiffer et al. 2008). However, these tests do assign a statistic that provides a measure of the degree of spatial clustering (departure from spatial randomness) and corresponding 54

significance. Specific (local) tests, however, provide both the location and size of the clusters. Specific tests can be further classified into non-focused and focused tests. Nonfocused tests locate all clusters within a study area, whereas focused tests center on one or more regions where the expectation for clustering is higher based on prior knowledge. For example, a focused test would investigate if there was an elevated risk of cancer around a pre-selected source, like a nuclear power plant or noxious chemical facility, because it is a factor that has been suggested to be associated with it previously (Besag and Newell 1991). For the purposes of this dissertation, a local, non-focused test is utilized to detect clusters in both time and space, which provides the location and size of all clusters within the study area. More specifically, a scan statistic is employed which aims to identify the most significant region in the United States with regard to ecoterrorist activity, and also provides a series of secondary clusters and their associated statistical significance. 3.4 The Space-Time Scan Statistic Put forth by Kulldorff et al. (1998), the space-time scan statistic is an extension of the spatial scan statistic, just one of many methods for spatial cluster detection. The space-time scan statistic has been widely used in epidemiology, public health, and disease surveillance, however in recent years has been extended to applications in forestry, ecology, criminology, mortality, pesticide exposure, veterinary medicine, and disaster recovery (Norstrom et al. 2000; Smith et al. 2000, Viel et al. 2000; Carpenter 2001; Ward 2001; Ward 2002; Coulston and Ritters 2003; Knuesel et al. 2003; Sauders et al. 2003; Sudakin et al. 2003; Kleinman et al. 2004; Nkoma et al. 2004; Sheehan et al. 2004; Kleinman et al. 2005; Kleinman, et al. 2005; Sheehan and DeChello 2005; Sheridan et al. 55

2005; Jones et al. 2006; Lian et al. 2007; Recuenco et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2008; Carrel et al. 2009; Siebeneck et al. 2009; Sugumaran et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2009; Stevenson et al. 2010). The scan statistic, whether it be purely spatial, purely temporal, or space-time, can be classified as one of two types of analysis: prospective or retrospective. Prospective analyses, most often used in the early detection of disease clusters, are replicated for every time period (typically these are over a series of days). In this sense, only the clusters that are still active at the present time are of interest. Clusters that have already emerged and disappeared are not of concern. The retrospective analysis, however, uses historic data to detect clusters for a predetermined geographic area and time period regardless of how far back in time they occurred. In other words, this type of analysis will detect clusters that have come and gone, as well as those that have persisted over time (Neill and Moore 2006). The use of a retrospective space-time permutation scan statistic was chosen for this analysis because it requires only data detailing the spatial location and time for each case, thus it estimates the expected occurrences of ecoterrorism not on a background atrisk population but on case data alone (Pfeiffer et al. 2008). The SaTScan software for the spatial, temporal, and space-time scan statistics was utilized to perform this spatial and temporal cluster analysis (Kulldorff and Information Management Services, Inc. 2009). Other probability models were considered for this analysis like the Poisson and Bernoulli models; however, given the constraints with the data set the space-time permutation model proved to be the best technique. The Poisson model requires population counts in addition to the cases and geographical coordinates. However, there were major

uncertainties about how to define population counts for the data set being used here, as

56

population size or density was not particularly relevant. There was also the issue of data availability due to the scale of the analysis. The Bernoulli model was not chosen because these data are not binary, and therefore do not allow for cases and controls to be accurately represented for each geographical location. The space-time scan statistic in SaTScan is defined by a cylinder with a circular base and a height, which correspond to the geographic location and time period of the data, respectively. The cylinder then passes through time and space visiting each location and time period in the data, and a series of overlapping clusters are generated. In this analysis, SaTScan was set to scan for clusters with high rates of ecoterrorist incidents, so the likelihood ratio or alternative hypothesis was that for each geographic location, there is a higher risk of ecoterrorism inside the window, rather than outside (or in all other locations) (Kulldorff and Information Management Services, Inc. 2009). The likelihood function for the space-time permutation model is the same as the Poisson probability model and can be represented as:

where C is the total number of cases, c is the number of observed cases within the scanning window and E[c] is the covariate adjusted number of expected cases within the scanning window under the null hypothesis. Because the analysis is based on the total number of observed cases, C-E[c] is the number of expected cases outside the scanning window. I() is an indicator function which is equal to 1 when the scanning window has more cases than is expected under the null-hypothesis, and 0 otherwise, and is set to scan only for clusters with high rates of activity (Kulldorff 2009).

57

For Monte-Carlo hypothesis testing, the SaTScan program generates a number of replications, defined by the user. According to the program, the test statistic is then calculated for each random replication as well as for the real data set, and if the latter is among the 5 percent highest, then the test is significant at the 0.05 level (Kulldorff 2006, 40). Because this process is very computer intensive and time consuming, Monte-Carlo replications were set at 999, rather than 1999 or 9999 to generate the clusters. The number of replications chosen does affect the strength of the test; with more replications in the data, the higher the power of the test. For smaller p-values it is better to have a stronger test, however when the p-values are large it is not necessary and can reduce the amount of computing time. There is an option in SaTScan that allows the user to terminate the analysis early for large p-values (e.g. 0.8456, 0.9234). If this is selected, SaTScan will finish after just 99 replications when p exceeds 0.5, after 199 replications when p exceeds 0.4, after 499 replications when p exceeds 0.2 and after 999 replications when p 0.1. If it passes through all of these without stopping early, it will run the full length of the Monte Carlo replications that the user specified in the beginning. For this dissertation the option was selected to terminate the analysis for large p-values in the interest of saving time. As previously discussed, the space-time permutation model is based on a Poisson distribution to generate a maximum likelihood ratio test statistic and associated p-value obtained through the Monte Carlo hypothesis testing (Kulldorff 1999). The retrospective space-time analysis only required information on the cases (incidents) thus the incidents were not normalized by population. However, the space-time permutation model was the best choice for this dissertation in terms of data requirements and their associated

58

assumptions, yet it still must be mentioned that there is a possibility for the introduction of population shift bias in the results obtained with SaTScan. Further discussion of these implications is provided in Chapter 6 (Limitations). The logic behind this model is that the number of observed cases within a cluster is compared to the number of expected cases that would exhibit independence in both time and space (Kulldorff 1997; Kulldorff et al. 2005b). Independence is defined here as meaning no interaction spatially and temporally. Thus, a cluster occurs in a specific geographical location if during a particular time period, that location has either higher or lower numbers of cases than the surrounding locations. Like the space-time scan statistic, several methods have been put forth that test for interaction in both time and space (Knox 1964; Mantel 1967; Diggle et al. 1995; Baker 1996; Jaacquez 1996; Kulldorff and Hjalmars 1999). However, these tests cannot

determine the location and size of the clusters, nor test the statistical significance of them, whereas the space-time permutation scan statistic can (Kulldorff and Information Management Services, Inc. 2009). Results of this analysis confirm whether ecoterrorism is in fact clustered in time and space. Further, it determines if clusters are represented solely by incidents

perpetrated by radical environmental or animal rights activists, or a combination of the two groups. If clusters are represented by both groups, it may suggest that there is an overlap in the geography of ecoterrorism (activity spaces) in the United States. In other words, this could be indicative of a relationship between animal rights and radical environmental groups.

59

3.5 3.5.1

SaTScan Space-Time Permutation Model The data requirements for the space-time permutation model are limited to two

files: a case file and a coordinates file (see Figure 3.1). The case file records the following information: location id, the number of cases for the specific location, time (years, months, days, etc.), and an attribute or covariate (optional). The coordinates file records the geographic coordinates for each location id in the associated case file, in either latitude and longitude or Cartesian coordinates per SaTScans requirements. Latitude and longitude, in decimal degrees were used for the coordinates file in this dissertation. Despite the fact that the coordinates are specified in latitude and longitude, they are not projected. Rather, when the analyses are performed in SaTScan it draws circles on the earths surface (Kulldorff and Information Management Services, Inc. 2009). In addition, because a space-time analysis is the method used, temporal

information must be defined in both the study period and time precision boxes, respectively, on the Input tab, specified in years, months, or days. The records in the case file should fall between the dates specified for the beginning and end of the study period. If the temporal information in the case file differs from the specified time precision, there will be an error. The control and population inputs are not of interest, because neither the Bernoulli or Poisson models are relevant to this analysis.

60

Figure 3.1 SaTScan Input Data Requirements Once the analysis is complete, the output is generated in five separate dBase files: standard results, cluster information, stratified cluster information, location information, and simulated test statistics. The location information file is the output that may be imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS) and visualized spatially and thus is the most useful of the outputs. It contains but is not limited to providing the following information about each cluster: location identifie identifier, r, assigned cluster number, p-value p of the cluster, observed cases in the cluster, expected cases in the cluster, and observed/expected cases in the cluster. 3.5.2 Sensitivity of Parameters Although the SaTScan program has some data requirements that must mus be met which vary depending on the kind of analysis being undert undertaken aken (e.g. purely spatial, purely temporal, space-time), there are options available that give the user some

61

flexibility in the analysis. The maximum spatial cluster size is one of the parameters that can be adjusted. SaTScan will search for clusters of spatial size ranging from zero to an upper limit that is defined by the user. SaTScans recommended maximum spatial cluster size specifies the upper limit as 50% percent of the population at risk. When calculating the percentage for the space-time permutation model, SaTScan uses the population defined by the cases file (Kulldorff 2009). Chen et al. (2008) used the spatial scan statistic within SaTScan to detect clusters of cervical cancer mortality in the United States, and highlighted two issues with the program. One is directly related to the fact that although SaTScan provides a series of comprehensive outputs after performing an analysis, it lacks any additional cartographic support or visual interface that allows the user to see the identified clusters in time and space thus making it less useful. Instead, the user must take the text output and import it into a Geographic Information System (GIS) which is both time consuming and does not allow for the examination and comparison of results based on changing parameters. Secondly, they performed a series of analyses experimenting with the parameter choices related to cluster scaling (maximum spatial cluster size) and found that it is very sensitive to changes, however there is no advisement in the program for making such selections. Chen et al. (2008) address the first problem by proposing a geovisual analytics approach implemented using the Visual Inquiry Toolkit (VIT), thus enabling the user to strike a balance between the analytical power of the spatial scan statistic and enhanced interactive visualization methods. Chen et al. (2008) suggest that in order to address the second issue related to the sensitivity and possible instability of the SaTScan clusters, the user must run SaTScan

62

multiple times experimenting with changing maximum spatial cluster sizes. There is no recommended number of times that this should be done, but their analysis demonstrated that by running fifty tests, increasing the maximum spatial cluster sizes by 1% each time, the clusters varied significantly. The VIT further allows for a subset of results to be selected and reliability scores calculated and then mapped (reliability visualization). This last step enables one to differentiate between stable and unstable clusters. Recognizing that there is no optimal maximum spatial cluster size, despite the recommended 50% of cases, this dissertation takes into account Chen et al.s (2008) suggestions and runs multiple tests in SaTScan experimenting with changing parameters. The maximum spatial window sizes were set at 5%, 25%, and 50% of cases respectively, to serve as a comparative analysis. Although Chen and colleagues focused their work on the spatial scan statistic within SaTScan, their methodology can be implemented with the extension, the space-time scan statistic. Unfortunately, the Visual Inquiry Toolkit, a product developed by scholars at Penn State Universitys GeoVISTA Center, has not yet been released to the general public so the clusters detected with SaTScan were visualized in ArcGIS. 3.6 Spatial Autocorrelation For this dissertation, the SaTScan software for the spatial, temporal, and spacetime scan statistics was used to not only detect clusters of ecoterrorist activity but also to determine the presence of spatial autocorrelation in the data. As Kulldorff (2006, 76) notes, to be clear, it tests whether there is spatial auto correlation or other divergences from the null hypothesis. In this sense it is equivalent to a statistical test for normality, which does not assume that the data is normally distributed but tests whether it is. If I 63

was simply interested in the existence of spatial autocorrelation in my data and did not wish to perform a cluster detection test, I would not use SaTScan. In this case, I would prefer to use a spatial autocorrelation test with a higher power than a space-time scan statistic (Morans I, Getis, etc). The space-time scan statistic is best used for the

detection of the location of clusters and their respective statistical significance (Kulldorff 2006). The retrospective-space time scan statistic assumes a null hypothesis of complete spatial and temporal randomness. The alternative hypothesis is that there are clusters due to an increased risk or some other underlying factors. Again as Kulldorff (2006, 10) states, the space-time permutation model automatically adjusts for both purely spatial and purely temporal clusters. Hence there are no purely temporal or purely spatial versions of this model. As mentioned previously, SaTScan does not assume that the data are normally distributed, but rather tests if it is. 3.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence In addition to the cluster detection test employed by the SaTScan, which provided information on high rates of ecoterrorism in time and space in the United States, it is important to explore the other attributes that were collected and compiled in the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED). The Chi-Square Test for Independence, commonly used in the social sciences, was selected as an appropriate measure in this dissertation because it is a nonparametric test that evaluates the relationship between two independent nominal measures (Kiess 1996; Kurtz 1999). For this reason, observations were grouped into various categories. The data also were in frequencies, as opposed to

64

percentages.

Because it is a nonparametric test, Chi-Square does not make any

assumptions about the distribution of the variables in question. The Chi-Square Test was applied in this study to determine if any relationships exist between multiple variables including the following: geography and attack type, geography and target type, target type and attack type, time and target type, and time and attack type. A contingency or cross tabulation table is used which show the frequencies associated with each category in corresponding rows and columns, as one is interested in determining if the distribution of one variable is in fact, contingent on another, or if they are entirely independent (Kiess 1996). A Chi-Square Test statistic ( ) is generated by using the observed and expected frequencies and is proportional to the following equation: x

O E E

where O and E are equal to the observed and expected frequencies associated with each row and column, respectively, and r is equal to the number of categories of the row variable, and c is equal to the number of ranks of the columns variable (Kiess 1996). The Chi-Square Test was carried out in IBMs Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), where contingency tables were generated along with a Pearson r-Square value and associated significance level for each test. Lastly, it should be noted that the number of observations (ecoterrorist incidents) included in the test have a large enough sample so that no expected frequency fell below five in a contingency table that is larger than 2 X 2 (Kachigan 1986; Kiess 1996). Five is the minimum expected cell frequency and the only assumption for the Chi-Square Test of Independence.

65

3.8

Summary The methods used for this study were a combination of visual, descriptive, and

statistical. A Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) was constructed using data from a variety of existing sources. Spatial analyses and visualization were enabled by mapping the variables descriptively in a Geographic Information System (GIS). SaTScan served as the program that provided an in-depth cluster detection test: a retrospective space-time permutation scan statistic. After clusters were detected and analyzed to determine what, if any, significant activities were going on at the local level in areas with elevated risks of ecoterrorism, a Chi-Square Test for Independence was carried out to determine if any associations exist between the different variables within the CED, or if in fact, they exhibit independence.

66

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS: SPATIOTEMPORAL TRENDS AND CHI-SQUARE The results of this analysis are presented in the next two chapters. examines the first two research questions. This chapter

The spatial and temporal trends in the

Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED), as well as the specific variables of interest in the study area are presented first. Next, the results of the Chi-Square Test for

Independence will be introduced and discussed. 4.1 Temporal Trends A total of 728 ecoterrorist incidents were recorded in the CED from 1977 to 2008. Ecoterrorism in the United States shows a pattern that began to increase in the early 1980s, spiked in the late 1980s, declined in the early 1990s, and continued to rise and fall for the duration of the study period (see Figure 4.1). However, the late 1990s and early 2000s witnessed the most cases per year than other years in the data set. In terms of decadal trends, the number of ecoterrorism incidents perpetrated in the United States peaked in the 2000s with over 336 actions committed through November 2008. There were only two actions that were recorded during the 1970s. The first animal rights action in the United States was perpetrated in 1977 by two individuals, Steve Sipman and Kenny Levasseur, who claimed responsibility for releasing two female bottlenose dolphins from the University of Hawaiis Marine Research Facility in Honolulu, under the name, the Undersea Railroad. Two years later marked the first 67

appearance of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in the United States. Animal rights extremists disguised as hospital workers freed a cat, dogs, and guinea pigs from the New York University (NYU) Medical Center in New York City.
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Incidents Linear (Incidents)

Figure 4.1: Frequency of Ecoterrorism in the U.S., 1977-2008 While there has much been debate among law enforcement and government officials on whether or not ecoterrorism has been increasing in the United States, results suggest an increase in activity until the mid 1980s, followed by an alternating period of peaks and precipitous drops in activity. Activity peaked in 2000 and has been in decline since then. The overall trend line is increasing. However, in examining the temporal

pattern during the last decade, the question that remains to be answered is if in fact, the United States is experiencing less frequent acts of ecoterrorism, but are groups instead resorting to increasingly more violent tactics? This will be further explored in the later sections discussing weapon type, attack type, and target type.

68

4.2

Questions One and Two: Geographies of Ecoterrorist Incidents The first research question asked: To what extent does ecoterrorism vary in

geography, targets, and methods of attack in the United States? Descriptive analyses were used to answer this research question. The second research question asked: What prompted this change in strategies of ecoterrorist groups in the United States and how has this change influenced the method of attack employed by these groups? Target type and group are proxies for strategy and ideology, while methods are proxies for attack type and weapon type. This also can be addressed throughout the following sections examining descriptive trends. During the period 1977 to 2008, the majority of ecoterrorist incidents are concentrated in larger urban centers along the West coast and parts of the North East corridor, respectively (Figure 4.2). Every state had at least one ecoterrorist event, with the exception of Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, and West Virginia. It is somewhat surprising that Davis, California tops the list of the most incidents of ecoterrorism in the United States with over 16 incidents occurring during the study period. There were no documented actions until 1985, at which time events targeted Education and Research. The majority of actions took place in the 1990s, and was aimed at Education and Research, namely the University of California-Davis property as well as researchers. The only incident in 2000 targeted Private Individuals and Property. There were no additional incidents documented beyond 2000 to the present. New York City (Manhattan) and Chicago had the second and third highest totals, with 15 incidents, respectively during the study period. To avoid confusion, the incident totals are for the cities themselves, and not the entire metropolitan area. The first incident

69

70 Figure 4.2: Spatial Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents by Location, 1977-2008

in 1979 in New York targeted a hospital, in 1989 a high school, and in the 1990s the majority of actions were directed at retailers and the fur and leather industry. In the 2000s incidents were aimed at private individuals and property, and the last incident recorded was in 2002. During the 1980s, there was an overall decline in activity in New York. With the exception of two incidents in the 2000s, all ecoterrorist incidents that occurred in Chicago took place in the 1990s against retailers, private citizens and property, and the leather and fur industry. recorded in the late 2000s. A total of 13 incidents were carried out in Salt Lake City during the thirty-one year period. Restaurants, meat, fur, and leather industries were the most popular targets from the early 1990s through the early 2000s, while there were no documented incidents in the 1980s. San Francisco witnessed 12 ecoterrorist incidents that favored retail and education and research targets throughout the early 1990s and 2000s. Los Angeles, on the other hand, experienced 12 actions, all of which were aimed at private individuals and property during the mid to late 2000s, with the exception of one event in 1985. Back towards the East Coast, Syracuse experienced 10 incidents, all of which occurred during the 1990s. These acts were perpetrated against a variety of targets including the meat, fur and leather industries, and restaurants. In some cases, the same target was hit more than once during the designated time period. Similarly, 10 incidents took place in Seattle during the 1990s and early 2000s against the meat industry, education and research, and farms. Interestingly, in San Jose during 1987 and 1988, 10 ecoterrorist incidents targeted the meat industry and one restaurant. There were no incidents recorded for any other Unlike New York City, incidents were

71

years for the specified study period. Lastly, San Diego experienced 10 actions directed at housing, private citizens and property, auto, and meat industries. One incident occurred in the late 1980s, declined until the mid-1990s, and then dropped again until 2001 where activity remained steady through 2005. Each of the top ten cities discussed above have varying spatial and temporal characteristics, yet they only account for 17% of the ecoterrorist incidents in the United States from 1970 through 2008. There is a significant amount of activity that occurred in the Northeast corridor, particularly in places like Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Bethesda, and Boston. In the 1980s, ecoterrorists favored education and research

institutions in Philadelphia and retailers and government targets in our nations capital. There is also a unique geography to ecoterrorism in the Southwestern United States, where places like Tucson, Phoenix, Austin, and Albuquerque experienced frequent amounts of activity. In Arizona, there was much outrage among radical

environmentalists over the construction of luxury homes in sprawling developments during the early 2000s. In 2007, restaurants in Austin, Texas found themselves in a local battle between animal rights extremists over their decisions to serve veal and foie gras dishes to customers. Similarly, fast food restaurants in New Mexico in 2003 were selected by animal rights groups and resulted in severe damages to both the interior and exterior of the structures. In addition, the actions served to instill fear in the employees working for these restaurants. One of the most interesting patterns indicates that there is a tendency for ecoterrorist incidents to be both geographically and temporally dispersed, as opposed to simply concentrating in a few major urban centers in the United States. In the majority of

72

these locations, ecoterrorist groups targeted everyday places of business like fast food restaurants and retailers. This provides support for the idea that terrorists commit actions that seek to exploit the everyday. Further examination of the target types, attack types, weapon types, and groups committing actions will provide information that will assist in answering the first research question addressing the evolution of ecoterrorism. 4.3 Target Type The target types of ecoterrorist incidents in the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) are classified as one of nineteen different categories (Table 4.1). The incidents that could not be classified as any other target type were lumped into the Other category. Over 71% of all ecoterrorist incidents in the database target private individuals and property, education and research, farms, leather and fur industry, restaurant and food industry, and the meat industry. The highest numbers of incidents are aimed at private individuals and property. When this is examined by decade, it shows that activity remained steady throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, and nearly tripled in the late 1990s and 2000s. In the late 1970s, only two incidents were documented which represented education and research and hospitals, respectively. The late 1970s to mid 1980s

experienced over 66% of incidents directed at education and research, the leather and fur industry, and private individuals and property. Colleges and universities as well as private biomedical research firms that engaged in animal testing, individuals affiliated with private laboratories, and stores that specialized in fur sales were popular targets throughout this decade. Groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which

accounted for 75% of all actions throughout this decade, favored universities and 73

hospitals like the University of Pennsylvania and National Naval Medical Center, respectively, while radical environmental groups like Earth First! and the Hardesty Avengers took actions against the timber and nuclear power industries. With the

exception of five cities including Philadelphia and Wilton (Calif.), all ecoterrorist actions witnessed only one incident per location and were dispersed in areas primarily along the East and West Coasts in the United States. Table 4.1: Decadal Trends in Target Type
Percentage of incidents in each decade Target type Private Individuals & Property Education & Research Farm Leather & Fur Industry Restaurant & Food Industry Meat Industry Housing Retail Government Other Timber Outdoor Recreation Auto Industry Construction Site Hospital Animal Exploitation Bank Utilities Mining & Drilling Industry TOTAL 1977-1986 16.67 33.33 8.33 16.67 0 0 0 0 2.78 0 2.78 0 0 0 13.88 2.78 0 2.78 0 36 1987-1996 11.06 7.79 8.65 18.27 11.54 16.35 0 13.94 2.88 4.33 0.96 0.96 0 0 0.96 0.96 0 1.44 0 208 1997-2008 28.10 12.81 11.16 5.37 8.47 4.13 8.68 1.24 3.72 2.48 3.30 2.69 2.89 2.69 0 0.41 1.03 0.21 0.62 484 Total Number of Incidents 165 90 75 70 65 54 42 35 25 21 19 15 14 13 7 5 5 5 3 728

Ecoterrorist incidents in the late 1980s to late 1990s more than tripled from the previous decade, and while private individuals and property and education and research, remained preferred targets by groups, there was a decline in each of these targets. Over 71% of actions carried out during this decade were directed at the leather and fur

74

industry, the meat industry, retail, restaurant and food industry, and private individuals and property. Actions targeting education and research were directed primarily at

institutional property at lab facilities and research buildings at colleges and universities like Northwestern, University of California at Berkeley, and Utah State University. Meat, restaurant, and retail targets more than doubled from 1987 to 1996 from the previous decade, with more actions seeking out butcher shops, veal, beef, and poultry companies, high end retailers such as Saks-Jandel and Neiman Marcus, and fast food restaurants like McDonalds by animal rights extremists, which was the most common restaurant in that category during this time period. There was an abrupt drop in actions targeting hospitals, education and research during this decade, but slight increases in farms and government targets. The decade spanning from 1997 to 2008 had the highest frequency of incidents perpetrated than any other decade with over 52% of ecoterrorist incidents targeting private individuals and property, education and research, and farms. However, there was a steep drop in leather and fur targets, with an all time decade low of just over 5% of actions. Within private individuals and property, the majority of citizens targeted are selected because of their affiliation with a particular company, educational institution, or government services. One of the most common trends within this target type is the repeated attacks on professors and researchers at their homes and against their personal property, where for example firebombs were left on the doorsteps of UCLA professor, Edythe London, or placed under the car of UCLA professor Arthur Rosenbaum, who was the target of five attacks in the summer of 2007. Other interesting trends within private individuals and property include actions perpetrated against employees of Wachovia

75

Securities, Carr Securities, Marsh Inc., Seaboard Securities, the Chiron Corporation, and Forest Laboratories, all of which share some kind of affiliation with the UK-based Huntingdon Life Sciences. HLS performs tests on animals, especially monkeys and dogs, which involve forcing these animals to ingest drugs and pharmaceuticals to ensure that they are safe for humans. These companies find themselves targeted because they are supporters of HLS, either as HLS customers or suppliers. Customers are those

companies that allot a portion of their income to HLS to perform tests on animals using their products. Suppliers include companies that provide and transport medical

equipment, office equipment, and in some cases, even the animals used for testing. The majority of actions carried out against these HLS supporters is done by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Throughout this decade, housing targets became very popular with over 8% of actions directed at luxury homes, mansions, apartment complexes and condominiums being built in new subdivisions after the clearing of forested lands. It is not surprising then that nearly all the incidents aimed at housing are perpetrated by radical environmental groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Members of these groups are strongly opposed to actions that contribute to urban sprawl and development of our natural, pristine environments. Actions targeting timber spiked during the late 1990s and 2000s unlike the previous decade, with environmental extremists nailing spikes into trees to prevent timber sales, and setting fire to and sabotaging logging equipment in places like Washington and Oregon. Banks also proved to be a target in this decade as opposed to others, when a series of actions were carried out against several Bank of New York branches in Long Island in 2001. The acts were committed by members of the Earth

76

Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in efforts that massive economic damages will dissuade them from further management of American Depository Receipts belonging to Huntingdon Life Sciences (Pickering 2007, 32). This is just one example of how a rather indirect association with HLS can make one a target of these groups. The auto industry and construction sites were also preferred targets among ecoterrorist groups in this decade. Actions were carried out by members of the ELF against car dealerships, mostly SUVs, in the early part of the 2000s. Some involved vandalizing the vehicles for sale with spray paint and knives, while others used more extreme tactics like arson to set fire to multiple vehicles on site. Construction sites also proved popular in the early 2000s with the vandalism and arson of equipment and the partly developed structures. Unlike previous decades, the period from 1997 to 2008 experienced a sharp drop in actions targeting the leather and fur and meat industries, retail, hospitals, animal exploitation, and utilities. Because of the large number of incidents, for visualization purposes, only the top six target types were mapped and each map can be found in the Appendix. Private individuals and property are concentrated in cities along the East and West Coasts, respectively. California and Oregon represented nearly half of all incidents in the

database targeting private individuals and property with actions carried out against researchers and professors, and biomedical research and pharmaceutical companies like Novartis. Perhaps the most publicized actions to occur that target private individuals and property are those directed towards faculty members at the University of California campuses, including Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, Davis, San Francisco and Berkeley

77

(Figure 4.3). This is just one of the shifts that help to explain the changing behavior of ecoterrorist groups within the United States. The discussion on attack type will provide further evidence of this trend. While the West Coast does show lots of actions aimed at private individuals and property, there is a rather geographically dispersed trend with actions carried out in parts of the Mid-West, Southwest, Southeast, and Northeastern states. In a lot of cases these actions are not carried out in major urban centers but are in rural areas in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Indiana and Washington. Larger numbers of incidents however did occur in New York, Plymouth (WI), Richmond, Fair Oaks, Alamogordo, Santa Fe, and Los Angeles. Ecoterrorist incidents targeting education and research were also geographically dispersed for the study period. California did experience the largest number of incidents, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s on university campuses. However, there were also

significant amounts of activity at Harvard and Emory Universitys Primate Research Centers in Southborough and Atlanta, respectively. The University of Pennsylvania, Washington State, and University of Wisconsin campuses and professors were also targeted more than once during the 31 year period. One of the most significant

ecoterrorist incidents took place in October 1999 when a group called the Justice Department claimed responsibility for sending out over eighty razor blade laced envelopes to professors and researchers that use primates for experiments on AIDs vaccines, cancer, and other diseases. The Justice Department is an animal rights group that was formed in the United Kingdom in 1993, and later began committing actions in the United States and Canada against researchers, animal suppliers, furriers, and hunters. These letters were intercepted all over the United States including educational institutions

78

79 Figure 4.3: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in California by Target Type, 1977 - 2008

in Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, New Mexico, and Alabama. It is also interesting that while the majority of activity targeted colleges and universities, there were a few incidents where animal rights extremists carried out actions against high schools that were using animals for testing in biology courses and related activities. These actions took place in both Pennsylvania and New York during the designated time period. Similarly, ecoterrorist actions targeting farms during the study period were spatially dispersed with large amounts of activity occurring in the rural Midwest. Mink farms remained the most popular target in this category with groups claiming responsibility for actions in Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. In several cases, animal rights extremists targeted the same farm more than once to liberate the animals being housed on site. These actions resulted in the loss of thousands and even millions of dollars in fur and meat that the owners would be responsible for absorbing. However, there were also farms that raised rabbits, horses, chickens, quail, calves, fox, and exotic birds that were selected by ecoterrorist groups. Ecoterrorist groups targeted the leather and fur industry in locations up and down the East and West Coasts, respectively. The Northeastern corridor, especially, Washington D.C., Bethesda,

experienced higher numbers of incidents (Figure 4.4).

McLean, and Philadelphia stores that sold fur products found their store fronts vandalized by members of groups like the Paint Panthers and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) from the early 1980s throughout the mid 1990s. New Jersey and New York experienced the majority of incidents aimed at fur shops during the 1990s and 2000s.

80

81 Figure 4.4: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the Northeast by Target Type, 1977 - 2008

Utah was targeted for both fur and leather during the 1990s and 2000s, with shops that sell these items being targeted in Salt Lake City and Sandy as well as the Utah Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative, which was hit three times in 1996 and 1997. Fur and leather retailers in Florida, Tennessee, and North Carolina were also vandalized during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. The fifth most popular target type among ecoterrorist groups is the restaurant and food industry which has an array of activity nationwide. Larger numbers of incidents took place in Washington, Texas, California, and New York. Over 65% of incidents were perpetrated by fast food restaurants with McDonalds being most popular, as well as Burger King, Arbys, and Taco Bell. However, smaller family owned establishments were also targeted in places like Jensen Beach, Florida and Cicero, New York. In most cases, groups like the ELF and ALF defaced the storefronts of property and interiors with spray paint, broke windows, and glued locks. Gluing locks is a tactic employed by these groups because when someone attempts to unlock the door, the key breaks off and requires the locks to be replaced. Finally, the meat industry was targeted in California, where nearly half of the incidents classified as such took place against poultry companies, butcher shops, veal and beef processing plants, slaughterhouses, and delivery trucks in San Jose, Petaluma, and San Diego. Significant amounts of activity also occurred in Washington, Utah, New York, and Minnesota. Several companies were targeted multiple times including but not limited to Oneonta Beef Inc. in Syracuse, Rancho Veal in Petaluma, Honey Baked Ham in Salt Lake City, and Meat Distributors Co. in Kirkland, Washington.

82

Overall, ecoterrorist groups appear to favor targets discussed above across the United States, and while there are concentrations of activity in larger urban cities, it does not explain the larger variations in incidents over time and space. There are rural locations that appear to experience significant amounts of activity over time, especially those associated with farms in parts of the Mid-West. This is interesting because the public typically associates ecoterrorist activity with major cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, and New York. Rarely do they consider that places like Plymouth, Wisconsin and Hinsdale, Massachusetts are ripe for ecoterrorist activity. Regional variations in incidents also pop up with education and research, private individuals and property, and the leather and fur industry. It is clear that some of these groups are undergoing an evolution where individuals are being targeted more than previous decades, and there is more of a threat associated with the possibility of physical harm as opposed to general property destruction. 4.4 Attack Type Attacks are categorized as one of eleven different typologies for all incidents in the database (Table 4.2). Over 83% of ecoterrorist incidents are acts of vandalism, arson, or animal liberation. Vandalism is the most popular form of attack throughout the designated time period, with a slight decline in the late 1970s and mid1980s. Vandalism is one of the easiest forms of attack for ecoterrorists, when carried out covertly and has the potential to cause a lot of economic damage to a particular business, structure, or property. Compared to other forms of attack types, when individuals commit an act of vandalism, it does not require any kind of sophisticated weapons or equipment. Typically household items like glue, gum, nails, bricks, and paint will suffice. This 83

particular attack type may appeal to members of these organizations that want to minimize the risk of being caught by law enforcement officers. Furthermore, they may be more readily accepting of the punishment associated with vandalism than that of arson or bombings, which is much harsher because of the possible endangerment of human lives. This attack type is geographically dispersed with large amounts of activity

occurring along the East and West Coasts, as well in as the Mid-West, Great Plains, Southwest, and Southeast. Table 4.2: Decadal Trends in Attack Type
Percentage of incidents in each decade Attack type Vandalism Arson Animal Liberation Threat Bombing Sabotage Harassment Tree Spiking Assault Chemical Attack Theft TOTAL 1977-1986 38.89 0 52.77 2.78 0 2.78 0 2.78 0 0 0 36 1987-1996 58.18 21.63 13.46 0 4.33 1.44 0 0.48 0 0.48 0 208 1997-2008 39.88 24.38 13.84 8.26 3.31 4.34 2.48 1.24 1.24 0.62 0.41 484 Total Number of Incidents 328 163 114 41 25 25 12 8 6 4 2 728

Animal liberations, in combination with vandalism, account for over 90% of all attacks perpetrated by ecoterrorists in the study area in the late 1970s and mid1980s. Ecoterrorists perpetrated acts of vandalism against leather and fur shops, private individuals and property, education and research, and animal exploitation targets during the time period 1977 to 1986. Animal liberations, the dominant attack type during this decade, were carried out by groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Band of Mercy, and Urban Gorillas at colleges and universities, animal shelters, hospitals, laboratories, and farms throughout California, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. 84

In 1985, Dr. A.R. Moosa, chief of surgery at the University of California-San Diego, received a death threat by members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF, claiming that action would be taken against him if an experimental surgical technique was performed on animals at a medical seminar the following week. Sabotage and tree spiking were

also popular among radical environmentalists like Earth First! and the Hardesty Avengers. In 1986, members of Earth First! claimed responsibility for short circuiting high voltage power lines at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona. Willamette National Forest witnessed an act of ecoterrorism when in 1984 the Rotor sale, a 35 acre parcel of Douglas firs to be cleared, had metal spikes plunged into them by a group calling themselves the Hardesty Avengers. Similarly in the late 1980s and 1990s, acts of vandalism, arson, and animal liberations, were the most preferred methods of attack among ecoterrorist groups. However, arson, bombings, and chemical attacks emerged from being relatively nonexistent in the 1980s to accounting for over 26% of actions carried out in this decade. Bombings largely targeted meat and poultry companies, leather retailers, and individuals like U.S. Forest Service Officers and Earth First! member, Judi Bari at various locations across the United States. The majority of actions were directed at the private individuals and property, retail, restaurant and food, leather and fur, and meat industries during this decade. Windows would be smashed out of businesses, tires slashed on vehicles, glass etching fluid placed on windows, graffiti spray painted on store fronts and associated property, and locks glued as a means of expressing group members frustrations with a particular issue or issues. Arson as an attack type skyrocketed from no actions

85

committed in the previous decade, and groups began targeting meat, leather, and fur industries, retail, and education and research, as well as government and farm entities. Over half of all animal liberation actions spanning the years 1987 to 1996 were aimed at farms that raised mink, rabbits, birds, and fox. The majority of these actions

took place across the West in California, Utah, and Washington with more frequent actions also occurring in parts of the Mid-Atlantic and Mid-West (Figure 4.5). An interesting pattern was revealed with sabotage in the late 1980s, when a radical environmental group, the Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy (EMETIC), opposed to industries they believed to be damaging the environment perpetrated acts against ski resorts and the nuclear power industry like Fairfield Snow Bowl and Energy Fuels Nuclear in Arizona. These actions included the destruction of ski lifts at Snow Bowl, which local Indians claimed was built on sacred land and power lines at the Canyon Uranium Mine (Kushner 2003). All of the acts were carried out over a two year period in 1987 and 1988 across the state of Arizona. Shortly thereafter, an FBI member infiltrated the group and linked former Earth Firster, Dave Foreman to EMETIC, where he was found responsible for donating money to fund the operations and instructing members on how to carry out acts of property destruction against the selected targets (Kushner 2003). Chemical attacks emerged in the latter half of 1996, with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) using acids to damage and destroy the property of an unlikely target: Boys Town USA. Damages at the Boys Town USA office in Ovieda, Florida were estimated

at over $10,000 for broken windows, destroying a van, and pouring acid in and around the office. In a letter claiming responsibility, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) warned

86

that more actions would follow. Medical research undertaken at the Boys Town Hospital in Omaha, Nebraska had been an issue of concern for animal rights extremists at this time. In fact, one month earlier, PETAs undercover investigation of the hospital

revealed the mistreatment of animals at the facility and sparked much controversy with the National Institute of Health and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) both issuing reports stating that Boys Town USA was in violation of the Animal Welfare Act (Kolata 1998). In the last decade (1997-2008), over 78% of ecoterrorist incidents perpetrated were classified as acts of vandalism, arson, and animal liberation. Over half of the acts involving vandalism in this decade were aimed at private individuals and property and restaurants and the food industry. The homes and personal property of HLS supporters, animal services personnel, and restaurant owners found themselves within the crosshairs of animal rights extremists. Other notable targets included outdoor recreation (golf courses in Nebraska), leather, fur, and meat industries, construction sites, and education and research. Arson increased from the previous decade, with more incidents targeting housing by radical environmental groups like the ELF in Washington, Michigan, California, Arizona, and New York. Some mink farms that were previously targeted for animal liberations were set on fire in the Western states, and lumber companies in parts of the Pacific Northwest were destroyed by ALF and ELF members, respectively.

87

88 Figure 4.5: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the Midwest by Attack Type, 1977-2008

Animal liberations during this decade were directed at farms where mink, deer, quail, and fox were raised throughout the United States. Iowa experienced eleven animal releases from farms and a university-owned research facility in the late 1990s to the mid 2000s. Colleges and universities as well as biomedical research companies witnessed the release of animals used for experiments from laboratories and affiliated facilities in the Northeast, Mid-West, and West Coast. The use of threats as an attack type escalated in the late 1990s and 2000s, with over 77% of these acts attributed to the Justice Department in their 1999 letter campaign against primate researchers at various educational institutions across the United States. However nearly all threats were aimed at educators and private individuals and property in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. Arthur Rosenbaum was repeatedly threatened with suspicious packages, letters, and postcards sent to his Los Angeles home by animal rights extremists. In 2006, the Animal Rights Militia (ARM) declared that they poisoned bottles of POM Wonderful pomegranate juice in supermarkets and retailers across the United States. The Wild Oats Market, a target, in Boulder, CO then removed these products from their shelves to ensure the safety of the public. POM Wonderful was targeted because they perform testing on animals to show the advantages of drinking their juice; however they announced in January 2008 that they ceased testing their products on animals, and have no plans in the future to resume. Sabotage attacks increased in the late 1990s and carried into the 2000s with groups targeting genetic engineering, in addition to timber, restaurants, farms, and the auto industry in California, Hawaii, and New York. These actions included the destruction of experimental crops like beets, walnut trees, and melons in university

89

owned field plots by groups like Reclaim the Seeds, Future Farmers, Seeds of Resistance, and California Croppers in California and Maine. Bombings slightly decreased from the previous decade, the majority of which were carried out up and down the West Coast. Private individuals and property like the Los Angeles Animal Services manager and the Shaklee Headquarters in California were selected by animal rights extremists. Harassment reached an all time high in this decade, with UCLA researchers and employees of the Chiron Corp., Marsh Inc., and HLS targeted in California, Texas, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. Most of these actions were carried out by members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and involved overturning an individuals car in their driveway, banging on doors and windows, and burning an effigy of a researcher outside his home. Throughout the early 2000s, tree spiking was carried out by radical environmentalists in forest stands in Washington, Oregon, and Indiana in order to deter loggers from cutting them down. Assaults emerged after being nonexistent in previous decades, and it is evident that ecoterrorist groups are not embracing their philosophy of avoiding the physical harm of individuals. One incident in Santa Cruz in February 2008 illustrated that very point. A UC-Santa Cruz researchers home was invaded by six masked individuals during his daughters birthday party, when one family member was attacked. When the researcher confronted the individuals, he was physically injured by an object thrown at his head. These are the kinds of acts that not only lead people to question the real intention behind these attacks, but also instill fear in individuals and their family members as a result of professional career choices. It is clear that in this

90

decade, more lines are being crossed and ecoterrorists are becoming increasingly more aggressive in their tactics. Theft is an attack type that one may not associate with ecoterrorism, however there were two incidents that occurred in 2005. In May 2005, the wife of Chuck Ryan, director of Forest Laboratories, was targeted by ALF members. Forest Laboratories is a firm that has ties to HLS. Group members followed Ms. Ryan to Stony Brook University where she left her car unattended, and individuals stole over $20,000 in travelers checks that were written out to numerous charitable organizations. In July, Plum Creek Timber Company in Maine was broken into and computers and files were stolen by an unknown individual. This was at the same time when a development proposal for the Moosehead Lake region was met with much opposition by individuals residing in the area. 4.5 Weapon Type Paint, fire or firebombs, and unknown weapons are the most preferred by ecoterrorists in the United States throughout the designated time period (Table 4.2). Paint remained one of the most desirable weapons employed throughout the first decade (1977-1986), the top weapon in the late 1980s and mid1990s, and dropped in the last decade (1997-2008). This is largely used in incidents of vandalism, where the aim is to deface structures with threatening messages targeting fur, leather and meat industries, as well as companies that perform research on animals. Typically, groups like the ALF and ELF use spray paint as their calling card, where their names are signed to claim an action as their own, or spray painted banners are left behind on luxury homes like in Snohomish, Washington in 2004. Their trademark is often left behind regardless of whether the action was arson, a bombing, or vandalism. These groups take great pride in claiming 91

actions, and making the public aware of issues they fight for (e.g. deforestation, sprawl, and animal rights). Geographically, ecoterrorist incidents that employ the use of paint are found along the West Coast with California, Oregon, and Washington experiencing significant amounts of activity, as well parts of the Mid-West, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest throughout the study period. The use of paint is also widely used in major cities like New York, Charlotte, Washington D.C., Memphis, Austin, and Salt Lake City acting against a combination of fur, leather, meat, and restaurant targets. Unknown weapons were the most common weapon type from 1977 to 1986, dropped abruptly in the second decade, and increased throughout the late 1990s and 2000s. These ecoterrorist incidents are classified as such because there is no evidence of what was used in the attack. The majority of attacks in which weapons are unknown are animal liberations and vandalism. In most cases, there is very little evidence as to how animal rights extremists get into farms and associated facilities to release the animals of interest. Unknown weapons are evenly dispersed across the United States with activity in parts of the Southwest, Great Plains, Southeast, and East and West Coasts. Table 4.3: Decadal Trends in Weapon Type
Percentage of incidents in each decade Weapon type Paint Unknown Fire or firebomb Other Knives & Sharp Objects Explosives Firearm Tree Spikes Wire Cutters Chemical Agent TOTAL 1977-1986 13.89 63.88 0 13.89 0 0 2.78 2.78 2.78 0 36 1987-1996 44.71 16.83 22.61 3.85 2.40 2.88 3.84 0.48 1.92 0.48 208 1997-2008 18.60 25.83 23.14 16.94 9.30 3.92 0 1.24 0.21 0.83 484 Total Number of Incidents 188 183 159 95 50 25 9 8 6 5 728

92

Fire or firebombs were not employed by ecoterrorist groups until 1987 and represented about 22% of weapons used in the second decade, and slightly rose to over 23% in the late 1990s and 2000s, respectively. Obviously, these are used as weapons in carrying out acts of arson or bombings, where the sole purpose of the act is to start a fire. Ecoterrorist groups that employed the use of fire or firebombs were regionally concentrated in some areas throughout the Pacific Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, and Mid-West. However, there was firebomb activity in Alabama, Colorado, and Wyoming during the thirty-one year period. Firebombs were also concentrated in major urban centers like Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Phoenix, Tucson, and Bloomington. Ecoterrorists favored the use of other weapons from 1977 to 1986, it dropped in the next decade, and more than tripled in the late 1990s and 2000s. Largely, other weapons are used in acts of vandalism where things like gum, glue, bricks, etching fluid, paper clips, and nails are used to cause economic damage to structures and property. Harassment and threats also use other weapons like letters and suspicious packages. Additionally, there were some bombings that used smoke bombs, as opposed to traditional explosives, which are designed to emit dense clouds of smoke upon being detonated. Acts of assault and sabotage also fell within the category of other weapons, where individuals were physically injured and experimental plants were trampled and destroyed. Ecoterrorist actions preferring the use of other weapons were spread out along the East Coast in New York, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and West Coast in California, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Nevada. Knives and sharp objects were popular among ecoterrorist groups in the late 1990s and 2000s, more so than in any other decade. In the late 1990s, razor blades were

93

sent out to various researchers in threatening letters. Tires were slashed on SUVs and construction equipment, fur and leather merchandise were damaged, and experimental crops were cut down by groups opposed to genetic engineering. Incidents where

ecoterrorists used knives and sharp objects were spatially dispersed, with more frequent actions occurring in Wisconsin, Georgia, New Mexico, California, and Massachusetts. Actions using explosives over the past three decades remained relatively minor in comparison to other weapons. Explosive devices were detonated either by an internal timing mechanism set by the perpetrator or on impact in bombing attacks largely throughout the last two decades (1987-1996 and 1997-2008). Interestingly, there is a unique geography to ecoterrorist incidents using this weapon with regional concentrations in the Southwest (California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah), as well as in a few other areas dispersed across the United States. However, they are not shown on the maps (in Appendix) because they do not fall within the top five attack categories. Attacks using firearms were extremely popular in the mid and late 1980s and virtually nonexistent during the last decade. With the exception of one incident, all actions that utilized firearms were vandalism aimed at Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Most of these actions used pellet guns to shoot out windows in various fur and leather shops. The remaining incident involved a gun that ALF members used to threaten Dr. Moosa, chief of Surgery at the University of California at San Diego in 1985. The remaining weapon types: tree spikes, wire cutters, and chemical agents involved fewer numbers of actions throughout the designated time period. Tree spikes were plunged into trees in forests throughout the Pacific Northwest, and parts of the Midwest and Southeast. Acids and chemicals like butyric acid and chlorine were used to

94

contaminate laboratories and destroy research documents in Iowa, New Jersey, Florida, and along the West Coast. Wire cutters were used in animal liberation actions to free animals from cages and enclosures, as well as in vandalism that involved cutting away parts of fences to access the structure or property being targeted. Actions using these weapons were limited to the Western and Northeastern United States.

4.6

Group or Perpetrator Type A general group classification was imposed on the incidents in the database to

better visualize the geographic trends in group philosophies and ideologies.

The

classification scheme consisted of the following categories: Animal Rights, Radical Environmental, Both Animal Rights and Radical Environmentalists, Other, and Unknown. Groups classified as other involve those who commit actions on behalf of issues related to the opposition of nuclear power, biotechnology, and genetic engineering. Examples include the Nuclear Liberation Front (NLF), Dusty Desperadoes, Anarchist Golfing Association, and the Strawberry Liberation Front (SLF). Unknown perpetrators or groups were classified as such because there was no identifying information available to assign a particular ideology for the action committed. In some cases, there was a name which claimed responsibility for the action or were later charged by law enforcement officers, however there was no information available that would warrant classification in a more precise group category. Over half of all ecoterrorism incidents in the database were perpetrated by members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF), either individually or collectively (Table 4.4). This makes sense because they are the two most active ecoterrorist groups in the United States, as per the Federal Bureau of 95

Investigations (FBI) designation. Both of these groups preferred methods of attack are arson and vandalism. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), Justice Department, and Paint Panthers are other animal rights groups that have become active and claimed responsibility for actions in the United States throughout the study period. SHAC

members have launched campaigns of intimidation and harassment against HLS supporters in the last decade, which came to a head with the indictment of the SHAC-7 in March 2006. The Paint Panthers are a group that claimed responsibility for the

vandalism of fur and leather businesses throughout the United States. Their preferred method of attack was paint bombing stores, hence the name of the group. Surprisingly, with the exception of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), there were not any other groups that were responsible for large numbers of actions in the name of the environment. Reclaim the Seeds did commit several actions to protest the experimentation with genetically engineered crops on University of California-owned sites in the later 1990s and early 2000s. Table 4.4: Frequency of Incidents by Group or Perpetrator Type Group or Perpetrator Name Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Unknown Earth Liberation Front (ELF) Other Individuals* Justice Department Paint Panthers Animal Liberation Front (ALF) & Earth Liberation Front (ELF) (Joint Action) Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) Reclaim the Seeds No. of Incidents 255 177 120 56 41 31 18 13 % of Incidents 35.03 24.31 16.48 7.69 5.63 4.26 2.47 1.79

12 1.65 5 0.69 728 100% *The names of the individuals who have been convicted of committing acts of ecoterrorism are listed in the CED. However, they were combined into one category, Individuals, for the purposes of assessing the general trends in groups and perpetrators. 96

Animal rights motivated terrorist incidents are geographically dispersed throughout the United States, with regional concentrations in the Pacific Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Mid-West. More frequent actions were carried out by animal rights extremists in larger cities like Chicago, Davis, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, San Jose, New York, and Portland. Popular groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Justice Department were responsible for actions in these areas, as well as lesser known groups like the Paint Panthers, Animal Rights Militia (ARM), Animal Liberation Brigade (ALB), Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates, Socialist Committee for the Protection of Animals, and Vegan Revolution. The majority of targets in the urban areas of the Pacific Northwest were education and research and private individuals and property, whereas in the Midwestern and Northeastern cities, actions were aimed at retail, fur and leather industries, and private individuals and property. Incidents carried out by radical environmental groups have a distinct geography in the Pacific Northwest, especially Oregon and Washington. However, actions also

occurred in the Southwest, and parts of the Mid-West and Northeast. Phoenix, San Diego, Fair Oaks, Richmond, and Long Island experienced large numbers of attacks by environmentally motivated groups, with actions ranging from the vandalism of SUVs to tree spiking in timber stands on forested lands to setting fire to newly constructed luxury homes within new or expanding subdivisions. By and large the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for the majority of actions that were carried out during the designated time period, as stated above. However, groups like Earth First!, Revenge of the Trees (ROTT), Hardesty Avengers, Greenpeace, and the Evan Mecham Eco-Terrorist

97

International Conspiracy did perpetrate attacks throughout the time period across the United States. While it is clear that there is some overlap in activity spaces of radical environmental and animal rights oriented groups and that in recent years, actions have been carried out in solidarity, there are over 16% of ecoterrorist incidents in the database that cannot be assigned an ideology. These unknown terrorist events take place all over the United States, from North Carolina and Oklahoma to New York and Texas. Larger numbers of attacks by unknown persons were carried out against restaurants, auto dealerships leather and fur shops, retailers and education and research entities in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Bethesda, Washington D.C., Tucson, Austin, and Memphis. 4.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Results As previously noted, the Chi-Square Test was used in this dissertation to determine if independence exists between several categorical variables including time and space and numerous variables (attack type, group type, weapon type, target type) and target type and attack type, group type and attack type, and target type and group type. It must be mentioned that the original categories were collapsed into new categories (e.g. target type, group type, attack type, target type, decade, and region) in order to prevent any violations associated with minimum cell size requirements. In each test, it ensures that each cell has at least 5 observations. It must be mentioned that the geographic region category was modeled after the four U.S. Census regions. 4.7.1 Decade and Ecoterrorist Incident Attributes There were five variables or attributes of ecoterrorist incidents that were individually tested against decade to confirm if any significant associations exist. 98

Because there were only 36 incidents within the decade spanning 1977 to 1986, it was removed from this analysis due to violations in the minimum cell size. Therefore, only the last two decades are of interest in this test. Of the five variables, including target type and group type (strategy proxies), and attack type and weapon type (methods proxies), and region, all yielded significance at the .05 level. These will be discussed in detail beginning with attack type. The Cramers V was also included to indicate the degree of association with 0 being weak and 1 being a strong association. Table 4.5 shows the relationship between decade (time) and attack type based on the contingency table and Pearsons Chi-Square Test Statistic. The results of the cross tabulation indicate that violent attacks like arson do in fact, increase over time. Animal liberations were much more prevalent from 1997 to 2008 than in the previous decade. Vandalism, the dominant attack type overall however, remained relatively stable, peaking from 1997 to 2008. Arson attacks more than doubled in 1997 to 2008, from the previous decade. Other attacks represented the least frequent attack type from 1987 to 1996 but increased dramatically in the last decade. The Pearson Chi-Square value indicated that a significant association, although weak exists between decade and attack type.

99

Table 4.5: Cross Tabulation of Decade and Attack Type

Attack Vandalism Arson Decade 1987 - 1996 Count % within Decade % of Total 1997 - 2008 Count % within Decade % of Total Total Count % within Decade % of Total 121 17.5% 193 45 6.5% 118 58.2% 21.6% Animal Liberation 28 13.5% 4.0% 67 Other 14 6.7% 2.0% 106 Total 208 100.0% 30.1% 484 100.0% 69.9% 692 100.0% 100.0%

39.9% 24.4% 27.9% 17.1% 314 163 45.4% 23.6% 45.4% 23.6%

13.8% 21.9% 9.7% 15.3% 95 120 13.7% 17.3% 13.7% 17.3%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 30.521 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .210

Another significant association was found with decade and ecoterrorist group type (Table 4.6). Animal rights groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Stop

Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), and the Justice Department represented the highest number of incidents perpetrated in both decades. From 1987 to 1996 alone, animal rights groups were responsible for over 61% of all ecoterrorist incidents committed. In fact, radical environmental and other groups (e.g. anti-biotechnology and genetic engineering) carried out the least number of actions in this decade only to dramatically increase with the number of actions perpetrated in from 1997 to 2008. A statistically significant association (.000) was found between decade and group type, with animal rights extremists and groups being very different from radical environmentalists and other groups, and unknown perpetrators or groups.

100

Table 4.6: Cross Tabulation of Decade and Ecoterrorist Group Type

Group Animal Rights Decade 1987 - 1996 Count % within Decade % of Total 1997 - 2008 Count % within Decade % of Total Total Count % within Decade % of Total 127 61.1% 18.4% 206 42.6% 29.8% 333 48.1% 48.1% Radical Environmental and Other 12 5.8% 1.7% 165 34.1% 23.8% 177 25.6% 25.6%

Unknown 69 10.0% 113 16.3% 182

Total 208 30.1% 484 69.9% 692

33.2% 100.0%

23.3% 100.0%

26.3% 100.0% 26.3% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 61.305 Significance = .000 Cramers V =.298

Decade and weapon type also proved to yield a significant relationship (Table 4.7). The late 1980s marked the use of more extreme weapons like fire or firebombs involved in more violent attacks (e.g. arson) through the late 2000s. For the most part, weapon types were distributed evenly throughout the designated time period, with shifts from paint in the first decade to other weapons (e.g. gum, nails, glue) throughout the last decade. A Pearson-Chi Square value of 57.189 signified the presence of an association between decade and weapon type.

101

Table 4.7: Cross Tabulation of Decade and Weapon Type

Weapon Paint Decade 1987 - 1996 Count % within Decade % of Total 1997 - 2008 Count % within Decade % of Total Total Count % within Decade % of Total 93 44.7% 13.4% 90 18.6% 13.0% 183 26.4% 26.4% Unknown 35 16.8% 5.1% 125 25.8% 18.1% 160 23.1% 23.1% Fire or firebomb 47 22.6% 6.8% 112 23.1% 16.2% 159 23.0% 23.0% Other 33 15.9% 4.8% 157 32.4% 22.7% 190 27.5% 27.5% Total 208 100.0% 30.1% 484 100.0% 69.9% 692 100.0% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 57.189 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .287

When examining the relationship between decade and target types selected by ecoterrorist groups, it is clear that there is an increase in the number of actions carried out against private individuals and property in the last decade (Table 4.8). Ecoterrorist incidents picked industry to direct actions at more than any other target over time. Industry includes a combination of leather and fur, restaurant and food, meat, retail, timber, auto, animal exploitation, banking, utilities, farms, and mining and drilling. We see this over time with fast food places, car dealerships, meat distribution companies, department stores, and furriers. This goes back to the terrorists goals of exploiting the everyday. These are businesses that individuals frequent on a daily basis, thus Not surprisingly, a weak statistically

contributing to a heightened sense of fear.

significant association also exists between decade and target type.

102

Table 4.8: Cross Tabulation of Decade and Target Type

Target Private Education Individuals & & Property Research Industry Decade 1987 - 1996 Count % within Decade % of Total 1997 - 2008 Count % within Decade % of Total Total Count % within Decade % of Total 23 11.1% 3.3% 136 28.1% 19.7% 159 23.0% 23.0% 16 7.7% 2.3% 62 12.8% 9.0% 78 11.3% 11.3% 150 72.1% 21.7% 188

Other 19 2.7% 98

Total 208 30.1% 484 69.9% 692

9.1% 100.0%

38.8% 20.2% 100.0% 27.2% 14.2% 338 117

48.8% 16.9% 100.0% 48.8% 16.9% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 65.368 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .307 Throughout this dissertation various measures examine the role of time and space with respect to ecoterrorism, so naturally it was also explored with Chi-Square and was found to have a statistically significant association (Table 4.9). Interestingly, nearly 70% of ecoterrorist incidents perpetrated from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s were in the West and the Northeast. A strong shift towards targets in the West continued into the next decade, as well as throughout along with higher numbers of incidents carried out in the Northeast. There number of incidents committed in the Midwest more than doubled in the late 1990s to 2000s, from the previous decade. Ecoterrorist incidents in all

geographic regions indicate an increase over time. As was suggested by Webb and Cutter (2009), the majority (49.2%) of ecoterrorist incidents were concentrated in the Western United States.

103

Table 4.9: Cross Tabulation of Decade and Region

Region Northeast Decade 1987 - 1996 Count % within Decade % of Total 1997 - 2008 Count % within Decade % of Total Total Count % within Decade % of Total 39 18.8% 5.6% 118 24.4% 17.1% 157 22.7% 22.7% South 38 18.3% 5.5% 52 10.7% 7.5% 90 13.0% 13.0% Midwest 27 13.0% 3.9% 81 16.7% 11.7% 108 15.6% 15.6% West 104 50.0% 15.0% 233 48.1% 33.7% 337 48.7% 48.7% Total 208 100.0% 30.1% 484 100.0% 69.9% 692 100.0% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 9.785 Significance = .020 Cramers V = .119 4.7.2 Region and Ecoterrorist Incident Attributes Similarly, there were four variables or attributes of ecoterrorist incidents that were individually tested against region (geography) to confirm if any significant associations exist. Unlike in the previous tests examining decade and other attributes, all incidents in the database were used in this test and there no model violations. Of the four variables (e.g. target type, attack type, group type, and weapon type), with the exception of one test, all indicated statistically significant associations. The results will be reviewed starting with region and attack type. Table 4.10 shows the relationship between region (geography) and attack type based on the contingency table and Pearsons Chi-Square Test Statistic. The results of the cross tabulation indicate that vandalism is the most prominent attack type by ecoterrorist groups in the Northeast, South, and West. However, animal liberations are much more localized to the Midwest with animal rights extremists freeing mink and birds from farms in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin over the designated time period. 104

Arson as the primary method of attack was common in parts of the Midwest and Western United States, with groups frequently targeting SUV dealerships, furriers, luxury homes, and the timber industry. The Pearson Chi-Square value of 84.778 indicated that a

significant association exists between region and attack type. Table 4.10: Cross Tabulation of Region and Attack Type
Attack Vandalism Region Northeast Count % within Region % within Attack % of Total South Count % within Region % within Attack % of Total Midwest Count % within Region % within Attack % of Total West Count % within Region % within Attack % of Total Total Count % within Region % within Attack % of Total 103 64.4% 31.4% 14.1% 64 62.7% 19.5% 8.8% 31 28.7% 9.5% 4.3% 130 36.3% 39.6% 17.9% 328 45.1% 45.1% Arson 17 10.6% 10.4% 2.3% 11 10.8% 6.7% 1.5% 28 25.9% 17.2% 3.8% 107 29.9% 65.6% 14.7% 163 22.4% 22.4% Animal Liberation 20 12.5% 17.5% 2.7% 13 12.7% 11.4% 1.8% 34 31.5% 29.8% 4.7% 47 13.1% 41.2% 6.5% 114 15.7% 100.0% 15.7% Other 20 16.3% 2.7% 14 11.4% 1.9% 15 12.2% 2.1% 74 60.2% 10.2% 123 Total 160 22.0% 22.0% 102 14.0% 14.0% 108 14.8% 14.8% 358 49.2% 49.2% 728

12.5% 100.0%

13.7% 100.0%

13.9% 100.0%

20.7% 100.0%

16.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 16.9% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 84.778 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .197

105

The relationship between region or geography and ecoterrorist group type is an interesting one (Table 4.11). Regardless of the region, animal rights groups and

extremists represent the highest number of attacks carried out, outnumbering those committed by both radical environmentalists and other groups and unknown perpetrators. The South however had nearly an equal amount of attacks perpetrated by animal rights and unknown groups. It seems as though the majority of ecoterrorist incidents in the

United States are perpetrated by animal rights extremists, like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The West represented an area that was ripe with actions committed by radical environmentalists and other groups, like those opposed to biotechnology, genetic engineering, and nuclear power. With the exception of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the radical environmental movement appears to be decreasing the number of actions carried out in other areas. This also yielded a rather strong statistically significant association between variables (.000)

106

Table 4.11: Cross Tabulation of Region and Ecoterrorist Group Type

Group Radical Environmental and Other Unknown 31 19.4% 17.3% 4.3% 15 14.7% 8.4% 2.1% 29 26.9% 16.2% 4.0% 104 29.1% 58.1% 14.3% 179 24.6% 100.0% 24.6% 38 20.8% 5.2% 42 23.0% 5.8% 19 10.4% 2.6% 84 45.9% 11.5% 183

Animal Rights Region Northeast Count % within Region % within Group % of Total South Count % within Region % within Group % of Total Midwest Count % within Region % within Group % of Total West Count % within Region % within Group % of Total Total Count % within Region % within Group % of Total 91 56.9% 24.9% 12.5% 45 44.1% 12.3% 6.2% 60 55.6% 16.4% 8.2% 170 47.5% 46.4% 23.4% 366 50.3% 100.0% 50.3%

Total 160 22.0% 22.0% 102 14.0% 14.0% 108 14.8% 14.8% 358 49.2% 49.2% 728

23.8% 100.0%

41.2% 100.0%

17.6% 100.0%

23.5% 100.0%

25.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 25.1% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 25.658 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .133 When examining the relationship between region and the preferred weapons among ecoterrorists it is not surprising that the most popular weapon in the Northeast is paint, as the majority of actions are vandalism (Table 4.12). Other weapons, including chemical agents like chlorine, knives and sharp objects, and tree spikes, were most common in the South. Ecoterrorist weapons in the Midwest were unknown, as there were 107

larger numbers of animals released from fur farms.

Ecoterrorist organizations

perpetrating actions in the West favored the use of fire o firebombs, as the primary method of attack was arson. The Pearson Chi-Square value (57.181) indicated that a significant association exists between geographic region and weapon type. Table 4.12: Cross Tabulation of Region and Weapon Type
Weapon Paint Region Northeast Count % within Region % within Weapon % of Total South Count % within Region % within Weapon % of Total Midwest Count % within Region % within Weapon % of Total West Count % within Region % within Weapon % of Total Total Count % within Region % within Weapon % of Total 63 39.4% 33.5% 8.7% 34 33.3% 18.1% 4.7% 13 12.0% 6.9% 1.8% 78 21.8% 41.5% 10.7% 188 25.8% 100.0% 25.8% Unknown 39 24.4% 21.3% 5.4% 19 18.6% 10.4% 2.6% 40 37.0% 21.9% 5.5% 85 23.7% 46.4% 11.7% 183 25.1% 100.0% 25.1% Fire or Firebomb 19 11.9% 11.9% 2.6% 11 10.8% 6.9% 1.5% 27 25.0% 17.0% 3.7% 102 28.5% 64.2% 14.0% 159 21.8% 100.0% 21.8% Other 39 24.4% 19.7% 5.4% 38 37.3% 19.2% 5.2% 28 25.9% 14.1% 3.8% 93 26.0% 47.0% 12.8% 198 27.2% 100.0% 27.2% Total 160 100.0% 22.0% 22.0% 102 100.0% 14.0% 14.0% 108 100.0% 14.8% 14.8% 358 100.0% 49.2% 49.2% 728 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 57.181 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .162 Unlike all other variable combinations examined thus far, the only one that does not have a significant association is the relationship between geographic region and target 108

type (Table 4.13). While .062 is quite close, it is not statistically significant at .05 level which is the basis used for this dissertation. In other words, the geographic region where ecoterrorist incidents took place is not dependent on the kinds of targets in those areas. Throughout the United States, regardless of the region, industry (e.g. banking, utilities, fur and leather) represents the most favorable targets. Interestingly, in every region but the South, we see a shift from ecoterrorists targeting education and research to private citizens and property. Especially in parts of the West and Midwest, there has been an increase in researchers being targeted and threatened off campus at their homes. These kinds of increasingly violent tactics have prompted legislation that is required to provide the protection of faculty and staff members at their personal property.

109

Table 4.13: Cross Tabulation of Region and Target Type

Target Private Education Individuals & & Property Research Industry Region Northeast Count % within Region % within Target % of Total South Count % within Region % within Target % of Total Midwest Count % within Region % within Target % of Total West Count % within Region % within Target % of Total Total Count % within Region % within Target % of Total 32 20.0% 19.4% 4.4% 14 13.7% 8.5% 1.9% 20 18.5% 12.1% 2.7% 99 27.7% 60.0% 13.6% 165 22.7% 100.0% 22.7% 15 9.4% 16.7% 2.1% 15 14.7% 16.7% 2.1% 13 12.0% 14.4% 1.8% 47 13.1% 52.2% 6.5% 90 12.4% 100.0% 12.4% 84

Other 29

Total 160 100.0% 22.0% 22.0% 102 100.0% 14.0% 14.0% 108 100.0% 14.8% 14.8% 358 100.0% 49.2% 49.2% 728 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

52.5% 18.1% 24.0% 23.6% 11.5% 56 4.0% 17

54.9% 16.7% 16.0% 13.8% 7.7% 59 2.3% 16

54.6% 14.8% 16.9% 13.0% 8.1% 151 2.2% 61

42.2% 17.0% 43.1% 49.6% 20.7% 350 100.0% 8.4% 123 100.0 %

48.1% 16.9%

48.1% 16.9%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 16.257 Significance = .062 Cramers V = .086 4.7.3 Other Variable Associations Although it is clear that statistically significant relationships exist between the temporal and spatial dimensions, and other ecoterrorist incident attributes, it is important to determine if any attributes (e.g. target type) have associations with other attributes (e.g.

110

group type).

Three additional tests were performed, all of which were deemed

significant, which will discussed in detail below. The first test examined the association between ecoterrorist attack type and target type (Table 4.14). As mentioned previously, the majority (48.1%) of attacks in the database were aimed at industry. Over 50% were acts of vandalism that targeted leather and fur shops and the meat industry, however private individuals and property were also of interest to these groups. Other actions represent over 40% of incidents targeting

education and research, with threats and harassment dominating this category. Arson also proved to be a frequent attack type associated with industry, largely with meat companies, SUV dealers, and leather and fur targets. The association between attack type and target type is also significant, with a Pearson Chi-Square value of 158.751.

111

44.14: Cross Tabulation of Attack Type and Target Type Target Private Education Individuals & & Property Research Industry Attack Vandalism Count % within Attack % within Target % of Total Arson Count % within Attack % within Target % of Total Animal Liberation Count % within Attack % within Target % of Total Other Count % within Attack % within Target % of Total Total Count % within Attack % within Target % of Total 84 25.6% 50.9% 11.5% 16 9.8% 9.7% 2.2% 14 12.3% 8.5% 1.9% 51 41.5% 30.9% 7.0% 165 22.7% 100.0% 22.7% 21 6.4% 23.3% 2.9% 12 7.4% 13.3% 1.6% 20 17.5% 22.2% 2.7% 37 30.1% 41.1% 5.1% 90 12.4% 100.0% 12.4% 183 55.8% 52.3% 25.1% 76 46.6% 21.7% 10.4% 67 58.8% 19.1% 9.2% 24 19.5% 6.9% 3.3% 350 48.1% 100.0% 48.1%

Other 40 32.5% 5.5% 59 48.0% 8.1% 13 10.6% 1.8% 11 8.9% 1.5% 123

Total 328 45.1% 45.1% 163 22.4% 22.4% 114 15.7% 15.7% 123 16.9% 16.9% 728

12.2% 100.0%

36.2% 100.0%

11.4% 100.0%

8.9% 100.0%

16.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 16.9% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 158.751 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .270 The second test looked at the relationship between attack type and ecoterrorist group type (Table 4.15). In order for this test not to violate the assumptions of

minimum cell size, sabotage was removed from the Other category, and combined with Animal Liberation. The majority of these actions are motivated by the same groups so it makes sense collapse them into one class. The majority (47.9%) of actions carried out by 112

animal rights extremists were vandalism aimed at targets ranging from fast food restaurants to fur and leather shops, followed by animal liberations and acts of sabotage at fur farms and biomedical laboratories. Similarly, unknown and radical

environmentalists and other groups like those opposed to genetic engineering engaged in acts of vandalism against educational institutions and facilities as well as private companies. As the literature suggested, radical environmentalists favor the use of arson as their preferred method of attack on targets like luxury homes, car dealerships, and forest service offices. Animal liberations and sabotage, while largely committed by animal rights extremists, were also perpetrated by unknown groups and radical environmentalists and other perpetrators, suggesting that there may be an overlap in ideologies in some group memberships. A significant association was identified between attack type and ecoterrorist group type (Chi-Square value = 82.724), suggesting that one is dependent on the other.

113

Table 4.15: Cross Tabulation of Attack Type and Group Type Group Radical Animal Env and Rights Other Unkn Total Attack Vandalism Count 157 70 101 328 % within Attack 47.9% 21.3% 30.8% 100.0% % within Group 42.9% 39.1% 55.2% 45.1% % of Total 21.6% 9.6% 13.9% 45.1% Arson Count 52 76 35 163 % within Attack 31.9% 46.6% 21.5% 100.0% % within Group 14.2% 42.5% 19.1% 22.4% % of Total 7.1% 10.4% 4.8% 22.4% Animal Count 93 26 20 139 Liberation and % within Attack 66.9% 18.7% 14.4% 100.0% Sabotage % within Group 25.4% 14.5% 10.9% 19.1% % of Total 12.8% 3.6% 2.7% 19.1% Other Count 64 7 27 98 % within Attack 65.3% 7.1% 27.6% 100.0% % within Group 17.5% 3.9% 14.8% 13.5% % of Total 8.8% 1.0% 3.7% 13.5% Total Count 366 179 183 728 % within Attack 50.3% 24.6% 25.1% 100.0% % within Group 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 50.3% 24.6% 25.1% 100.0% Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 82.724 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .238 The last test also revealed a statistically significant association between target type and ecoterrorist group type as shown by the Pearson Chi-Square test statistic (Table 4.16). It makes sense that over half of all incidents committed by animal rights groups were aimed at industry, as fur and leather, restaurants, and the meat industry are the predominant businesses they are interested in. Over 73% of actions carried out against 114

educational institutions and researchers were perpetrated by animal rights extremists, with animals freed from labs, offices vandalized, and research documents stolen and/or sabotaged. It is not surprising that nearly 64% of incidents aimed at other targets were carried out by radical environmental and other groups, including those like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Reclaim the Seeds, California Croppers, and the Washington Tree Improvement Association all of whom targeted fields of experimental crops and plants in lab facilities throughout the Western United States.. Luxury housing

developments, golf courses, construction equipment, and government offices are all preferred targets among members of these organizations, as they fight to direct attention to issues such as urban sprawl, deforestation, and harms associated with genetic engineering. Within education and research, only 10% of actions committed were by unknown groups and perpetrators.

115

Table 4.16: Cross Tabulation of Target Type and Group Type

Group Animal Radical Env Rights and Other Target Private Individuals and Property Count % within Target % within Group % of Total Education & Research Count % within Target % within Group % of Total Industry Count % within Target % within Group % of Total Other Count % within Target % within Group % of Total Total Count % within Target % within Group % of Total 84 50.9% 23.0% 11.5% 66 73.3% 18.0% 9.1% 188 53.7% 51.4% 25.8% 28 22.8% 7.7% 3.8% 366 50.3% 100.0% 50.3% 39 23.6% 21.8% 5.4% 14 15.6% 7.8% 1.9% 48 13.7% 26.8% 6.6% 78 63.4% 43.6% 10.7% 179 24.6% 24.6% Unkn 42 23.0% 5.8% 10 5.5% 1.4% 114 62.3% 15.7% 17 9.3% 2.3% 183 Total 165 22.7% 22.7% 90 12.4% 12.4% 350 48.1% 48.1% 123 16.9% 16.9% 728

25.5% 100.0%

11.1% 100.0%

32.6% 100.0%

13.8% 100.0%

25.1% 100.0% 25.1% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Pearson Chi-Square (X) = 145.173 Significance = .000 Cramers V = .316 4.8 Summary The majority of ecoterrorist incidents perpetrated in the United States showed a relatively stable, slowly increasing trend over time, with peaks in the 1990s and 2000s when the most actions took place. In terms of the spatial distribution of ecoterrorism, while larger numbers of events were perpetrated in urban centers like New York, it by no means implies that all ecoterrorist activity is focused in those areas. In fact, we see an 116

array of ecoterrorism with very complex, unique geographies, with pockets of activity in the Southwest, Northeast, and Midwest. Furthermore, actions seem to indicate a trend towards targeting everyday places of business like banks, restaurants, and department stores, thus satisfying one of terrorisms goals: exploitation of the everyday, the normal. To further explore the relationships between the categorical variables in the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED), a Chi-Square Test was used to determine if these things were independent. Of course, time and space with regards to

ecoterrorism were two dimensions of major concern in this dissertation, so it is not surprising that tests were performed using the variables decade and geographic region in combinations with target type, attack type, weapon type, and group type. Additionally, three separate tests were run that examined relationships between the various attributes of target type, group type, and attack type. Of the five variables tested with decade (e.g. target type, attack type, group type, weapon type, and region), all yielded significant associations. Similarly, with the

exception of one test, all tests examining geography or region and other variables indicated statistically significant associations. Ecoterrorist target type did not provide a statistically significant association between variables. Lastly, all tests that were run with the additional attributes yielded significant relationships. This measure served to verify that in fact, some things like group type and attack type were dependent on one another.

117

CHAPTER 5 SPATIOTEMPORAL CLUSTERS OF ECOTERRORISM The last part of the results will be discussed in this chapter. The clusters detected with the space-time permutation model in SaTScan will be presented and reviewed. This includes the comparison among the clusters detected with variations in the maximum spatial window size, and geographic visualization of said clusters. 5.1 5.1.1 Question Three: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism Clusters Obtained With a 5% Maximum Spatial Window The third research question examines whether ecoterrorism in the United States is a seemingly random phenomenon, or in fact, it reflects a distinct, spatiotemporal clustering pattern. More specifically, it asks: Is there a distinct spatiotemporal clustering of ecoterrorist incidents in the United States throughout the time period of interest (19702008)? The SaTScan program for spatial and temporal clustering was used to answer this question. As noted in Chapter 3, three separate runs were made using spatial window sizes of 5%, 25%, and 50%. The first SaTScan analysis which utilized a maximum spatial window of 5% produced 27 significant clusters (Table 5.1, Figure 5.1). This analysis confirms that there are distinctive spatiotemporal patterns. The labeling of the clusters is done numerically in the program, but for the purposes of this dissertation, it was much more useful to name the cluster after the dominant location or region containing it. Additionally, the

118

discussion of the clusters is organized around the persistence and longevity of the clusters beginning with pervasive and concluding with isolated clusters. Table 5.1: Space-Time Permutation Cluster Detection Spatial Window Location # # Start Cluster ID Locations Events Date 1 Chicago 1 11 Nov-93 2 Central 7 25 Sept-87 California Coast 3 Mid-Atlantic 10 29 Apr-82 4 Central Virginia 2 7 Sept-02 5 Central 3 11 Dec-04 California 6 Southern 6 14 Apr-06 California 7 Long Island 5 10 Sept-00 8 Austin 1 7 July-07 9 New York 1 7 Feb-93 10 Northern Mid5 12 Sept-94 Atlantic 11 Mid-West 8 11 June-01 12 South Florida 3 5 Dec-83 13 Northwestern 2 5 Dec-94 Oregon 14 Charlotte 1 5 Nov-96 15 South Central 3 9 Oct-99 16 Davis 2 12 Sept-99 17 Northwestern 4 6 Sept-96 Washington 18 Northern Utah 10 19 Oct-94 19 Central 3 5 Mar-97 Connecticut 20 Central Arizona 2 6 Oct-00 21 Northeast 9 13 July-99 22 Los Angeles 6 12 Aug-03 Metro Area 23 Denver 1 3 Dec-92 24 Huntington 1 3 Feb-89 25 Northeastern 2 3 Apr-94 Ohio 26 Northwestern 3 5 Mar-02 Pennsylvania 27 Great Lakes 16 23 Sept-97 119 with 5 percent Maximum End Radius Date (km) Feb-94 0 May-90 36.00 Mar-90 124.45 Nov-02 13.11 May-05 32.71 Nov-07 Jan-01 July-07 Feb-93 Apr-96 Oct-01 Dec-83 Dec-94 Nov-96 Oct-99 Oct-99 Oct-96 Mar-97 Apr-97 Jan-01 Oct-99 Feb-05 Dec-92 Feb-89 Apr-94 Jan-03 Mar-00 19.19 17.57 0 0 144.74 430.07 22.54 34.02 0 417.20 15.12 9.23 106.31 33.02 17.57 405.35 45.33 0 0 10.77 74.76 348.95 Pvalue 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.025 0.025 0.035 0.037 0.043

120 Figure 5.1: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism with a 5% Maximum Spatial Window

Pervasive clusters have incidents that span multiple years. There are seven persistent clusters of ecoterrorist activity that are geographically dispersed in the Western, Northeastern, and Midwestern United States (Table 5.2, Fig.5.2). One cluster, labeled the Central California Coast cluster, contained 25 incidents at 7 different locations, from September 1987 to May 1990. Approximately 40% of incidents were

perpetrated in San Jose, with slightly more frequent actions carried out in the San Francisco Bay Area, specifically in San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Bruno, and Santa Clara. The majority of ecoterrorist incidents were vandalism and arsons, with the

preferred terrorist weapons being paint and firebombs. Nearly 70% of incidents were committed by animal rights extremists, namely the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Animal Rights Militia (ARM), with the remaining incidents carried out by unknown perpetrators. Over 80% of actions targeted the meat industry and retailers, like Macys, Willow Glen Meats, and Ernie the Butcher, which were all targeted at least twice during the specified time period.

Table 5.2: Clusters Spanning Multiple Years Cluster 2 3 6 10 18 22 27 Location ID Central California Coast Mid-Atlantic Southern California Northern MidAtlantic Northern Utah Los Angeles Metro Area Great Lakes # Locations 7 10 6 5 10 6 16 # Events 25 29 14 12 19 12 23 Start End Radius Date Date (km) Sept-87 May-90 36.00 Apr-82 Apr-06 Sept-94 Oct-94 Aug-03 Sept-97 Mar-90 Nov-07 Apr-96 Mar-97 Feb-05 Mar-00 124.45 19.19 144.74 106.31 45.33 348.95 Pvalue 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.043

121

122 Figure 5.2: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Pervasive Ecoterrorism (Spans Multiple Years)

The Mid-Atlantic cluster (Cluster 3) was comprised of 29 ecoterrorist events that took place in 10 different locations throughout Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and Delaware over a nine year period from April 1982 to March 1990. Over 72%

of actions were committed in Bethesda, MD, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. All incidents were one of two types: vandalism, followed by animal liberations. About 45% of all events were carried out by animal rights groups (ALF, Band of Mercy, Farm Freedom Fighters, and True Friends), with the remainder the result of unknown individuals. Interestingly, over 40% of vandals used some kind of firearm (e.g. pellet guns) as their primary weapon in actions against fur and other retailers in the greater Washington D.C. Metropolitan area. The majority of activity was directed at the leather and fur industry and education and research, with higher numbers of actions targeting retail, hospitals, and the restaurant and food industry. Cluster 6, Southern California, contained 14 events occurring in 6 locations over a two year span along the West Coast. More than 64% of actions took place in Los Angeles, with remaining incidents in Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Inglewood, and Santa Monica. Interestingly, all actions carried out targeted private individuals and property affiliated with a particular institution or government office. Further, the

majority of those targeted were UCLA professors and researchers (12 incidents), which suggests a distinct spatiotemporal cluster of centralized activity focused on educators engaged in research that ecoterrorists are strongly opposed to. Five incidents even

targeted the same UCLA researcher, Arthur Rosenbaum in the summer of 2007. The ecoterrorist incidents contained within this cluster were perpetrated by members of animal rights groups like the Animal Liberation Brigade (ALB) and Animal Liberation

123

Front (ALF), as well as unknown individuals. Nearly all events were acts of harassment, threats, or vandalism. However, it is important to note that the remaining two acts of arson and a bombing were aimed at UCLA researchers. The Northern Mid-Atlantic (cluster 10), was comprised of 12 actions in 5 locations in New York and Pennsylvania from September 1994 to April 1996. Over 58% of incidents were acts of vandalism that targeted restaurants, fur shops, a beef company, circus, and sportsmans show in Syracuse. These were carried out largely by ALF members, and individuals motivated by animal rights. Oneonta Beef Inc. was targeted twice during a five month period in 1995; once in an act of arson and another with an act of vandalism that involved spray painting structures and company-owned vehicles. The remaining incidents targeted farms in Pennsylvania and New York (animal liberations), and a restaurant in Upstate New York. The next cluster, Northern Utah (cluster 18), contained 19 events that took place in 10 different locations over a time span of four years. Over 42% of actions were carried out in Salt Lake City, with slightly higher numbers of incidents in Sandy and South Salt Lake. With the exception of three incidents, all were committed by groups or individuals who subscribe to animal rights ideologies (e.g. Vegan Revolution and ALF). The

majority of incidents were animal liberations, arsons, and vandalism aimed at the fur and leather industry, meat companies, and farms in the area. Interestingly, four businesses were targeted up to three times during the designated time period: Utah Fur Breeders Agricultural Co-operative in Sandy, Tandy Leather, Egg Products Company, and Honey Baked Ham, all in the Salt Lake area.

124

Cluster 22 contained 12 actions that were perpetrated in 6 locations throughout the greater Los Angeles area. Torrance witnessed the highest number of actions (4), with elevated rates of activity in Monrovia and Duarte. Events were committed by a

combination of radical environmental and animal rights extremists (ELF and ALF), targeting largely SUVs and car dealerships and fast food restaurants, respectively. The ELF preferred both arson and vandalism of vehicles, while ALF favored vandalism only. Finally, the Great Lakes cluster (number 27) contained 23 ecoterrorist incidents that occurred in 16 different areas in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan throughout a seven year time span. The most actions took place in Madison, followed by Plymouth and Minneapolis. Over 43% of actions were animal liberations from fur farms, a university, and a private lab. The remaining actions were a combination of threats, vandalism, harassment, and arsons aimed at educational institutions, private individuals and property, restaurants, and construction sites. Notably, all four incidents that were perpetrated by the Justice Department targeted professors at the University of Wisconsin in October 1999. In addition, three actions committed by ELF members in Minneapolis and Maple Grove were directed at C.S. McCrossan Construction Company. In general, this cluster was a combination of animal rights and radical environmental actions. These clusters can best be characterized as regional concentrations of ecoterrorist activity that persist over time. Some clusters were more prominent in the 1980s (e.g. Central California Coast and Mid-Atlantic) while others are more current with activity in the last five years (e.g. Southern California and Los Angeles). Larger amounts of actions were perpetrated by animal rights extremists, like those carried out in Southern California against educators and researchers. Incidents in Southern California have reached a

125

turning point in recent years where University officials have passed legislation calling for the protection of faculty and staff members at their private residences. A second category is those clusters that have sporadic activity over several months. These incidents are geographically distributed along the West Coast, Southwest, Northeastern, and Midwestern United States (Table 5.3, Fig.5.3). Cluster 1 (the Chicago cluster) contained 11 incidents at one location in Illinois occurring over a four month period (November 1993 to February 1994). This cluster consists of nine arsons

perpetrated by ALF members over a two-day period in November 1993, and two acts of vandalism by the Paint Panthers in February 1994. All events were animal rights

motivated acts that targeted retailers, however the Paint Panthers focused on shops which sold strictly fur merchandise. The fourth cluster, Central Virginia, has a distinct geography with 7 incidents committed over a 3 month period in 2 locations in Virginia: Richmond and Glen Allen. Interestingly, all actions were carried out by members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). With the exception of one event, all actions were vandalism aimed at a

combination of fast food restaurants and sport utility vehicles, both privately owned and in an auto dealership. Etching creams were used to damage storefronts, while knives and sharp objects were used to slash tires on the vehicles. The arson that was carried out in Richmond was the first in the series of actions that September to take place in the area, and targeted a crane at a construction site.

126

Table 5.3: Sporadic Clusters (Spans Multiple Months) Cluster Location # # Start End Radius ID Locations Events Date Date (km) 1 Chicago 1 11 Nov-93 Feb-94 0 4 Central Virginia 2 7 Sept-02 Nov-02 13.11 5 Central 3 11 Dec-04 May-05 32.71 California 7 Long Island 5 10 Sept-00 Jan-01 17.57 11 Mid-West 8 11 June-01 Oct-01 430.07 16 Davis 2 12 Sept-99 Oct-99 15.12 17 Northwestern 4 6 Sept-96 Oct-96 9.23 Washington 19 Central 3 5 Mar-97 Apr-97 33.02 Connecticut 20 Central Arizona 2 6 Oct-00 Jan-01 17.57 21 Northeast 9 13 July-99 Oct-99 405.35 26 Northwestern 3 5 Mar-02 Jan-03 74.76 Pennsylvania

Pvalue 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.037

The Central California cluster (Cluster 5) includes 11 actions that were perpetrated in 3 locations within a six month window. The most incidents occurred in Fair Oaks, with remaining events in Lincoln and Auburn. The Fair Oaks incidents were all aimed at sport utility vehicles (SUV) where tires were slashed and defaced with spray paint in 2005. The Lincoln and Auburn incidents were arsons and a bombing targeting luxury homes and an office building, respectively. Notably, all ecoterrorist incidents in this cluster were carried out by members of the Erath Liberation Front (ELF). The seventh cluster, Long Island, was an interesting one. It contained 10

ecoterrorist incidents in five different locations on Long Island over a five month period from 2000 to 2001. The Earth-Liberation Front (ELF), an eco-terrorist group, claimed responsibility for all of these incidents, which were primarily acts of arson and vandalism. There were two incidents aimed at a McDonalds restaurant in Hauppauge and a construction company in Miller Place, with the rest of the actions committed

127

128 Figure 5.3: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Sporadic Ecoterrorism (Spans Multiple Months)

against construction sites and newly built homes. However, ELF members took it the next level when they burned down luxury homes under construction in Middle Island, Mount Sinai, and Miller Place. The Mid-West cluster (labeled 11) which contained 11 acts of ecoterrorism in 8 different locations across Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, and Missouri over five months was a unique case. Of the actions carried out in Iowa, all five involved ALF members who liberated minks and birds from fur farms. Even more interesting, two of those farms in Ellsworth and Glenwood, witnessed ALF members raiding their farms twice within a two month period. The four events that took place in Nebraska in the summer of 2001 were perpetrated by Jason L. Thiemann, Kraig A. Schjodt, and Brian K. Hindley, who claimed to be members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). These individuals vandalized a number of golf courses in Omaha, Valley, and Elkhorn. The remaining actions were an ALF led animal liberation at a duck breeding facility in Hanover, Illinois, and an animalrights motivated assault on an individual in Columbia, Missouri. The most interesting part of this cluster, however, is that it represents an overlap in the activity spaces of both radical environmental and animal rights extremists, as represented by the attacks. Cluster 16 contained 12 ecoterrorist incidents committed in California from September to October 1999, with over 83% in Davis, and the remaining two in Woodland. All twelve actions carried out in Davis were aimed at education and research (UC-Davis researchers and property), the majority of which were threatening letters sent to faculty by the Justice Department and experimental crops destroyed by an antibiotechnology group, Reclaim the Seeds. The two actions in Woodland jointly claimed by Reclaim the Seeds and Future Farmers were also aimed at the destruction of

129

genetically engineered plants at Pioneer Hi Bred International and Novartis Seeds field plots. The Northwestern Washington cluster showed concentrations of ecoterrorist activity in 4 locations, including Bellevue and Mercer Island from September to October 1996. Although all acts were vandalism committed by ALF members, they were

directed at a combination of targets: restaurants and the meat industry where windows were broken and slogans written in black paint covered the building exteriors. Cluster 19 contained 5 ecoterrorist incidents that occurred in 3 central Connecticut locations in over a two month period in spring 1997. All actions were committed by ALF members and involved vandalizing meat companies, fur stores, and a fast food restaurant with red spray paint. About 60% of actions took place in West Hartford. The Central Arizona cluster was an interesting case. Six arsons took place in Phoenix, with the exception of one in Scottsdale over a four month period. All fires were set to luxury homes in various housing developments by Mark Warren Sands. Initially, the fires were claimed by an unknown group called the Coalition to Save the Preserves that was angry about the development of new homes in sprawling subdivisions and contributing to the encroachment of natural preserves in the state. However, authorities soon discovered that the group was in fact, false, and Sands acted on his own personal motives. The Northeast cluster (Cluster 21) included 13 ecoterrorist incidents that took place in 9 different locations in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont throughout 1999. Over 53% of actions occurred in Massachusetts, namely Southborough where several Harvard researchers were targeted by the Justice Department. Three

130

actions in Maine committed by ALF members vandalized hunting and sportsmens clubs. The remaining actions carried out included acts of arson, sabotage, and vandalism directed at farms and a fur shop, respectively. The Northwestern Pennsylvania cluster was an interesting one, in that actions were committed by both radical environmental (ELF) and animal rights extremists (ALF) in three locations from March 2002 to January 2003. Erie experienced the most activity with over 60% of events occurring there. With the exception of an animal liberation, all actions committed were arsons that targeted a farm, government lab, construction site, and car dealership. The Mindek Mink farm in Erie was the target of two actions during the designated time period. ALF members first freed the animals from the property in May 2002, and then returned in November of that same year and set fire to it. These clusters can be best described as infrequent concentrations of ecoterrorist activity that occur over time periods less than one year. Although some clusters were localized in three or fewer locations within close proximity to one another (e.g. Chicago, Central Arizona, and Davis), others are more dispersed with activity occurring throughout multiple states (e.g. Midwest and Northeast). Interestingly, the majority of sporadic ecoterrorist clusters occurred throughout the late 1990s to the mid-2000s. Actions were perpetrated by a combination of animal rights extremists and radical environmentalists, with tactics ranging from the vandalism of SUVs to liberating ducks to setting fire to luxury homes. The last category is termed isolated activity and includes clusters that have a temporal range of a month or less. There are nine clusters of isolated ecoterrorist activity that are spatially dispersed along the Pacific Northwest, South, Northeast, and

131

Midwestern United States (Table 5.4, Fig.5.4). Austin, the eighth cluster, had a very specific geography of ecoterrorist incidents in Texas with 7 actions committed over a one day period in July 2007. Interestingly, all incidents were acts of vandalism committed by unknown perpetrators that targeted restaurants in Austin. All of the restaurants targeted (e.g. Ruths Chris Steakhouse and Restaurant Jezebel) serve both veal and foie gras, which was reflected in the slogans spray painted on the store fronts of the restaurants. This suggests that the person or persons responsible for the incidents are motivated by the underlying philosophies and ideologies of the animal rights movement. In a similar vein, Cluster 9 (New York) contained 7 ecoterrorist incidents that were carried out in New York City on February 8, 1993. The Paint Panthers claimed responsibility for all acts of vandalism targeting retailers like Elizabeth Arden and Bergdorf Goodman, as well as shops that specialized in the sale of fur merchandise (Fur Vault). All of these actions employed red paint to scribble things like blood money and murderers on the windows of these Midtown businesses. Table 5.4: Clusters Spanning One Month or Less Cluster 8 9 12 13 14 15 23 24 25 Location ID Austin New York South Florida Northwestern Oregon Charlotte South Central Denver Huntington Northeastern Ohio # Locations 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 # Events 7 7 5 5 5 9 3 3 3 Start Date July-07 Feb-93 Dec-83 Dec-94 Nov-96 Oct-99 Dec-92 Feb-89 Apr-94 End Date July-07 Feb-93 Dec-83 Dec-94 Nov-96 Oct-99 Dec-92 Feb-89 Apr-94 Radius (km) 0 0 22.54 34.02 0 417.20 0 0 10.77 Pvalue 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.025 0.025 0.035

132

Cluster 12 contained 5 incidents that occurred in 3 locations in South Florida on December 23, 1983. This cluster is very interesting in that all ecoterrorist incidents were acts of vandalism committed by ALF members who targeted fur shops in Miami Beach (60%), Coral Gables, and Surfside. The perpetrators used a combination of weapons, including nails which were driven into the locks of stores, glue, and red spray paint. Similarly, the Northwest Oregon cluster (Cluster 13) had 5 ecoterrorist actions that were carried out in Woodburn (4 acts) and Tualatin. These incidents had a very unique geography, as they were all animal-rights driven vandalism aimed at fast food restaurants like McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Burger King, where walls were spray painted and windows were broken. All five incidents took place on a single day in December 1983. The next cluster (#14) was comprised of 5 incidents of vandalism that were carried out in Charlotte on November 17, 1996. All perpetrated by unknown extremists, actions targeted restaurants, a fur shop, and a retailer. Three different McDonalds restaurants were selected by vandals, where spray paint was used to scrawl anti-meat slogans on windows and building exteriors thus suggesting that these individuals were motivated by animal rights. The South Central cluster has a regional grouping of

ecoterrorist incidents, with 9 actions occurring in Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana over a three day period at the end of October 1999. Over 66% of acts committed were in Atlanta, with remaining incidents in Birmingham and Covington, respectively. Notably, all acts were perpetrated by the Justice Department who sent threatening letters to professors and researchers at various educational institutions, including Emory, Tulane, and the University of Alabama.

133

134 Figure 5.4: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Isolated Ecoterrorism (Spans One Month or Less)

The Denver cluster (#23) was comprised of 3 actions carried out in the signature location on December 18, 1992. In every event, the Paint Panthers claimed responsibility for vandalizing the store fronts of furriers with slogans scrawled in red paint. Cluster 24 also contained 3 incidents, all of which were perpetrated by an animal rights extremist, Patricia Halleran in Huntington, New York. She painted and broke the windows of a butcher shop, gun and ammo shop, and furrier on February 8, 1989. The Northeastern Ohio cluster had 3 actions that occurred in Cleveland and Parma in April 1994. ALF members claimed responsibility for vandalizing meat and butcher shops with both red spray paint and a firearm over a two day period. These clusters can be best described as rare occurrences of ecoterrorist activity that took place over time periods lasting only a month or in some cases a period of several days. Every cluster represented ecoterrorist incidents confined to one to three locations (e.g. Denver, South Florida, and Huntington), with only one cluster (South Central) representing incidents in multiple states. Interestingly, all ecoterrorist incidents were perpetrated by animal rights extremists like the Paint Panthers, Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and Justice Department, as well as individuals motivated by related ideologies. Temporally, the majority of isolated ecoterrorist clusters occurred throughout the early 1980s to the late 2000s. Overall, SaTScan detected 27 statistically significant clusters of ecoterrorist incidents. There are distinct spatial and temporal patterns of activity that were identified within these results. Although some clusters have more regional concentrations of

ecoterrorist activity (e.g. Central California Coast, Great Lakes, and Mid-West), others have a very specific, localized geography (Denver, Charlotte, and Chicago) of committed

135

actions. Moreover, some clusters witnessed groupings based on particular attributes like group type, attack type, target type, and weapon type. In fact, some clusters were

exclusively perpetrated by a particular group, aimed at the same targets, utilizing the same method of attack (e.g. Denver, Austin, South Florida, and Central Arizona). Further, there is much to be said regarding the longevity or persistence of clusters over time. This is of particular importance to law enforcement officers in these regions experiencing more frequent amounts of ecoterrorism over time. Policy implications are also evident, especially in those places where constant actions plague university faculty and staff members in California and Utah. 5.1.2 Clusters Obtained With a 25% and 50% Maximum Spatial Window The second and third SaTScan runs used a 25% and 50% maximum spatial window, respectively, to detect 20 significant clusters (Table 5.5, Figure 5.5). Both tests returned the exact same clusters in the same order for the same locations and time periods, and respective significance levels. Typically smaller spatial windows allow for the detection of clusters that occur in very localized areas that are contained within larger clusters returned with higher maximum spatial windows. For example, incidents in Huntington, New York may be returned as its own cluster with a smaller window, however when employing a larger spatial window, it may become contained within a larger cluster covering the Mid-Atlantic. In comparison to the clusters obtained for the 5% maximum spatial window, the results were essentially the same but the order was slightly different. Table 5.5 denotes the clusters where the order had changed from the previous run utilizing the 5% maximum spatial window. The Chicago and Central California Clusters, 136

were reversed in this analysis. The Davis cluster dropped out of the analysis completely which slightly changed the ordering of the last five clusters in this run. These analyses only returned 20 clusters compared to the 27 obtained with the 5% spatial window. For this reason, the Los Angeles, Denver, Huntington, Northeastern Ohio, Northwestern Pennsylvania, and Great Lakes clusters were not deemed significant and were dropped from the analysis completely.

Table 5.5: Space-Time Permutation Cluster Detection with 25 and 50 percent Maximum Spatial Windows

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Location ID Central California Coast* Chicago* Mid-Atlantic Central Virginia Central California Southern California Long Island Austin New York Northern MidAtlantic Mid-West South Florida Northwestern Oregon Charlotte South Central Northwestern Washington* Northern Utah* Central Connecticut* Central Arizona* Northeast*

# Locations 12 1 10 2 3 6 5 1 1 5 8 3 2 1 3 4 10 3 2 9

# Events 30 11 29 7 11 14 10 7 7 12 11 5 5 5 9 6 19 5 6 13 137

Start Date Sept-87

End Date July-90

Radius (km) 138.56

Pvalue 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Nov-93 Feb-94 0 Apr-82 Mar-90 124.45 Sept-02 Nov-02 13.11 Dec-04 May-05 32.71 Apr-06 Sept-00 July-07 Feb-93 Sept-94 June-01 Dec-83 Dec-94 Nov-96 Oct-99 Sept-96 Oct-94 Mar-97 Oct-00 July-99 Nov-07 Jan-01 July-07 Feb-93 Apr-96 Oct-01 Dec-83 Dec-94 Nov-96 Oct-99 Oct-96 Mar-97 Apr-97 Jan-01 Oct-99 19.19 17.57 0 0 144.74 430.07 22.54 34.02 0 417.20 9.23 106.31 33.02 17.57 405.35

138 Figure 5.5: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism with Maximum Spatial Windows Of 25% and 50%

5.2

Summary Another question this research examined was whether ecoterrorism in the United

States is a seemingly random phenomenon, or if it reflects a distinct, spatiotemporal clustering pattern. This question was answered by using the SaTScan program for Using the space-time permutation

spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal clustering.

model, which requires only information detailing the cases and geographic location of incidents perpetrated, three separate analyses were carried out for the designated time period (1970-2008) to assess the sensitivity of parameters related to the spatial window. The first employed a maximum spatial window of 5%, which returned a total of 27 significant clusters with a combination of regional and local concentrations of ecoterrorist activity. The second and third analyses using the 25% and 50% maximum spatial

windows, respectively, returned essentially the same results with 20 significant spatiotemporal clusters. The fact that the same clusters were obtained for the last two varying spatial windows suggests that these are reliable estimates. It is important to note that smaller, more localized clusters in both time and space (e.g. Denver and Davis) were picked up in the analysis using the 5% window, that were not in the analyses utilizing the larger maximum spatial windows. Overall, spatiotemporal clusters of ecoterrorist incidents were detected in places like Central California, South Florida, Central Arizona, Northwestern Oregon, the MidAtlantic, and Midwestern United States. In some cases, incidents contained within these clusters were carried out exclusively by a single group, employed a single attack type, and corresponding weapon type against a single target type. Interestingly, some clusters also revealed several actions contained within a single time period and geographical area 139

that were aimed at the same target more than once. In Utah, Iowa, and New York, for example, a number of fur and leather shops, fur farms, and meat companies were selected at least twice for the specific clusters time period. It was not surprising that a complex pattern of ecoterrorist activity emerged both temporally and spatially. Patterns of pervasive, sporadic, and isolated activity are discernible. Pockets of ecoterrorism were prominent in major cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, however there were also significant amounts of actions perpetrated in rural areas throughout the Midwestern and Northwestern United States that only served to confirm some of the patterns that were identified in the descriptive analyses.

140

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of the key findings of this research and to discuss the implications of these findings. This research has focused on the changing geographies of ecoterrorism in the United States. More specifically, the strategies, targets, and methods of attack of groups perpetrating actions were examined using a combination of descriptive analyses, cluster detection techniques, and statistical methods. The results indicated some significant findings and associations. The

conclusions to the research questions are given, followed by limitations associated with the methodology used in this dissertation. In conclusion, possibilities for future research are discussed. 6.1 6.1.1 Overview of Key Findings Questions One and Two: Spatiotemporal Ecoterrorism Trends The first research question asked: To what extent does ecoterrorism vary in geography, strategies, and methods of attack in the United States? As was previously noted, target type and group type serve as proxies for strategy and ideology while attack type and weapon type are proxies for methods. The second research question builds off of the first one and asked: What prompted this change in the strategy of ecoterrorist groups in the United States, and how has this change influence the methods of attack

141

employed by these groups? The answers to these questions will be summarized in this section by examining both decade and regional comparisons in the form of Ecoterrorism Profiles. Beginning with the 1970s profile of ecoterrorism (Table 6.1), it is rather limited because only two incidents were recorded for this decade. Both incidents which took place at a research facility in Hawaii and NYU Medical Center in New York, respectively were animal liberations perpetrated by animal rights extremists (Undersea Railroad and Animal Liberation Front). Although there were actions being perpetrated by radical environmental groups during this time period, the majority were deemed non-violent and therefore did not meet the requirements for inclusion in the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED).

Table 6.1: Ecoterrorism Profiles by Decade Decade Attack Type Target Type 1970s 1980s Animal Liberation Vandalism, Animal Liberation Vandalism, Arson Education & Research, Hospital Leather & Fur, Education & Research, Meat Industry, Private Individuals & Property Education & Research, Farm, Leather & Fur, Private Individuals & property, Meat Industry, Restaurant & Food Industry Private Individuals & Property, Housing, Restaurant & Food Industry Weapon Type Unknown Paint, Unknown Group Type Animal Rights Animal Rights, Unknown

1990s

Paint, Unknown, Fire or firebomb

Animal Rights, Unknown

2000s

Vandalism, Arson

Fire or firebomb, Unknown, Paint

Animal Rights, Radical Environmental

142

The 1980s Ecoterrorism Profile showed an increase in activity through the mid1980s, where over 65% of actions were committed by animal rights extremists, namely the ALF followed by unknown perpetrators. Very few incidents were carried out by radical environmental groups. Over 80% of ecoterrorist incidents were acts of vandalism and animal liberations targeting a combination of leather and fur industries, education and research facilities, meat industries, and private individuals and property. It is not surprising then that the primary weapons used to carry out attacks were paint and unknown weapons. Significant amounts of activity are simply aimed at causing a

business or property economic damage with acts of vandalism. Some of these actions may involve defacing the exterior of fast food restaurants like McDonalds with anti meat slogans and slashing the tires of meat company delivery trucks, and are attractive to ecoterrorists because they are easy to carry out with household items like spray paint and nails, and the risk involved to the perpetrator is minimal, given the proper execution. Similarly, animal liberations were popular throughout this time period, with animal rights extremists releasing countless numbers of minks, exotic birds, and primates from biomedical research corporations and colleges and universities who perform research on animals. Ecoterrorism in the 1990s was consistent with higher numbers of vandalism, like in the previous decade, however arson became a popular method of attack during this time period. This explains why 75% of all weapon types are represented by paint, unknown weapons, and fire or firebombs. Over 78% of all ecoterrorist incidents in this decade targeted education and research, farms, leather and fur industries, private individuals and property, meat industries, and restaurant and food industries. A shift

143

occurred in the 1990s when larger numbers of ecoterrorist groups made the transition from acts directed at property to more personal attacks on individuals like professors and researchers. It was at this time when both animal rights extremists and radical

environmentalists decided that more direct actions needed to be taken in order to get their point across and draw attention to their respective causes. However, more frequent

numbers of animal rights extremists and unknown groups or individuals claimed responsibility for actions as opposed to radical environmentalists throughout this time period. The 2000s were an interesting decade in terms of ecoterrorist activity in the United States. This was the first time when animal rights extremists and radical

environmentalists claimed equal responsibility for actions in a given decade, with each representing about 35% of incidents. Like the previous decade, vandalism and arson were the dominant types of attacks carried out with fire or firebombs, unknown weapons, and paint being those most favored by ecoterrorist groups. Interestingly, neither

education and research facilities nor individuals at these locations were frequently targeted by animal rights and radical environmental groups throughout this decade. Rather, over 35% of all actions targeted private individuals and property which consisted of mostly faculty and staff members of various educational institutions like the University of California and the University of Utah at their private home residences. Other

dominant targets favored by groups included housing (e.g. luxury homes) and restaurant and food industries (e.g. McDonalds). Although it is important to examine ecoterrorism over time, where these incidents occur geographically is also of equal importance (Table 6.2). The Northeast region

144

contained over 160 ecoterrorist incidents, with over 60% carried out in New York and Pennsylvania throughout the study period. Vandalism was the most popular attack type, followed by animal liberations committed by a combination of animal rights extremists as well as unknown perpetrators subscribing to multiple ideologies. Because of the

preferred methods of attack, it is not surprising that paint and unknown weapons are the most favored by groups. Nearly half of all incidents within this geographic region targeted private individuals and property (e.g. Huntingdon Life Sciences employees), leather and fur industry (e.g. Long Island furriers), and education and research (e.g. University of Pennsylvania researchers). Ecoterrorist incidents perpetrated in the South show some similarities with the Northeast. While vandalism (53%) and animal liberations remain the dominant attack types along with the related weapons, the targets of actions varied. Leather and fur shops (e.g. Miami furriers), restaurants (e.g. McDonalds), and education and research (e.g. primate researchers at the University of Alabama) proved popular among both animal rights groups and unknown perpetrators. The Justice Department and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) were two of the many groups that carried out actions in this region. Interestingly, over 56% of ecoterrorist actions in the South were committed in four states: Maryland, Florida, Texas, and Virginia.

145

Table 6.2: Ecoterrorism Profiles by Geographic Region Region Attack Type Target Type Private Individuals & Property, Leather & Fur, Education & Research Leather & Fur, Restaurant & Food Industry, Education & Research Farm, Private Individuals & Property, Education & Research Private Individuals & Property, Education & Research, Meat Industry Weapon Type Group Type Paint, Unknown Animal Rights, Unknown

Northeast Vandalism, Animal Liberation South Vandalism, Animal Liberation Animal Liberation, Vandalism, Arson Vandalism, Arson

Paint, Unknown

Animal Rights, Unknown

Midwest

Unknown, Fire or firebomb Fire or firebomb, Unknown, Paint

Animal Rights, Radical Environmental Animal Rights, Unknown

West

The Midwest showed more differences in ecoterrorist activity compared to the Northeastern and Southern United States. With 108 incidents carried out in this region, over 54% occurred in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin throughout the study period. A combination of animal rights extremists and radical environmentalists, largely the ALF and ELF, claimed responsibility for actions committed in these areas. Animal liberations were the most common types of attack, with farms holding birds, mink, fox, and other animals targeted more than once over time. More frequent incidents of vandalism and arson were also prominent in this region, with unknown weapons and fire or firebombs among these groups preferred weapon choices. In addition to farm, both private

individuals and property and education and research facilities and individuals were targeted by ecoterrorist groups. Ohio State University, University of Minnesota, and University of Michigan were targeted by ELF members and animal rights extremists

146

during the study period, where labs were destroyed and faculty members were forced out of work. Ecoterrorism in the Western United States showed nearly the same amount of activity as the Northeast, South, and Midwest combined with a total of 358 incidents throughout the study period. Over 86% of actions took place in California, Washington, Oregon, and Utah. In fact, California represented more than half of all ecoterrorist incidents. Vandalism and arson proved popular among both animal rights extremists and unknown perpetrators utilizing a combination of weapons. However, there were more frequent actions employing threats and harassment that usually involved university faculty and staff at either their private residences or on their respective campuses. As was shown in the examination of ecoterrorism by decade, the West indicated more frequent actions targeting private individuals and property and education and research that were largely limited to scholars involved with animal testing on some level. Both Utah and California university systems have taken action within the past five years to protect their researchers from animal rights extremists. 6.1.2 Question Two: Spatiotemporal Clusters of Ecoterrorism The final research question asked: Is there a distinct spatiotemporal clustering of ecoterrorist incidents in the United States throughout the time period of interest (19702008)? The SaTScan program for spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal clustering Three separate

employed a space-time permutation model to answer this question.

analyses were run using varying maximum spatial window sizes, and returned 27 and 20 statistically significant clusters of ecoterrorist activity, respectively. Within these

clusters, a complex pattern of ecoterrorist activity emerged both spatially and temporally 147

throughout the study period. Pockets of ecoterrorism were prominent in major urban areas like Chicago and Los Angeles, however there was also significant activity in rural areas in the Midwestern and Northwester United States. Temporally, there are areas of pervasive, sporadic, and isolated activity that extend from coast to coast. 6.2 Limitations of the Research Methods Since the Comprehensive Ecoterrorism Database (CED) provided the information used in the various analyses in this dissertation, it is important to discuss its appropriateness to the problem of interest. There are many decisions which must be made when constructing a database, ranging from the data sources consulted to the variables to the temporal and geographic scale and requirements for inclusion of the phenomena of interest. The CED was no exception to this. After careful consideration, the sources were chosen based on existing open source information like STARTs Global Terrorism Databases (GTD) which collected information on domestic incidents, as well as information from press offices (NAALPO and NAELFPO) and direct action reports available through more radical types of literature. It was challenging to strike a balance between official sources and lesser known and in some cases questionable sources. For this reason, in order for all incidents to be fit for inclusion in the CED (see ecoterrorism definition in Chapter 2), a strict process was employed. The first step required verifying that the incident in question did in fact occur. This was done by using a combination of historic print media through the News Bank, News Library, and Lexis-Nexis search engines which returned results from numerous local, regional, and state newspapers. This allowed for all incidents to be confirmed, along with the exact geographic location, time (day, month, and year), and all other 148

associated variables. A summary field within the MS Access Database also recorded the sources of information to refer back to. Although this rigid process was imposed on the data and did ensure accuracy, it also eliminated a lot of incidents in the process. There were hundreds of actions that could not meet the criteria set forth for exclusion because only the state or time where an incident occurred was given, or the information was so vague it could not be confirmed using the various news sources. It is important to note that all ecoterrorist incidents that have been perpetrated in the United States have been included in this database, which have been successfully verified. In other words, it can be said that will absolute certainty that 728 incidents of ecoterrorism occurred in the study are from 1977 to 2008. Having said that, this should be viewed as only a glimpse of ecoterrorism in the United States; this is a very conservative estimate of this type of single issue domestic terrorism. It does successfully identify shifts that have been suggested in the literature, and goes a step further in isolating those areas in both time space where actions have occurred. It is important to discuss the difficulty with ecoterrorist incidents in the 1970s. Only two actions could be successfully confirmed which brings up two important considerations. First, there is an overwhelming amount of literature that focuses on how these various groups have come to be, the major actions committed by them and so forth. While the incidents carried out by animal rights extremist were somewhat easier to verify, it was very problematic to do so with actions carried out by radical environmentalists. While examining the existing literature, it became clear that although there were more frequent actions committed on behalf of Mother Earth by individuals like Dave Foreman throughout the 1970s and 1980s, these were not what this research

149

considers ecoterrorism. Rather, these actions were incidents of civil disobedience, which involved things like removing survey stakes, blocking roads from impending bulldozers and mere occupation of areas set to be cleared, tree sitting to prevent the loggers from cutting them down, and the cracking of the Glen Canyon Dam. While these actions were direct, proactive, and representative of the radical environmental movement, they were not what this dissertation deems ecoterrorism. It is important to make this

distinction because of how little actions were recorded for the late 1970s. In other cases, dates and locations simply could not be confirmed. A good example of this was the Bolt Weevils, a group of farmers in Minnesota who took action to prevent utility towers from being constructed in their own backyards. These acts of sabotage that involved

physically dismantling the partly constructed towers would be considered ecoterrorism. The space-time permutation model within SaTScan, while simple and easy to use, also has some disadvantages associated with it. The SaTScan program in general, regardless of the model chosen for the dataset, is very computer intensive and can take days to run in order to successfully undergo all the Monte Carlo simulations. It is also sensitive to missing data, however this was not an issue for this dissertation. The issue of most concern with SaTScan however is the stability of the clusters returned. Chen et al. (2008) discussed this in detail, and showed how changing the parameters (e.g. maximum spatial window size) can result in completely different clusters. This was taken into consideration in this research and used a series of analyses that experimented with the maximum spatial window at 5%, 25%, and 50 % of the population at risk. The clusters obtained with these changing window sizes indicated fairly reliable results, with the

150

majority of clusters in agreement in terms of both the temporal and spatial dimensions from one analysis to the other. It is also important to understand that the clusters returned using the space-time permutation model are due to one of two things: (1) an increased risk of ecoterrorism, or (2) differing population distributions. Some clusters may be subject to population shift bias if some geographic areas within the study area grow faster than others over the time period of interest. This can in turn result in an increase in population over time when the study period is longer than just a few years. Because the space-time permutation model was the best choice for this dissertation in terms of data requirements and their associated assumptions, it still must be mentioned that there is a possibility for the introduction of population shift bias in the results obtained with SaTScan. The scan shape may also play a role in the results obtained within the SaTScan program. In the newer version of SaTScan, there is an option to use either the circular or elliptical window to perform the scans of the dataset. If the ellipses option is selected, ellipses with varying shapes, sizes, and directions are used in conjunction with the circular scanning window. As suggested by Kulldorff (2009, 10), this provides slightly higher power for true clusters that are long and narrow in shape, and slightly lower power for circular and other very compact clusters. The cylindrical or circular window was the default for this analysis, and was not changed to accommodate elliptical scan windows. For this reason, it may be possible that longer and narrower clusters of ecoterrorist actions were not successfully detected. However, the similarity in the results between the three tests is indicative that the space-time permutation model using the circular window was reliable.

151

6.3

Implications for Theoretical and Conceptual Developments This dissertation is rooted in hazards theory, particularly at the intersection of

human and political ecology (see Chapter 2). Hazards geographers have contributed numerous conceptual models and frameworks over the past few decades, with a particular emphasis on vulnerability measurement and metrics (Cutter 1996; Cutter et al. 2000; Wisner et al. 2004). While it is often used to examine natural hazard events (e.g. earthquakes, floods), Cutters (1996; 2000) Hazards of Place Model also has applicability to man-made hazards like terrorism. This dissertation on the changing geographies of ecoterrorism may be thought of as an advancement of the Hazard of Place Model of vulnerability. The Hazards of Place Model of vulnerability (Cutter 1996; Cutter et al. 2000) takes into account both the biophysical and social aspects of vulnerability of a particular location to a given hazard (single or multiple) to determine the overall place vulnerability. For this research, the risk of ecoterrorism would prove to be quite difficult to attach a probability value to a particular event, unlike that of a 500-year flood. However, information can certainly be obtained on the possible risk sources and likely impact of those risks (e.g. high consequence events like arson). Within the model, the interaction of risk and mitigation results in the hazard potential. Ecoterrorism risk can either be reduced or increased. Risk reduction would be evident in areas that have experienced ecoterrorism in the past, and have in turn, adopted improved planning policies for how to protect against future actions. These may include but are not limited to the following: installation of security systems to monitor the property, addition of more security personnel to protect the staff (especially those researchers involved with

152

animal testing), and limiting the availability of personal information to the public (e.g. home addresses of staff). In some areas, legislation can effectively serve to lessen risks for future events. Good examples are in Utah and California with the passing of the Senate Bill 113 and Assembly Bill 2296 (Researcher Protection Act), respectively. However, ecoterrorism risk can be increased as a result of no mitigation planning and protective actions designed to lessen future impacts. The social fabric influences the hazard potential to establish the social vulnerability of a given place. In this study of ecoterrorism, the social fabric would involve things like how individuals perceive the ecoterrorism threat in their area (big problem vs. nonexistent) and past experience with ecoterrorist actions (some areas are much more plagued with activity than others). Social vulnerability consists of numerous factors that can serve to marginalize particular groups of people in disasters, and in turn can influence their ability to plan for, respond to, and recover from hazard events (Cutter et al. 2003). The most popular means for measuring social vulnerability is the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) developed by Cutter and colleagues at the University of South Carolina, which uses Census data encompassing various socioeconomic and demographic dimensions. Although ecoterrorism cannot rely on SoVI to generate a picture of social vulnerability in an area, the general concept remains the same. One of the most

important dimensions of social vulnerability for this case study is related to occupations or professions, with particular emphasis on academic researchers, professors, corporations that are affiliated with animal testing in any way (e.g. Huntingdon Life Sciences), corporations known for environmentally damaging/non-environmental friendly practices (e.g. Wal-Mart), and similar professions. In addition, some areas have

153

shown to favor particular industries for their local economies. Good examples of this include fur and leather industries in Utah, as well as parts of the Midwest which was illustrated with the presence of more fox, mink, and exotic bird farms. The geographic context or proximity to risk then interacts with biophysical risk or vulnerability. The biophysical risk of a given area may include the presence of more

likely targets which may include more broad categories (e.g. fast food restaurants, butcher shops, SUV dealerships) to specific categories that have been repeatedly attacked by ecoterrorist groups (e.g. University of California campuses, Rancho Veal plant, Wachovia Securities). Finally, the biophysical vulnerability and social vulnerability can be combined to determine the overall vulnerability of a place to ecoterrorism. Changes in ecoterrorism vulnerability can occur over time as a result of new mitigation and planning initiatives and changing hazard conditions. This application can be done in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) using an approach similar to the Georgetown case study (Cutter et al. 2000) which involves the overlay of various spatial data layers depicting each of these model dimensions. One of the strengths of the Hazards of Place Model of vulnerability is that it is simple to use and has widespread applicability to hazards outside the traditional realm of hazards research to man-made hazards like terrorism. This dissertation, in particular, is an illustration of that. In addition, GIS allow for us to move from a conceptual model of place vulnerability to a visualization of said vulnerability, so that efforts can be taken to reduce vulnerability to hazards.

154

6.4

When Opportunity Knocks Numerous terrorism scholars have attempted to answer the age old question: Why

does one individual engage in terrorist behavior and not another? Much work centers around the isolation of various personality traits and factors that serve to make a terrorist, and the development of terrorist profiles (Strentz 1987; Handler 1990), despite the many conceptual, theoretical, and methodological critiques that illustrate a fundamental lack of understanding of psychological ideas (Horgan 2005). When thinking about this question, a major challenge relates to the fact that while there may be some preconditions present for terrorist behavior (e.g. education), these things alone do not explain why one individual chooses terrorist action and not another (Horgan 2005; Taylor and Horgan 2006). In order for an individual to engage in terrorist behavior, there must first be an opportunity for action which involves an individual making a choice. It is helpful to think about terrorism behavior in terms of pathways that are distinguished by a series of transition points guiding an individual towards terrorist engagement. Taylor and Horgan (2006) put forth a conceptual framework for examining an individuals development and involvement with terrorism, where three important process variables have been recognized: setting events, personal factors, and the social, political, and organizational context. It assumes that terrorism works at both an

individual and political level, through behavior acting on the environment sustained and focused by ideology, and the effect of that on subsequent behavior (Taylor and Horgan 2006, 597). It should also be mentioned that terrorist involvement is not strictly limited to those carrying out violent actions like bombing buildings, but the roles of individuals

155

staying within the law (e.g. activism and political campaigning) are equally important, as they are very much actively involved in shaping the terrorist agenda. Involvement in terrorism does not happen immediately but rather should be viewed as a slow progression towards terrorist behaviors (Horgan 2005). As individuals become more committed and invested in the cause, they move further towards extremism and away from expected behavior. While several precursor events have been identified that may serve to make one individual more open to engage in terrorist activity than another, the one most relevant to this dissertation will be discussed here. Research has shown that terrorists begin as peaceful activists, which is illustrated by anti-abortion protestors in the 1970s and 1980s (Juergensmeyer 2000; Baird-Windle and Bader 2001; Mason 2002), as well as more recent radical environmentalists and animal rights activists. Typically an individual who is disappointed or dissatisfied with their current activity (e.g. lobbying against the legalization of abortion) because they are not seeing results, go to greater lengths to get their voices heard. This was demonstrated with the anti-abortion movement in the 1980s. Anti-abortion extremists began carrying out

actions like bombings and arsons of reproductive health clinics in the mid-1980s primarily to express frustration with the decision to legalize abortions and draw attention to their cause. However, at the end of 1985, a new trend and much deadlier trend emerged where doctors who perform abortions and clinic workers were intentionally killed or injured (Hoffman 1988; Baird-Windle and Bader 2001; Mason 2002). Interestingly, there was a dramatic decline in anti-abortion extremism perpetrated in 1986 which may be attributed to the increased numbers of well publicized arrests and convictions of offenders in places like Pensacola, Florida.

156

In many ways, the anti-abortion movement is very similar to ecoterrorism. Both are forms of single-issue terrorism that show similar radicalization trajectories with slow progressions toward terrorist engagement and involvement. Similarly, this study showed that ecoterrorist actions have begun to decrease in the United States over the past few years (Figure 4.1). Like the anti-abortion movement, this may be due to the increased numbers of ecoterrorists being caught and prosecuted in recent years. The most notable example to date is the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) cell known as the Family which comprised at least ten members for actions ranging from arson to bombings. However, it should be stated that despite this slight decrease in ecoterrorist activity domestically, it has been suggested that acts are becoming increasingly more lethal (Hoffman 1999). A number of reasons were presented that may account for terrorisms increasing lethality. First, actions committed today must be much more attention grabbing than they were in the past, thus terrorists are required to work that much harder to gain the wow factor. Second, weapons are becoming much more sophisticated than they were in the past, and are easier to obtain. Lastly, larger numbers of individuals perpetrating acts today are amateurs, who are more willing to engage in terrorist behavior than they were decades ago. The majority of these individuals act on their own, without a central command or base (leaderless resistance) which in turn places fewer restrictions on targets and how actions are carried out. This is reflected in the current picture of ecoterrorism in the United States. One last point that should be emphasized is related to what Horgan (2005) calls decision and search activity, the first of four stages of a terrorist event. Horgan (2005, 110) argues that terrorist targets are never selected at random and are always intentional:

157

This can be more obvious when a significant political figure is attacked (e.g. the Sri Lanka Tamil Tigers movement have assassinated two heads of state, or when members or property of a symbolic institution is attacked (i.e. soldiers, police officers, or say, an embassy or foreign bank). It may be less obvious when the incidental individual attacked has no special meaning, except that they happen to be where a bomb explodes. Further, he argues that opportunities for terrorist behavior do not occur unintentionally, but must be shaped. The process of target selection is a long and

committed one, designed to identify vulnerabilities and in turn, exploit them. 6.5 Concluding thoughts This analysis examined the changing geographies of ecoterrorism in the United States from 1977 to 2008 using a combination of spatial and temporal techniques, and although the methods used are not without their limitations, the results provide a complex picture of ecoterrorism in terms of not only where and when incidents have occurred, but also how targets, attacks, weapons, and groups have evolved. The later 1990s and 2000s suggested a pattern that is likely to persist throughout the next decade, with researchers and professors at various colleges and universities being targeted at their homes and personal properties despite the attempt made by their institutions (e.g. University of California) to increase their protection from animal rights extremists and other affiliated groups. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) does not show any indication of slowing down their campaign of harassment, threats, and fire bombings in places like the Pacific Northwest, especially because their tactics are becoming more successful. More and more researchers are choosing to step down from their posts in order to put a stop to the actions taken by these groups against their families and friends. At this rate, it does not seem long until an action is carried out by groups, likely animal rights groups like the ALF, like the one that occurred in the United Kingdom in 158

2001.

Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), was

targeted outside his home in February 2001 by three animal rights extremists where he was brutally beaten with pickaxe handles. While Cass required treatment for the injuries to his head, back, and arms, unlike other individuals targeted by ecoterrorist organizations, he did not succumb to the intimidation and the fear like so many others. Instead, Cass went on to fight for individuals like himself who find themselves in the cross hairs of battles over animal testing and experimentation. He also firmly believes that HLS is working towards providing valuable consumer products that would otherwise not be possible without animal experimentation prior to human use. This dissertation provided an overview of ecoterrorism geographies in the United States in both time and space. This information is vital for law enforcement officers and agencies and has a number of implications. First, while it is difficult for law enforcement officers to infiltrate these groups because of their leaderless resistance structure, this analysis showed a strong tendency for some businesses and individuals to be targeted up to three times in the same place and within a relatively short time frame (e.g. Utah Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative and UCLA Professor Arthur Rosenbaum). This

indicated that some targets are more pursued than others and interventions can be taken to ensure their protection (e.g. allotting more security personnel to protect a certain individual to minimize the risk of being the target of an ecoterrorist action). Secondly, generally speaking, this analysis identified pockets of ecoterrorist activity that provide a glimpse of what kinds of targets, attack types, and weapons are preferred among radical environmental and animal rights groups. Although ecoterrorism is going to be a concern among law enforcement officers and private individuals alike and like global terrorism, it

159

is certain to be an issue for a long time, measures can be taken to reduce the risk of successful actions being carried out, and in conjunction, vulnerability reduction measures can assist in minimizing the death or physical injury as a result. Future work on ecoterrorism geographies can focus on more comparative analyses of activity in other areas, like Canada and the United Kingdom to determine if similar patterns exist with regards to things like group dynamics and persistence, attack type, weapon type, and target type. It may serve to be advantageous to build on this kind of work with a combination of criminal justice and geographic approaches, where the strengths of spatial analysis can be reunited with advanced models evaluating crime and the underlying motivations of ecoterrorist actions. An application like the Crimestat, crime mapping program may provide a useful extension of this research that does just that. The newer version, which has built in GIS capabilities, allows for a combination of spatial modeling techniques that could provide meaningful information regarding ecoterrorist activity in the United States. More specifically, the journey-to-crime analysis tool within Crimestat allows for geographic profiling of incidents. Though this is more of a method used by criminal justice scholars and law enforcement divisions, it provides a measure for estimating the location of an ecoterrorists home residence, based on both the distribution of incidents and a travel distance model. This is reserved for what Levine (2006) refers to as serial offenders, or individuals who commit multiple actions in a certain underlying order. Other techniques within this program involve hot spot, space-time analyses, and crime travel demand. In fact, a newer version is being developed which will allow for clusters obtained in SaTScan results to be integrated.

160

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, G. 2003. Beyon arson? A threat assessment of the Earth Liberation Front. Terrorism and political violence 15 (4): 143-170. Adams, P. C. 2004. The September 11 attacks as viewed from Quebec: the small-nation code in geopolitical discourse. Political Geography 23 (6):765-795. Adelman, J., Q. Al-Huda, V. Asal, J.D. Ballard, M. Beasley, L. Bokhari, C. Boucek, K. Christensen, C. Dauber, A. Dolnik, B. Duval, S.T. Flanigan, I. Gous, R. Gunaratna, D. Gupta, F. Hairgrove, W. Harlow, B. Hoffman, R.L. Honore, A. Jongman, S. Kornguth, R. Lambert, T. Lawson, R. Legault, A. Lemieux, F. Lemieux, B. Lia, J. Lutz, D.R. Mandel, D. Matsumoto, C. McCauley, D. McLeod, J. Mort, S. Moskalenko, S. Mullins, T. O'Connor, R. Paz, A. Pedahzur, A. Perliger, W. Porter, T. Rieger, J. Robison, M. Sageman, A. Sandstrom, Y. Schweitzer, S. Seitz, S. Shellman, A. Speckhard, R.A. Thomas, U.K. Imams, J. Victoroff, and S. Zuhur. 2010. Protecting the homeland from international and domestic terrorism threats: Current multi-disciplinary perspectives on root causes, the role of ideology, and programs for counter-radicalization and disengagement. Topical Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment (SMA) Multi-Agency and Air Force Research Laboratory Multi-Disciplinary White Papers in Support of CounterTerrorism and Counter-WMD. Available at: http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publications/U_Counter_Terrorism_White_Paper_ Final_January_2010.pdf Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992. Public Law 102-346. U.S. Statutes at Large 106 (1992): 928. Codified at U.S. Code 43. Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006. Public Law 109-374. U.S. Statutes at Large 120 (2006): 2652. Codified at U.S. Code 43. Arnold, R. 1997. Ecoterror: The violent agenda to save nature:the world of the unabomber. Bellevue, WA: Free Enterprise Press. Badolato, E. V. 1991. Environmental terrorism: A case study. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 14 (4): 237-239.

161

Baird-Windle, P. and E.J. Bader. 2001. Targets of hatred: Anti-abortion terrorism. New York, NY: Palgrave. Baker, R.D. 1996. Testing for space-time clusters of unknown size. Journal of Applied Statistics 23 (5): 543-554. Barcott, B. 2002. From tree-hugger to terrorist. The New York Times, 56-59. Barry, J. 2007. Environment and social theory. Ney York, NY: Routledge. Bartlett, M.S. 1963. The spectral analysis of point processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 25 (2): 264-296. Bartlett, M.S. 1964. The spectral analysis of two-dimensional point paint processes. Biometrika 51 (3-4): 299-311. Beck, C. J. 2007. On the radical cusp: Ecoterrorism in the United States, 1998-2005. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 12 (2): 161-176. Besag, J. and J. Newell. 1991. The detection of clusters in rare diseases. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 154 (1): 143-155. Best, S. and A.J. Nocella. 2004. Behind the mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front. In Terrorists or freedom fighters?: Reflections on the liberation of animals, eds. S. Best and A.J. Nocella, 9-63. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Best. S. and A.J. Nocella. 2006. Introduction: A fire in the belly of the beast: The emergence of revolutionary environmentalism. In Igniting a revolution: Voices in defense of the Earth, eds. S. Best and A.J. Nocella, 8-29. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Blomberg, S. B., and S. Shepphard. 2007. The impacts of terrorism on urban form. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs: 257-295. Borden, K. A., M. C. Schmidtlein, C. T. Emrich, W. W. Piegorsch, and S. L. Cutter. 2007. Vulnerability of U.S. cities to environmental hazards. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 4 (2):Article5 Available at http://www.bepress.com/jhsem/vol4/issz/5/. Burton, I., R. W. Kates, and G. F. White. 1993. The environment as hazard. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press. Carpenter, T.E. 2001. Methods to investigate spatial and temporal clustering in veterinary epidemiology. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 48 (4): 303-320.

162

Carrel, M., M. Emch, P.K. Streatfield, and M.Yunus. 2009. Spatio-temporal clustering of cholera: The impact of flood control in Matlab, Bangladesh, 1983-2003. Health & Place 15 (3): 771-782. Chalecki, E. L. 2002. A new vigilance: Identifying and reducing the risks of environmental terrorism. Global Environmental Politics 2 (1): 46-64. Chen, J., R.E. Roth, A.T. Naito, E.L. Lengerich, and A.M.MacEachren. 2008. Geovisual analytics to enhance spatial scan statistic interpretation: An analysis of U.S. cervical cancer mortality. International journal of health geographics 7 (57): 118. Conn, P.M. and J.V Parker. 2008. The animal research war. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Cook-Mozaffari, P.J., S.C. Darby, R. Doll, D. Forman, C. Hermon, M.C. Pike, and T. Vincent. 1989. Geographical variation in mortality from leukaemia and other cancers in England and Wales in relation to proximity to nuclear installations, 1969-78. British Journal of Cancer 59 (3): 476-485. Coulston, J.W. and K.H. Riitters. 2003. Geographic analysis of forest health indicators using spatial scan statistics. Environmental Management 31 (6): 764-773. Crenshaw, M. 1981. The Causes of Terrorism. Comparative Politics 13 (4): 379-399. . 1990. The logic of terrorism: Terrorist behavior as a product of rational strategic choice. In Origins of terrorism: psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind, ed. W. Reich, 7-24. Washington, D.C. Cambridge England ; New York: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ;Cambridge University Press. . 1995. Terrorism in context. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Cutter, S.L. 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards, Progress in Human Geography 20 (4): 529539. Cutter, S.L., J.T. Mitchell, and M.S. Scott. 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90 (4): 713737. Cutter, S.L., B.J. Boruff, and W.L. Shirley. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84 (1): 242261. Cutter, S. L., D. B. Richardson, and T. J. Wilbanks. 2003. The geographical dimensions of terrorism. New York: Routledge.

163

Cutter, S.L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change 18 (4): 598-606. Diamond, I. and G.F. Orenstein. 1990. Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Diggle, P.J. 1983. Statistical analysis of spatial point patterns. London, England: Academic Press. Diggle, P.J. 1990. A point process modelling approach to raised incidence of a rare phenomenon in the vicinity of a prespecified point. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 153 (3): 349-362. Diggle, P.J. and B.S. Rowlingson. 1994. A conditional approach to point process modelling of elevated risk. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 157 (3): 433-440. Diggle, P.J., A.G. Chetwynd, R. Haggkvist, and S.E. Morris. 1995. Second-order analysis of space-time clustering. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 4 (2): 124-136. Eagan, S. P. 1996. From spikes to bombs: The rise of Eco-terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 19 (1): 1-18. Enders, W., and T. Sandler. 2006a. Distribution of transnational terrorism among countries by income class and geography after 9/11. International Studies Quarterly 50 (2):367-393. . 2006b. The political economy of terrorism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Epstein, D. 2006. Throwing in the towel. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/22/animal February 2010). Inside (Last Higher Ed. accessed 4

Ettlinger, N., and F. Bosco. 2004. Thinking Through Networks and Their Spatiality: A Critique of the US (Public) War on Terrorism and its Geographic Discourse Antipode 36 (2):249-271. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counterterrorism Threat Assessment and Warning Unit Counterterrorism Division. 1999. Terrorism in the United States: 1999. Flint, C. 2003a. Political geography II: terrorism, modernity, governance and governmentality. Progress in Human Geography 27 (1): 97-106.

164

. 2003b. Terrorism and counterterrorism: Geographic research questions and agendas. Professional Geographer 55 (2): 161-169. . 2005. The geography of war and peace : from death camps to diplomats. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Flukiger, J-M. 2008. An appraisal of the radical animal liberation movement in Switzerland: 2003 to March 2007. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 31 (2): 145157. Fox, W. 1993. The deep ecology-ecofeminism debate and it's parallels. In Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology, ed. M.E. Zimmerman, 213-232. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Frieden, T. 2008. FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism. CNN 2005 [cited September 25 2008]. Available from http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html. Gatrell, A.C., T.C Bailey, P.J. Diggle, and B.S. Rowlingson. 1996. Spatial point pattern analysis and its application in geographical epidemiology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 21: 256-274. Getis, A. 1983. Second-order analysis of point patterns: The case of Chicago as a multicenter urban region. Professional Geographer 35 (1): 73-80. Getis A. and B. Boots. 1978. Models of Spatial Processes: An Approach to the Study of Point, Line and Area Patterns. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Getis A. and J. Franklin. 1987. Second-order neighborhood analysis of mapped point patterns. Ecology 68 (3): 473-477. Glick, D. 2001. Powder burn: Arson, money, and mystery on Vail mountain. New York, NY: PublicAffairs. Graham, S. 2006. Cities and the 'War on terror'. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (2): 255-276. Greenpeace. 2008. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about (Last accessed 25 September 2008). Guo, D., K. Liao, and M. Morgan. 2007. Visualizing patterns in a global terrorism incident database. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34:767784. Hadley, J. 2009. Animal rights extremism and the terrorism question. Journal of social philosophy 40 (3): 363-378. 165

Haggett, P., A.D. Cliff, and A.E. Frey. 1977. Locational methods in human geography. London, England: Edward Arnold. Handler, J.S. 1990. Socioeconomic profile of an American terrorist: 1960s and 1970s. Terrorism 13: 195-213. Hannah, M. 2006. Torture and the Ticking Bomb: The War on Terrorism as a Geographical Imagination of Power/Knowledge. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (3):622-640. Henshaw, D. 1984. Animal welfare. London: Fontana Publishers. Hewitt, C. 2000. Patterns of American terrorism, 1955-1998: An historical perspective on terrorism-related fatalities. Terrorism and political violence 12 (1):1-14. . 2003. Understanding terrorism in America : from the Klan to al Qaeda, Routledge studies in extremism and democracy. London; New York: Routledge. Hewitt, K. and I. Burton. 1971. The Hazardousness of place: A regional ecology of damaging events. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Geography, Research Publication #6. Hobbs, J. J. 2005. The geographical dimensions of Al-Qa'ida rhetoric. The Geographical Review 95 (3):301-327. Hoffman, B. 1988. Recent trends and future prospects of terrorism in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Hoffman, B. 1999. Terrorism trends and prospects. In Countering the New Terrorism, by I.O. Lesser, B.Hoffman, J. Arquilla, D.Ronfeldt, M. Zanini, and B.M. Jenkins, 7-38. Santa Monica, C: RAND Corporation. Hoffman, B. 2006. Inside terrorism. Rev. and expanded ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Horgan, J. 2005. The psychology of terrorism. London, England: Routledge. Jacquez, G.M. 1996. A k nearest neighbor test for space-time interaction. Statistics in Medicine 15 (18): 1935-1949. Jaschik, S. 2006. Fighting back against extremists. Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/28/ucla (Last accessed 4 February 2010).

166

Jarboe, J. F. 2008. The threat of eco-terrorism. Federal Bureau of Investigation 2002. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm (Last accessed 15 September 2008). Johnson, D. E. 2007. Cages, clinics, and consequences: The chilling problems of controlling special-interest extremism. Oregon Law Review 86 (1):249-293. Jonas, K. 2004. Bricks and bullhorns. In Terrorists or freedom fighters?: Reflections on the liberation of animals, eds. S. Best and A.J. Nocella, 263-271. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Jones, R.C., M. Liberatore, J.R. Fernandez, and S.I. Gerber. 2006. Use of a prospective space-time scan statistic to prioritize shigellosis case investigations in an urban jurisdiction. Public Health Reports 121 (2): 133-139. Joosse, P. 2007. Leaderless resistance and ideological inclusion: The case of the Earth Liberation Front. Terrorism and political violence 19 (3): 351-368. Juergensmeyer, M. 2000. Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kasperson, R.E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H.S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J.X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8 (2): 177-187. Kates, R.W. 1971. Natural hazards in human ecological perspective: Hypotheses and models. Economic Geography 47 (3): 438-451. Kates, R. W., and I. Burton. 1986. Geography, resources, and environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Keiss, H.O. 1996. Statistical concepts for the behavioral sciences, second edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kent, R. B. 1993. Geographical Dimensions of the Shining Path Insurgency in Peru. The Geographical Review 83 (4): 441-454. Kleinman, K. P., A. Abrams, K. Mandl, and R. Platt. 2005. Simulation for assessing statistical methods of biologic terrorism surveillance. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 54: 101-108. Kleinman, K. P., A. M. Abrams, M. Kulldorff, and R. Platt. 2005. A model-adjusted space-time scan statistic with an application to syndromic surveillance. Epidemiol. Infect 133: 409-419.

167

Kleinman, K. P., R. Lazarus, and R. Platt. 2004. A generalized linear mixed-models approach for detecting incident clusters of disease in small areas, with an application ot biological terrorism. American Journal of Epidemiology 159 (3): 217-224. Kliot, N., and I. Charney. 2006. The geography of suicide terrorism in Israel. GeoJournal 66 (4): 353-373. Knox, G. 1963. Detection of low density epidemicity. British Journal of Preventative and Social Medicine 17 (3): 121-127. Knox, G. 1964. The detection of space-time interactions. Applied Statistics 13: 25-29. Knox, G. Epidemiology of childhood leukaemia in Northumberland and Durham. British Journal of Preventative and Social Medicine 18 (1): 17-24. Knuesel R., H. Segner, and T. Wahli. 2003. A survey of viral diseases in farmed and feral salmonids in Switzerland. Journal of Fish Diseases 26 (3): 167-182. Kolata,G. 1998. Tough tactics in one battle over animals in the lab. New York Times. March 24. Kulldorff, M. 1997. A spatial scan statistic. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 26: 1481-1496. Kulldorff M. 1999. Spatial scan statistics: Models, calculations and applications. In Recent Advances on Scan Statistics and Applications, eds. J. Glaz and N. Balakrishnan, 303-322. Boston, MA: Birkhuser. . 2009. SaTScan User Guide for version 8.0. Kulldorff, M., W. F. Athas, E. J. Feuer, B. A. Miller, and C. R. Key. 1998. Evaluating cluster alarms: A space-time scan statistic and brain cancer in Los Alamos, New Mexico. American Journal of Public Health 88 (9): 1377-1380. Kulldorff, M. and U. Hjalmars. 1999. The Knox method and other tests for space time interaction. Biometrics 55 (2): 544-552. Kulldorff, M., R. Heffernan, J. Hartman, R. Assuncao, and F. Mostashari. 2005. A spacetime permutation scan statistic for disease outbreak detection. PLOS Medicine 2: 216-223. Kulldorff M. and Information Management Services, Inc. 2009. SaTScan v8.0: Software for the spatial and space-time scan statistics. http://www.satscan.org.

168

Kurtz, N.R. 1999. Statistical analysis for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kushner, H.W. 2003. Encyclopedia of terrorism. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Kwan, M.-P., and J. Lee. 2005. Emergency response after 9/11: the potential of real-time 3D GIS for quick emergency response in micro-spatial environments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (2): 93-113. LaFree, G., and L. Dugan. 2007. Introducing the global terrorism database. Terrorism and political violence 19 (2): 181-204. LaFree, G., L. Dugan, H. V. Fogg, and J. Scott. 2006. Building a global terrorism database. Rockville, Maryland: Report #NCJ 214260, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice/NCJRS. Laqueur, W. 1987. The age of terrorism. 1st American ed. Boston: Little, Brown. Lawson, A.B. 2001. Statistical methods in spatial epidemiology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Leader, S. H., and P. Probst. 2003. The Earth Liberation Front and environmental terrorism. Terrorism and political violence 15 (4): 37-58. Lee, M.F. 1995a. Earth First!: Environmental apocalypse. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Lee, M. F. 1995b. Violence and the environment: The case of 'Earth First!' Terrorism and political violence 7 (3): 109-127. Levine, N. 2006. Crime mapping and the Crimestat program. Geographical Analysis 38: 41-56. Lian, M., R.D. Warner, J.L. Alexander, and K.R. Dixon. 2007. Using geographic information systems and spatial and space-time scan statistics for a populationbased risk analysis of the 2002 equine West Nile epidemic in six contiguous regions of Texas. International Journal of Health Geographics 6 (42): 1-10. Liddick, D. 2006. Eco-terrorism : radical environmental and animal liberation movements. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. List, P. C. 1993. Radical environmentalism : philosophy and tactics. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.

169

Manes, C. 1990. Green rage: Radical environmentalism and the unmaking of civilization. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Mantel, N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27 (1): 209-220. Martin, D. 2001. James Phillips, 70, environmentalist who was called the fox. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/us/james-phillips-70environmentalist-who-was-called-the-fox.html?pagewanted=1 (Last accessed 4 February 2010). Mason, C. 2002. Killing for Life: The Apocalyptic narrative of pro-life politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. McConkie, R. 2008. Bill would conceal names of animal researchers. The Daily Utah Chronicle. http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/news/bill-would-conceal-namesof-animal-researchers-1.343345 (Last accessed 4 February 2010). McKinley, J. 2008. Firebombings at homes of 2 California researchers. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/us/04firebombs.html (Last accessed 4 February 2010). Merchant, C. 1996. Routledge. Earthcare: Women and the environment. New York, NY:

Miller, D.S. J.D. Rivera, and J.C. Yelin. 2008. Civil liberties: The line dividing environmental protest and ecoterrorists. Journal for the study of radicalism 2 (1): 109-123. Miller, G. 2007. Animal extremists get personal. Science 312: 1856-1858. Mitchell, J. K. 2003. Urban vulnerability to terrorism as hazard. In The geographical dimensions of terrorism., eds. S. L. Cutter, D. B. Richardson and T. J. Wilbanks. New York: Routledge. Mobley, M. 2002. New wave of radical environmentalism: America's inaction and reaction to domestic ecoterrorism. The Appalachian Journal of Law 1 (19): 19-32. Molland, N. 2004. Thirty years of direct action. In Terrorists or freedom fighters?: Reflections on the liberation of animals, eds. S. Best and A.J. Nocella, 67-74. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Molland, N. 2006. A spark that ignited a flame: The evolution of the Earth Liberation Front. In Igniting a revolution : voices in defense of the earth, eds. S. Best and A. J. Nocella, 47-58. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

170

Monaghan, R. 1997. Animal rights and violent protest. Terrorism and political violence 9 (4): 106-116. . 1999. Terrorism in the name of animal rights. Terrorism and political violence 11 (4): 159-169. . 2000. Single-issue terrorism: A neglected phenomenon? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 23 (4): 255-265. Monastersky, R. 2008. UCLA Professor's house is firebombed. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/UCLA-Professor-s-House-Is/40396 (Last accessed 4 February 2010). Monroe, C. P. 1982. Addressing terrorism in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 463 (1): 141-148. Mustafa, D. 2005. The terrible geographicalness of terrorism: Reflections of a hazards geographer. Antipode 37 (1): 72-92. NAIA. Animal rights and environmental extremists use intimidation and violence to achieve their ends. 2008. http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm (Last accessed 3 October 2008). Neill, D.B. and A.W. Moore. 2006. Methods for detecting spatial and spatio-temporal clusters. In Handbook of Biosurveillance, eds. M.M. Wagner, A.W. Moore, and R.M. Aryel, 243-254. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Nkhoma, E.T., C.E. Hsu, V.I. Hunt, and A.M. Harris. 2004. Detecting spatiotemporal clusters of accidental poisoning mortality among Texas counties, U.S., 19802001. International Journal of Health Geographics 3 (25): 1-13. Norstrom, M., D.U. Pfeiffer, and J. Jarp. 2000. A spacetime cluster investigation of an outbreak of acute respiratory disease in Norwegian cattle herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 47 (1-2): 107-119. North American Earth Liberation Press Office. 2010. Frequently asked questions about the Earth Liberation Front. http://www.elfpressoffice.org/elffaqs.html. (Last accessed 24 May 2010). North American Animal Liberation Press Office. 2010. ALF Primer. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ALFPrime.htm#Who%20Are%2 0the%20ALF?. (Last accessed 24 May 2010).

Nunn, S. 2007. Incidents of terrorism in the United States, 1997-2005. The Geographical Review 97 (1): 89-111. 171

O'Keefe, P., K. Westgate, and B. Wisner. 1976. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature 260: 566-567. O'Lear, S. 2003. Environmental terrorism: A critique. Geopolitics 8 (3):127-150. Openshaw, S., M. Charlton, C. Wymer, and A. Craft. 1987. A mark 1 geographical analysis machine for the automated analysis of point data sets. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 1 (4): 335-358. Oslender, U. 2007. Spaces of terror and fear on Colombia's pacific coast. In Violent geographies : fear, terror, and political violence, eds. D. Gregory and A. R. Pred, 111-132. New York: Routledge. Oza, R. 2007. The geography of Hindu right-wing violence in India. In Violent geographies : fear, terror, and political violence, eds. D. Gregory and A. R. Pred, 153-174. New York: Routledge. PETA. PETA's Mission Statement accessed 3 October 2008). 2008. http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp (Last

Pfeiffer, D., T. Robinson, M. Stevenson, K. Stevens, D. Rogers, and A. Clements. 2008. Spatial analysis in epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pickering, L. 2007. The Earth Liberation Front: 1997-2002. Portland, OR: Arissa Media Group. Piegorsch, W. W., S. L. Cutter, and F. Hardisty. 2007. Benchmark analysis for quantifying urban vulnerability to terrorist incidents. Risk Analysis 27 (6): 14111425. Post, J. 1990. Terrorist psycho-logic: Terrorist behavior as a product of psychological forces. In Origins of terrorism : psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind, ed. W. Reich, 25-40. Washington, D.C. Cambridge England ; New York: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ; Cambridge University Press. Rapoport, D. C. 1984. Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions American Political Science Review 78 (3): 658-677. Recuenco, S., M. Eidson, M. Kulldorff, G. Johnson, and B. Cherry. 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of enzootic raccoon rabies adjusted for multiple covariates. International Journal of Health Geographics 6 (14): 1-15. Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

172

Regan, T. 2004. How to justify violence. In Terrorists or freedom fighters?: Reflections on the liberation of animals, eds. S. Best and A.J. Nocella, 231-236. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Ripley, B.D. 1976. The second-order analysis of stationary point processes. Journal of Applied Probability 13 (2): 255-266.3

Ripley, B.D. 1977. Modelling spatial patterns (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 39 (2): 172-212. Ripley, B.D. 1979. Tests of 'randomness' for spatial point patterns. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 41 (3): 368-374. Rosebraugh, C. 2004. Burning rage of a dying planet: Speaking for the Earth Liberation Front. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Sauders, B.D., E.D. Fortes, D.L. Morse, N. Dumas, J.A. Kiehlbauch, Y. Schukken, J.R. Hibbs, and M. Wiedmann. 2003. Molecular subtyping to detect human listeriosis clusters. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9 (6): 672-280. Savitch, H. V. 2005. An anatomy of urban terror: Lessons from Jerusalem and elsewhere Urban Studies 42 (3): 361-395. Savitch, H. V., and G. Ardashev. 2001. Does Terror Have an Urban Future? . Urban Studies 38 (13): 2515-2533. Scarce, R. 2006. Eco-warriors : understanding the radical environmental movement. Chicago: Noble Press. Schmid, A. P., and A. J. Jongman. 1983. Political terrorism : a research guide to concepts, theories, data bases and literature. Amsterdam New Brunswick, N.J.: North-Holland ; Transaction Books. Schwartz, D. M. 1998. Environmental terrorism: Analyzing the concept. Journal of Peace Research 35 (4): 483-496. Sessions, G., and B. Duvall. 1985. Deep Ecology. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith. Sheehan, T.J., L.M. DeChello, M. Kulldorff, D.I. Gregorio, S. Gershman, and M. Mroszczyk. 2004. The geographic distribution of breast cancer incidence in Massachusetts 1988 to 1997, adjusted for covariates. International Journal of Health Geographics 3 (17): 1-12.

173

Sheehan, T.J. and L.M. DeChello. 2005. A space-time analysis of the proportion of late stage breast cancer in Massachusetts, 1988 to 1997. International Journal of Health Geographics 4 (15): 1-9. Sheridan, H.A., G. McGrath, P. White, R. Fallon, M.M. Shoukri, and S.W. Martin. 2005. A temporal-spatial analysis of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Irish cattle herds, from 1996 to 2000. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 69 (1): 1925. Sidaway, J. D. 1994. Geopolitics, geography, and 'terrorism' in the Middle East. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12 (3):357-372. Siebeneck, L. K., R.M. Medina, I.Yamada, and G.F. Hepner. Spatial and Temporal Analyses of Terrorist Incidents in Iraq, 2004-2006. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 35: 591-610. Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: Avon Books. Singer, P. 1990. Animal Liberation (2nd ed) New York, NY: New York Review of Books. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280-285. Smith, R. K. 2008. "Ecoterrorism"?: A critical analysis of the vilification of radical environmental activists as terrorists Environmental Law (Portland) 38 (2):537576. Smith, K.L., V. DeVos, H. Bryden, L.B. Price, M.E. Hugh-Jones, and P. Keim. 2000. Bacillus anthracis diversity in Kruger national park. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 38 (10): 3780-3784. Sorenson, J. 2009. Constructing terrorists: Propaganda about animal rights. Critical studies in terrorism 2 (2): 237-256. Southern Poverty Law Center 2002. From Push to Shove. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=42 (Last accessed 25 September 2008). Stallwood, K. 2004. A personal overview of direct action in the United Kingdom and the United States. In Terrorists or freedom fighters?: Reflections on the liberation of animals, eds. S. Best and A.J. Nocella, 81-90. New York, NY: Lantern Books. Steinberg, M., and K. Mathewson. 2005. Landscapes of drugs and war: Intersections of political ecology and global conflict. In The geography of war and peace : from death camps to diplomats, ed. C. Flint, 242-258. Oxford: New York: Oxford University Press. 174

Stevenson, J.R., C.T. Emrich, J.T. Mitchell, and S.L. Cutter. 2010. Using building permits to monitor disaster recovery: A spatio-temporal case study of coastal Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 37 (1): 57-68. Strentz, T. 1987. A terrorist psychosocial profile: Past and present. Enforcement Bulletin April: 13-19. FBI Law

Sudakin, D., Z. Horowitz, and S. Giffin. 2002. Regional variation in the incidence of symptomatic pecticide exposures: Applications of geographic information systems. Journal of Toxicology - Clinical Toxicology 40 (6): 767-773. Sugumaran, R., S.R. Larson, and J.P. DeGroote. 2009. Spatio-temporal cluster analysis of county-based human West Nile virus incidence in the continental United States. International Journal of Health Geographics 8 (43): 1-19. Switzer, J.V. 2003. Environmental Activism: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, Inc. Taylor, B. 1991. The religion and politics of Earth First! The Ecologist 21 (2): 258-266. . 1998. Religion, violence and radical environmentalism: From Earth First! to the Unabomber to the Earth Liberation Front. Terrorism and political violence 10 (4): 1-42. . 2010. Dark green religion: Nature spirituality and the planetary future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Taylor, M, and J., Horgan. 2006. A conceptual framework for addressing psychological process in the development of the terrorist. Terrorism and Political Violence 18 (4): 585-601. Turner II., B.L., R.E. Kasperson, P. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller. 2003. Framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (14): 80748079. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001. Public Law 107-56. U.S. Statutes at Large 272 (2001). Codified at U.S. Code 42 5196c. University of California: Office of the President. 2008. Assembly Bill 2296 - Researcher Protection Legislation.

175

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/animalresearch/ (Last accessed 4 February 2010). U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime. 1998. Acts of Ecoterrorism by Radical Environmental Organizations: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. 105th Cong., 2nd sess., June 9. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. 2005. Ecoterrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front: Hearing before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. 2004. Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality Hearing before the Senate Committee of the Judiciary. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 18. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2009. Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. Unclassified//For Official Use Only Assessment. Vanderheiden, S. 2005. Eco-terrorism or justified resistance? Radical environmentalism and the "War on Terror". Politics and Society 33 (3): 425-447. . 2008. Radical environmentalism in an age of antiterrorism. Environmental politics 17 (2): 299-318. Viel, J.F., P. Arveux, J.Baverel, and J.Y. Cahn. 2000. Soft-tissue sarcoma and nonHodgkin's lymphoma clusters around a municipal solid waste incinerator with high dioxin emission levels. American Journal of Epidemiology 152 (1): 13-19. Walton M. and J. Widday. 2006. Shades of Green: Examining cooperation between radical and mainstream environmentalists. In Igniting a revolution: Voices in defense of the Earth, eds. S. Best and A.J. Nocella, 92-102. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Ward, M.P. 2002. Clustering of reported cases of leptospirosis among dogs in the United States and Canada. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 56 (3): 215-226. Ward, M.P. 2001. Blowfly strike in sheep flocks as an example of the use of a time space scan statistic to control confounding. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 49 (12): 61-69.

176

Webb, J. J., and S. L. Cutter. 2009. The Geography of U.S. Terrorist Incidents, 19702004. Terrorism and Political Violence 21 (3): 428-449. Williams, D.O. 1998. Colorado conservationists still feeling heat from Vail arson fires: 10 years later Earth Liberation Front controversy rages on. The Colorado Independent. http://coloradoindependent.com/11824/10-years-later-coloradoconservationists-still-feeling-heat-from-vail-arson-fires (Last accessed 4 February 2010). Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Wu, W., J.-Q. Guo, Z.-H. Yin, P. Wang, B.-S. Zhou. 2009. GIS-based spatial, temporal, and space-time analysis of haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome. Epidemiology and Infection 137: 1766-1775. Young, R. L. 2004. A time series analysis of eco-terrorist violence in the United States: 1993-2003. Ph.D. Dissertation, Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX

177

APPENDIX
This appendix contains the variable maps that were not included in the results section. For visualization purposes, only the top six categories (e.g. target, attack, weapon, group) in each were mapped.

178

179 Map 1.1: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Private Individuals and Property, 1977 - 2008

180 Map 1.2: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Education and Research, 1977-2008

181 Map 1.3: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Farms, 1977-2008

182 Map 1.4: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Fur and Leather Industries, 1977-2008

183

Map 1.5: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Meat Industries, 1977-2008

184

Map 1.6: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Targeting Restaurant and Food Industries, 1977-2008

185

Map 1.7: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Vandalism, 1977-2008

186

Map 1.8: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Arson, 1977-2008

187

Map 1.9: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Animal Liberations, 1977-2008

188

Map 1.10: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Threats, 1977-2008

189

Map 1.11: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Bombings, 1977-2008

190

Map 1.12: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Sabotage, 1977-2008

191

Map 1.13: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Paint, 1977-2008

192

Map 1.14: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Unknown Weapons, 1977-2008

193

Map 1.15: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Fire or Firebombs, 1977-2008

194

Map 1.16: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Other Weapons, 1977-2008

195

Map 1.17: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Knives and Sharp Objects, 1977-2008

196

Map 1.18: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Perpetrated by Animal Rights Groups, 1977-2008

197

Map 1.19: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Perpetrated by Unknown Groups, 1977-2008

198

Map 1.20: Geographic Distribution of Ecoterrorist Incidents in the United States Using Perpetrated by Radical Environmental Groups, 1977-2008