Profile of an Ecoteur

June, 1999 [INTRODUCTION] [The Nature of Ecotage] [Explaining the Ideology] [The Profile of an Ecoteur] [Lessons from an Activist Career] [Conclusions] [TOP of PAGE]

Introduction

Today, you are going to hear about a rather strange person. You may find his beliefs and attitudes to be incomprehensible, and so not worth taking seriously. This is a mistake. He has terrorized dozens of people. He has committed hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct damage to several industries. He may have caused millions of dollars in damage. Indirectly, he has had a much greater effect.

I am talking about a real individual... but will not name him here. He is facing a trial (along with a colleague), but many other actions have never resulted in criminal charges. He is a real person, and some of my presentation concerns his history. However, I am not talking about the man one American journalist has styled "the Koresh of the Klondike". Whatever else Wiebo Ludwig has been, I doubt that he could really be called an environmental terrorist, the motives for his actions probably come from another direction.

The individual I am discussing is an Ecoteur. Largely directed by an unusual ideology, he has spent some 10 years in acts of vandalism, sabotage, arson and even attempted murder. He has trained and inspired others. On the few occasions that the police have caught up to him, the justice system has treated him lightly indeed. In many ways, his record of ecoterrorism has been an illustration of the entire phenomenon.

The Nature of Ecotage

Ecotage is not yet precisely defined. I use it to describe acts of terrorism, most of which are attacks on property undertaken to advance an animal rights or radical environmental agenda.

Every year there are hundreds of separate acts of ecotage in Europe, North America and some other Western nations. Most are minor acts of vandalism -- such as injecting glue in the locks of a fur shop or using an awl to puncture a butcher shop window. This is minor stuff, but it soon adds up. Getting locks or front window replaced once or twice a year can represent several hundred dollars worth of vandalism to a small business. It also represents substantial indirect losses in missing business, higher insurance premiums and expensive security equipment.

Many other acts are unreported. For example, surveyors often find their stakes pulled up, or timber-cruisers discover that the tires of their vehicles have been slashed, or a construction crew notices that the wheel-lugs have been removed from a piece of heavy equipment. These petty acts of sabotage represent lost time and resources, but the immediate victims may not recognize what has happened to them. It may be that there are thousands of such minor incidents every year.

Dozens of acts are more substantial. In Alberta alone, in the early 1990s, associates of my subject disrupted the release of the Cold Buster Bar with a threat of product contamination. In the same two-year period, they destroyed $50,000 worth of delivery vehicles for a fish shop, killed off its inventory of live products on another occasion, and vandalized two other sites. Similar episodes of intense vandalism have been directed at many other industries in many other places.

A very few acts are spectacular. The recent torching of a ski lodge in Vale Colorado represented $10 million dollars in lost construction. Other costly actions have been directed against university or corporate medical laboratories. A new target, especially in Europe, has been genetically altered food, and several test sites have been destroyed.

The activities are not a form of protest. The animal rights and environmental movements are full of people who are good at protest, at activism and at getting their message across. Ecoteurs, however, commonly regard groups like Greenpeace or the International Fund for Animal Welfare as ineffectual headline grabbers or, at best, as transition groups where real activists can learn about the issues before they drop out to take real actions.

Ecoteurs are beyond protest. They are very deliberate in purpose. Industrial sabotage or vandalism is meant to make some activities too expensive to continue. There is an old maxim about terror: 'kill one, frighten ten thousand'. With ecotage, the aim is to vandalize one and raise expenses for ten thousand. Eventually, some products must become too expensive for the consumer to afford.

This strategy is not necessarily a calculated one. While it provides a logical end for window smashing or gasoline bombing, the main impetus behind ecotage is an emotional one. Through these acts of terrorism, the Ecoteur is doing something. No more ineffectual talk or meaningless protest, action is being taken. The "animal abusers" or "earth rapers" are being taught a lesson now, and surely they must fear the Ecoteur.

This last point is also important. At heart, all terrorism is a form of egoism. The terrorist needs to believe that he or she is a heroic figure who acts on a vision which the rest of us are too dumb or too ignorant to see. In short, they are brave, wise and special, and the rest of us are not. In many ways, any terrorist is already predisposed towards terrorism because of their own inner flaws and failings. The ideology and cause come later.

Explaining the Ideology

In the study of terrorism, a lot of ideologies and causes are easy to understand. For example, the Palestinian Marxist of the 1970s was a product of dislocation and refugee camps, his life was derailed from the beginning, and someone was going to pay for it. In the same way, a modern Islamic fundamentalist, Peruvian Maoist or Patriot Militiaman is someone whose expectations for life will obviously not be met. So a theory of blame has been embraced, the culprits are identified, and a campaign of revenge can be undertaken.

Understanding an Ecoteur or an Animal Liberation Front member is much more complex. As near as I can understand it, there are three separate factors at work: All of them are slightly interrelated. Any two of them alone (or even the three in combination with a moderate person) may merely produce an ordinary activist rather than a dedicated vandal and saboteur.

The three factors include:

1. The adoption of radical politics. Almost all ALF or EF members literally come from way out in left field. Very few have come from the structured Marxist or Trotskyite parties, as most prefer the bizarre and eclectic Anarchist movement. The Anarchists attract most of their adherents in urban settings, usually around the fringes of university life, but also among young dropouts and on the street. Anarchism is actually more of a lifestyle than a belief system, but it does tend to instill the idea:
   • That the "system" or society is corrupt and needs to be radically altered.
   • That the system is pervasive, and therefore anything that is a victim of society is a potential ally.
   • That authority of any kind need never be respected, only challenged.
   
   
   
2. The adoption of a "New Age" perspective. While the radical left has always had the notion that they could build a final society, their vision for the "New Jerusalem" can be very stodgy. The New Age movement has a strong millenarian sense and -- even more than the Anarchists -- dispenses with traditional thought and perspective. Instead, they believe that something new and wonderful is coming, but cannot really articulate what it will be.
   
   
3. The embrace of animal rights and/or the environment as a cause in itself. While an anarchist or a New Ager is prepared to support any number of causes, the passion to protect the environment or the love for animals is already strong.

These three separate traits can and do reinforce each other. For example, the animal lover believes it is bad to hurt animals in experiments. The New Ager believes that animals may be our equals, and that only traditional Judeo-Christian morality prevents us from recognizing this. The anarchist believes that only a corrupt and exploitative society could hurt animals. Someone who combines two or three of these perspectives in their thought is likely to have much stronger opinions about animal testing, and is also far more likely to do something about it. A similar triumvirate conditions thinking on environmental issues.

This package of combined ideologies may sound weird -- but stranger things have happened in history. Besides, one of the fundamental weaknesses of modern society is the all-encompassing triumph of liberal thought. We all believe that only those who share our basic values are rational, and so tend to have some serious problems trying to understand those who do not. People who adopt creeds tend to stick to them, and rarely -- if ever -- question their beliefs and actions.

The Profile of an Ecoteur

This Ecoteur was raised in Ontario, and probably came from a middle class background -- perhaps with some trouble in the family. He is in his late 30s. The exact beginning of his career as an animal rights extremist is hard to pin-point, but some of the other early leaders in the movement developed in the early 1980s as anarchists and unattached quasi-Trotskyites in Toronto. However, at the time they were barely focused on animals. Most were more involved in the militant side of the Peace Movement. One of the Ecoteur's early friends (and perhaps a mentor) was arrested at the Litton plant that manufactured cruise missile guidance systems, and again in trying to "confront" Margaret Thatcher during a visit to Canada.

In the early 1980s, the idea of the Animal Rights Militia or the Animal Rights Movement was only beginning to catch on from the UK -- which at the time was also a leading centre for urban anarchists. Greenpeace was still at the cutting edge of environmental protest, although the Sea Shepherd Society was just starting to take shape. The first incident of animal rights extremism in Canada took place in Montreal in June 1981, but the movement soon took off.

In the Toronto area, a coterie of animal rights groups appeared. Most were largely involved in legitimate protest (although even their protests occasionally got out of hand). Some of these groups still exist. However, starting in December 1983 and ending in March 1988, there were four raids on medical research laboratories in the Toronto area and 18 separate incidents of vandalism -- mostly aimed at the meat industry. Since that time, there have been hardly any reports of significant activity in the Toronto area.

A major spurt of activity involved 11 different attacks in a six week period in December 1986 and January 1987. It ended shortly after five young anarchists were caught as they spray-painted a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. Police had their suspicions about what was going on, but charges were only laid over the KFC affair. However, in their search of the subject's residence, they turned up bomb-making and sabotage guides, an assault rifle and a handgun. The police suspicion was that the spray-painting stunt was a confidence building exercise, intended by the group's leader to get the rest ready to commit more serious offences in the near future. Even so, the whole affair was treated as a trivial incident in court, and sentences were likewise trivial.

If the Animal Liberation Front had been busy, the same is true of the Animal Rights movement. In 1986, a stacked proxy fight allowed ARK II to take over the largest Animal Welfare organization on Canada. The capture of the Toronto Humane Society gave them access to millions in annual funds, and let them get their hands on a multi-million dollar endowment fund. (The Humane Society won't say what the fund had shrunk to when the organization was recaptured by moderates in 1991, but apparently the fund had shrunk to the five figure range.) During the trial of the KFC commandos, it transpired that their leader had a car rented in his name by ARK II with Humane Society funds.

The leader of the little cell hung around Toronto after serving some jail time. Then, apparently after one last incident of vandalism and another lab-raid, he headed down into the US.

During 1986-87, the ALF in the US was doing well. It had hit 26 Research laboratories, and caused as much as $700,000 in direct damages in one raid. Closely supported by the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, ALF was having a real impact. Our Ecoteur headed south and dropped out of sight.

In 1990-92, some US law enforcement officials began to talk about a "super ALF squad" that may have been involved in some spectacular attacks, especially in Oregon and Michigan. Among other people, this Canadian ALF member was badly wanted by the FBI. There was also a Canada-wide warrant for his arrest largely based on his involvement in another ALF "cell" (outbreak really) in Alberta during this time. By late 1992, authorities in both countries were closing in on him and he was arrested again. At the time of his arrest, there was a suspicion that he was going to team up with environmentalist extremists who had been busy in the protests against logging in Clayquot Sound. They were said to be considering an action against an aquarium somewhere on the Pacific coast.

However, groups like ALF or Earth First tend to be fairly guarded about their activities, careful to destroy evidence and they instruct members in procedures to follow when arrested and interrogated by police. Our individual was arrested, tried and jailed. However, police could only stick with minor "safe" charges and by the middle of 1994 he was out on parole in Canada, albeit with the stipulation that he refrain from any more Animal Rights activism. The Edmonton based colleague that had been so busy in the early 1990s likewise had been arrested, convicted and jailed. He too was free on parole in 1994.

The pair linked up in British Columbia, and for a while, did refrain from Animal Rights extremism. In concert with other parties however, they reverted to their earlier anarchist agendas and decided to go after Neo-Nazis. In early 1995, warnings (consisting of mousetraps) had been mailed to a number of prominent White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis and such-like in Canada and the US. In May and June, two Canadian members of this community received mail bombs. Both, being warned, did not open their packages. Then, in July, two more mail bombs were sent. This time, one went to a genetics company in Alberta, the other went to the Mackenzie Institute (the return address was the Fraser Institute, the prominent economic think tank in BC).

The Neo-Nazis had been warned; this new target group was not and both packages were opened. The one sent to the Genetics Company exploded, but the suspicious -- and very lucky -- recipient was opening his package with a broom handle from the far side of a stout desk. The one at the Mackenzie Institute was slightly damaged by Canada Post, and the battery had inadvertently been disconnected. When a secretary opened the package, the trigger snapped shut, but the bomb failed to go off. It did explode later as police were dismantling it with a robot.

Coupled to the bombing attempts was a rash of trapped envelopes mailed to dozens of Western Canadian hunting guides, mink ranchers and businessmen. Recipients often sliced their fingers on a concealed razor blade, then pulled out a card stating that the blade had been treated with a poison or the AIDS virus.

However, the mail bombing campaign had ignited a flurry of police interest and the razor blade campaign (in concert with the last two bomb targets) had given them some ideas of where to look. Even so, it took just over 18 months before a search warrant turned up evidence of bomb making material and another six months before arrests were made. At the time of writing, the two had just come to trial.

Lessons from an Activist Career

1. While there are thousands of people who describe themselves as environmental or animal rights activists, the number of people who are prepared to commit violence is very small. Most active cells consist of a very few people, often acting under the inspiration of one individual.
   
   
2. The concentration of activity in a given area (such as Toronto 1985-88 or Edmonton 1991-92) demonstrates the limited resources available to Ecoteurs and their frequent reliance on one or two individuals alone.
   
   
3. There is no formal movement but there is some system that allows leading activists to link up with each other.
   
   
4. Ecoteurs have a support system of sorts, in that there are legitimate (though extreme) organizations that are prepared to provide assistance. As Sinn Fein was to the Provisional IRA, for example, so is PETA to ALF.
   
   
5. Ecoteurs are flexible in their methods, but there is a pattern of escalation in their attacks, beginning with simple vandalism and moving to more destructive behaviour... to the point where murder may be attempted by a few.
   
   
6. The cause is flexible. A single animal rights activist may attack targets associated with meat, fur, or experimentation, move on to ecological targets, and even branch out to go after other subjects.
   
   
7. Ecoteurs tend to pay close attention to police techniques and methodologies, and this limits the ability of investigators to lay charges.
   
   
8. The courts do not take Ecoteurs seriously enough and tend to award light sentences.
   
   
9. An individual can have a real effect, often causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct damages by him or herself.
   
   
10. While their ideology is complex and bizarre, it is good enough to attract followers and lets Ecoteurs believe their acts are fully justified and righteous.

Conclusions

As far as terrorists go, Ecoteurs do not seem that frightening. Deliberate and direct attacks on human life are rare, but Ecoteurs can and do cause a lot of material destruction.

The strategy and ideology behind ecotage has a number of sympathizers, but only a few people are directly inspired to cause real damage. However, as they operate almost alone and with little or no material support, there is no real structure for authorities to pursue.

Ecoteurs are persistent, and a few minor acts of vandalism should not be ignored, as more destructive attacks will follow. Eventually, if allowed to continue, an Ecoteur may work himself up to the point where they will attempt to take human life.

Ecotage has become a fact of life since the early 1980s, and the problem is likely to continue. It would be a profound mistake for anyone in the resource, medical or agricultural community to assume the phenomena will not affect them. In many ways, it already has.